Guest guest Posted January 27, 2008 Report Share Posted January 27, 2008 What a great article! But I thought it was peculiar that the NY Times added " He is not a vegetarian " at the end. January 27, 2008 THE WORLD Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler By MARK BITTMAN A SEA change in the consumption of a resource that Americans take for granted may be in store — something cheap, plentiful, widely enjoyed and a part of daily life. And it isn't oil. It's meat. The two commodities share a great deal: Like oil, meat is subsidized by the federal government. Like oil, meat is subject to accelerating demand as nations become wealthier, and this, in turn, sends prices higher. Finally — like oil — meat is something people are encouraged to consume less of, as the toll exacted by industrial production increases, and becomes increasingly visible. Global demand for meat has multiplied in recent years, encouraged by growing affluence and nourished by the proliferation of huge, confined animal feeding operations. These assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever- increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world's tropical rain forests. Just this week, the president of Brazil announced emergency measures to halt the burning and cutting of the country's rain forests for crop and grazing land. In the last five months alone, the government says, 1,250 square miles were lost. The world's total meat supply was 71 million tons in 1961. In 2007, it was estimated to be 284 million tons. Per capita consumption has more than doubled over that period. (In the developing world, it rose twice as fast, doubling in the last 20 years.) World meat consumption is expected to double again by 2050, which one expert, Henning Steinfeld of the United Nations, says is resulting in a " relentless growth in livestock production. " Americans eat about the same amount of meat as we have for some time, about eight ounces a day, roughly twice the global average. At about 5 percent of the world's population, we " process " (that is, grow and kill) nearly 10 billion animals a year, more than 15 percent of the world's total. Growing meat (it's hard to use the word " raising " when applied to animals in factory farms) uses so many resources that it's a challenge to enumerate them all. But consider: an estimated 30 percent of the earth's ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world's greenhouse gases — more than transportation. To put the energy-using demand of meat production into easy-to- understand terms, Gidon Eshel, a geophysicist at the Bard Center, and Pamela A. Martin, an assistant professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago, calculated that if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan — a Camry, say — to the ultra- efficient Prius. Similarly, a study last year by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days. Grain, meat and even energy are roped together in a way that could have dire results. More meat means a corresponding increase in demand for feed, especially corn and soy, which some experts say will contribute to higher prices. This will be inconvenient for citizens of wealthier nations, but it could have tragic consequences for those of poorer ones, especially if higher prices for feed divert production away from food crops. The demand for ethanol is already pushing up prices, and explains, in part, the 40 percent rise last year in the food price index calculated by the United Nations' Food and Agricultural Organization. Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States. The environmental impact of growing so much grain for animal feed is profound. Agriculture in the United States — much of which now serves the demand for meat — contributes to nearly three-quarters of all water-quality problems in the nation's rivers and streams, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Because the stomachs of cattle are meant to digest grass, not grain, cattle raised industrially thrive only in the sense that they gain weight quickly. This diet made it possible to remove cattle from their natural environment and encourage the efficiency of mass confinement and slaughter. But it causes enough health problems that administration of antibiotics is routine, so much so that it can result in antibiotic-resistant bacteria that threaten the usefulness of medicines that treat people. Those grain-fed animals, in turn, are contributing to health problems among the world's wealthier citizens — heart disease, some types of cancer, diabetes. The argument that meat provides useful protein makes sense, if the quantities are small. But the " you gotta eat meat " claim collapses at American levels. Even if the amount of meat we eat weren't harmful, it's way more than enough. Americans are downing close to 200 pounds of meat, poultry and fish per capita per year (dairy and eggs are separate, and hardly insignificant), an increase of 50 pounds per person from 50 years ago. We each consume something like 110 grams of protein a day, about twice the federal government's recommended allowance; of that, about 75 grams come from animal protein. (The recommended level is itself considered by many dietary experts to be higher than it needs to be.) It's likely that most of us would do just fine on around 30 grams of protein a day, virtually all of it from plant sources . What can be done? There's no simple answer. Better waste management, for one. Eliminating subsidies would also help; the United Nations estimates that they account for 31 percent of global farm income. Improved farming practices would help, too. Mark W. Rosegrant, director of environment and production technology at the nonprofit International Food Policy Research Institute, says, " There should be investment in livestock breeding and management, to reduce the footprint needed to produce any given level of meat. " Then there's technology. Israel and Korea are among the countries experimenting with using animal waste to generate electricity. Some of the biggest hog operations in the United States are working, with some success, to turn manure into fuel. Longer term, it no longer seems lunacy to believe in the possibility of " meat without feet " — meat produced in vitro, by growing animal cells in a super-rich nutrient environment before being further manipulated into burgers and steaks. Another suggestion is a return to grazing beef, a very real alternative as long as you accept the psychologically difficult and politically unpopular notion of eating less of it. That's because grazing could never produce as many cattle as feedlots do. Still, said Michael Pollan, author of the recent book " In Defense of Food, " " In places where you can't grow grain, fattening cows on grass is always going to make more sense. " But pigs and chickens, which convert grain to meat far more efficiently than beef, are increasingly the meats of choice for producers, accounting for 70 percent of total meat production, with industrialized systems producing half that pork and three-quarters of the chicken. Once, these animals were raised locally (even many New Yorkers remember the pigs of Secaucus), reducing transportation costs and allowing their manure to be spread on nearby fields. Now hog production facilities that resemble prisons more than farms are hundreds of miles from major population centers, and their manure " lagoons " pollute streams and groundwater. (In Iowa alone, hog factories and farms produce more than 50 million tons of excrement annually.) These problems originated here, but are no longer limited to the United States. While the domestic demand for meat has leveled off, the industrial production of livestock is growing more than twice as fast as land-based methods, according to the United Nations. Perhaps the best hope for change lies in consumers' becoming aware of the true costs of industrial meat production. " When you look at environmental problems in the U.S., " says Professor Eshel, " nearly all of them have their source in food production and in particular meat production. And factory farming is `optimal' only as long as degrading waterways is free. If dumping this stuff becomes costly — even if it simply carries a non-zero price tag — the entire structure of food production will change dramatically. " Animal welfare may not yet be a major concern, but as the horrors of raising meat in confinement become known, more animal lovers may start to react. And would the world not be a better place were some of the grain we use to grow meat directed instead to feed our fellow human beings? Real prices of beef, pork and poultry have held steady, perhaps even decreased, for 40 years or more (in part because of grain subsidies), though we're beginning to see them increase now. But many experts, including Tyler Cowen, a professor of economics at George Mason University, say they don't believe meat prices will rise high enough to affect demand in the United States. " I just don't think we can count on market prices to reduce our meat consumption, " he said. " There may be a temporary spike in food prices, but it will almost certainly be reversed and then some. But if all the burden is put on eaters, that's not a tragic state of affairs. " If price spikes don't change eating habits, perhaps the combination of deforestation, pollution, climate change, starvation, heart disease and animal cruelty will gradually encourage the simple daily act of eating more plants and fewer animals. Mr. Rosegrant of the food policy research institute says he foresees " a stronger public relations campaign in the reduction of meat consumption — one like that around cigarettes — emphasizing personal health, compassion for animals, and doing good for the poor and the planet. " It wouldn't surprise Professor Eshel if all of this had a real impact. " The good of people's bodies and the good of the planet are more or less perfectly aligned, " he said. The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization, in its detailed 2006 study of the impact of meat consumption on the planet, " Livestock's Long Shadow, " made a similar point: " There are reasons for optimism that the conflicting demands for animal products and environmental services can be reconciled. Both demands are exerted by the same group of people ... the relatively affluent, middle- to high-income class, which is no longer confined to industrialized countries. ... This group of consumers is probably ready to use its growing voice to exert pressure for change and may be willing to absorb the inevitable price increases. " In fact, Americans are already buying more environmentally friendly products, choosing more sustainably produced meat, eggs and dairy. The number of farmers' markets has more than doubled in the last 10 years or so, and it has escaped no one's notice that the organic food market is growing fast. These all represent products that are more expensive but of higher quality. If those trends continue, meat may become a treat rather than a routine. It won't be uncommon, but just as surely as the S.U.V. will yield to the hybrid, the half-pound-a-day meat era will end. Maybe that's not such a big deal. " Who said people had to eat meat three times a day? " asked Mr. Pollan. Mark Bittman, who writes the Minimalist column in the Dining In and Dining Out sections, is the author of " How to Cook Everything Vegetarian, " which was published last year. He is not a vegetarian. Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Mark Bittman is one of my favorite speakers. Whether he is a veg*an or not. In case anyone has not seen it here is a good link to see/hear him speak. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/mark_bittman_on_what_s_wrong_with_what_we_eat\ ..html Bill-in Utah , yarrow wrote: > > I like this paragraph: > > > To eat well, says Michael Pollan, the author of > " In Defense of Food, " means avoiding " edible > food-like substances " and sticking to real > ingredients, increasingly from the plant kingdom. > (Americans each consume an average of nearly two > pounds a day of animal products.) There's plenty > of evidence that both a person's health — as well > as the environment's — will improve with a simple > shift in eating habits away from animal products > and highly processed foods to plant products and > what might be called " real food. " > > > > > March 22, 2009 > Eating Food That's Better for You, Organic or Not > By MARK BITTMAN > In the six-and-one-half years since the federal > government began certifying food as " organic, " > Americans have taken to the idea with > considerable enthusiasm. Sales have at least > doubled, and three-quarters of the nation's > grocery stores now carry at least some organic > food. A Harris poll in October 2007 found that > about 30 percent of Americans buy organic food at > least on occasion, and most think it is safer, > better for the environment and healthier. > " People believe it must be better for you if it's > organic, " says Phil Howard, an assistant > professor of community, food and agriculture at > Michigan State University. > So I discovered on a recent book tour around the United States and Canada. > No matter how carefully I avoided using the word > " organic " when I spoke to groups of food > enthusiasts about how to eat better, someone in > the audience would inevitably ask, " What if I > can't afford to buy organic food? " It seems to > have become the magic cure-all, synonymous with > eating well, healthfully, sanely, even ethically. > But eating " organic " offers no guarantee of any > of that. And the truth is that most Americans eat > so badly — we get 7 percent of our calories from > soft drinks, more than we do from vegetables; the > top food group by caloric intake is " sweets " ; and > one-third of nation's adults are now obese — that > the organic question is a secondary one. It's not > unimportant, but it's not the primary issue in > the way Americans eat. > To eat well, says Michael Pollan, the author of > " In Defense of Food, " means avoiding " edible > food-like substances " and sticking to real > ingredients, increasingly from the plant kingdom. > (Americans each consume an average of nearly two > pounds a day of animal products.) There's plenty > of evidence that both a person's health — as well > as the environment's — will improve with a simple > shift in eating habits away from animal products > and highly processed foods to plant products and > what might be called " real food. " (With all due > respect to people in the " food movement, " the > food need not be " slow, " either.) > >From these changes, Americans would reduce the > >amount of land, water and chemicals used to > >produce the food we eat, as well as the > >incidence of lifestyle diseases linked to > >unhealthy diets, and greenhouse gases from > >industrial meat production. All without > >legislation. > And the food would not necessarily have to be > organic, which, under the United States > Department of Agriculture's definition, means it > is generally free of synthetic substances; > contains no antibiotics and hormones; has not > been irradiated or fertilized with sewage sludge; > was raised without the use of most conventional > pesticides; and contains no genetically modified > ingredients. > Those requirements, which must be met in order > for food to be labeled " U.S.D.A. Organic, " are > fine, of course. But they still fall short of the > lofty dreams of early organic farmers and > consumers who gave the word " organic " its allure > — of returning natural nutrients and substance to > the soil in the same proportion used by the > growing process (there is no requirement that > this be done); of raising animals humanely in > accordance with nature (animals must be given > access to the outdoors, but for how long and > under what conditions is not spelled out); and of > producing the most nutritious food possible (the > evidence is mixed on whether organic food is more > nutritious) in the most ecologically conscious > way. > The government's organic program, says Joan > Shaffer, a spokeswoman for the Agriculture > Department, " is a marketing program that sets > standards for what can be certified as organic. > Neither the enabling legislation nor the > regulations address food safety or nutrition. " > People don't understand that, nor do they realize > " organic " doesn't mean " local. " " It doesn't > matter if it's from the farm down the road or > from Chile, " Ms. Shaffer said. " As long as it > meets the standards it's organic. " > Hence, the organic status of salmon flown in from > Chile, or of frozen vegetables grown in China and > sold in the United States — no matter the size of > the carbon footprint left behind by getting from > there to here. > Today, most farmers who practice truly > sustainable farming, or what you might call > " organic in spirit, " operate on small scale, some > so small they can't afford the requirements to be > certified organic by the government. Others say > that certification isn't meaningful enough to > bother. These farmers argue that, " When you buy > organic you don't just buy a product, you buy a > way of life that is committed to not exploiting > the planet, " says Ed Maltby, executive director > of the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance. > But the organic food business is now big > business, and getting bigger. Professor Howard > estimates that major corporations now are > responsible for at least 25 percent of all > organic manufacturing and marketing (40 percent > if you count only processed organic foods). Much > of the nation's organic food is as much a part of > industrial food production as midwinter grapes, > and becoming more so. In 2006, sales of organic > foods and beverages totaled about $16.7 billion, > according to the most recent figures from Organic > Trade Association. > Still, those sales amounted to slightly less than > 3 percent of overall food and beverage sales. For > all the hoo-ha, organic food is not making much > of an impact on the way Americans eat, though, as > Mark Kastel, co-founder of The Cornucopia > Institute, puts it: " There are generic benefits > from doing organics. It protects the land from > the ravages of conventional agriculture, " and > safeguards farm workers from being exposed to > pesticides. > But the questions remain over how we eat in > general. It may feel better to eat an organic > Oreo than a conventional Oreo, but, says Marion > Nestle, a professor at New York University's > department of nutrition, food studies and public > health, " Organic junk food is still junk food. " > Last week, Michelle Obama began digging up a > patch of the South Lawn of the White House to > plant an organic vegetable garden to provide food > for the first family and, more important, to > educate children about healthy, locally grown > fruits and vegetables at a time when obesity and > diabetes have become national concerns. > But Mrs. Obama also emphasized that there were > many changes Americans can make if they don't > have the time or space for an organic garden. > " You can begin in your own cupboard, " she said, > " by eliminating processed food, trying to cook a > meal a little more often, trying to incorporate > more fruits and vegetables. " > Popularizing such choices may not be as > marketable as creating a logo that says > " organic. " But when Americans have had their fill > of " value-added " and overprocessed food, perhaps > they can begin producing and consuming more food > that treats animals and the land as if they > mattered. Some of that food will be organic, and > hooray for that. Meanwhile, they should remember > that the word itself is not synonymous with > " safe, " " healthy, " " fair " or even necessarily > " good. " > > Mark Bittman writes the Minimalist column for the > Dining section of The Times and is the author, > most recently, of " Food Matters: A Guide to > Conscious Eating. " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Yes, I think he's written some of the most pro-veg articles I've seen in the past year. But the most pro-veg one he wrote in the NY Times had the credit line at the end " Mr. Bittman is not a vegetarian, " which made me laugh. As if that made him more believable, or more " objective. " So whenever I see one of his excellent articles, that line comes to mind. At 6:57 PM +0000 3/24/09, shinobibombay wrote: >Mark Bittman is one of my favorite speakers. >Whether he is a veg*an or not. In case anyone >has not seen it here is a good link to see/hear >him speak. > >http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/mark_bittman_on_what_s_wrong_with_what_we_ea\ t.html > >Bill-in Utah > > , yarrow wrote: >> >> I like this paragraph: >> >> >> To eat well, says Michael Pollan, the author of >> " In Defense of Food, " means avoiding " edible >> food-like substances " and sticking to real >> ingredients, increasingly from the plant kingdom. >> (Americans each consume an average of nearly two >> pounds a day of animal products.) There's plenty >> of evidence that both a person's health — as well >> as the environment's — will improve with a simple >> shift in eating habits away from animal products >> and highly processed foods to plant products and >> what might be called " real food. " >> >> >> >> >> March 22, 2009 >> Eating Food That's Better for You, Organic or Not >> By MARK BITTMAN >> In the six-and-one-half years since the federal >> government began certifying food as " organic, " >> Americans have taken to the idea with >> considerable enthusiasm. Sales have at least >> doubled, and three-quarters of the nation's >> grocery stores now carry at least some organic >> food. A Harris poll in October 2007 found that >> about 30 percent of Americans buy organic food at >> least on occasion, and most think it is safer, >> better for the environment and healthier. >> " People believe it must be better for you if it's >> organic, " says Phil Howard, an assistant >> professor of community, food and agriculture at >> Michigan State University. >> So I discovered on a recent book tour around the United States and Canada. >> No matter how carefully I avoided using the word >> " organic " when I spoke to groups of food >> enthusiasts about how to eat better, someone in >> the audience would inevitably ask, " What if I >> can't afford to buy organic food? " It seems to >> have become the magic cure-all, synonymous with >> eating well, healthfully, sanely, even ethically. >> But eating " organic " offers no guarantee of any >> of that. And the truth is that most Americans eat >> so badly — we get 7 percent of our calories from >> soft drinks, more than we do from vegetables; the >> top food group by caloric intake is " sweets " ; and >> one-third of nation's adults are now obese — that >> the organic question is a secondary one. It's not >> unimportant, but it's not the primary issue in >> the way Americans eat. >> To eat well, says Michael Pollan, the author of >> " In Defense of Food, " means avoiding " edible >> food-like substances " and sticking to real >> ingredients, increasingly from the plant kingdom. >> (Americans each consume an average of nearly two >> pounds a day of animal products.) There's plenty >> of evidence that both a person's health — as well >> as the environment's — will improve with a simple >> shift in eating habits away from animal products >> and highly processed foods to plant products and >> what might be called " real food. " (With all due >> respect to people in the " food movement, " the >> food need not be " slow, " either.) >> >From these changes, Americans would reduce the >> >amount of land, water and chemicals used to >> >produce the food we eat, as well as the >> >incidence of lifestyle diseases linked to >> >unhealthy diets, and greenhouse gases from >> >industrial meat production. All without >> >legislation. >> And the food would not necessarily have to be >> organic, which, under the United States >> Department of Agriculture's definition, means it >> is generally free of synthetic substances; >> contains no antibiotics and hormones; has not >> been irradiated or fertilized with sewage sludge; >> was raised without the use of most conventional >> pesticides; and contains no genetically modified >> ingredients. >> Those requirements, which must be met in order >> for food to be labeled " U.S.D.A. Organic, " are >> fine, of course. But they still fall short of the >> lofty dreams of early organic farmers and >> consumers who gave the word " organic " its allure >> — of returning natural nutrients and substance to >> the soil in the same proportion used by the >> growing process (there is no requirement that >> this be done); of raising animals humanely in >> accordance with nature (animals must be given >> access to the outdoors, but for how long and >> under what conditions is not spelled out); and of >> producing the most nutritious food possible (the >> evidence is mixed on whether organic food is more >> nutritious) in the most ecologically conscious >> way. >> The government's organic program, says Joan >> Shaffer, a spokeswoman for the Agriculture >> Department, " is a marketing program that sets >> standards for what can be certified as organic. >> Neither the enabling legislation nor the >> regulations address food safety or nutrition. " >> People don't understand that, nor do they realize >> " organic " doesn't mean " local. " " It doesn't >> matter if it's from the farm down the road or >> from Chile, " Ms. Shaffer said. " As long as it >> meets the standards it's organic. " >> Hence, the organic status of salmon flown in from >> Chile, or of frozen vegetables grown in China and >> sold in the United States — no matter the size of >> the carbon footprint left behind by getting from >> there to here. >> Today, most farmers who practice truly >> sustainable farming, or what you might call >> " organic in spirit, " operate on small scale, some >> so small they can't afford the requirements to be >> certified organic by the government. Others say >> that certification isn't meaningful enough to >> bother. These farmers argue that, " When you buy >> organic you don't just buy a product, you buy a >> way of life that is committed to not exploiting >> the planet, " says Ed Maltby, executive director >> of the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance. >> But the organic food business is now big >> business, and getting bigger. Professor Howard >> estimates that major corporations now are >> responsible for at least 25 percent of all >> organic manufacturing and marketing (40 percent >> if you count only processed organic foods). Much >> of the nation's organic food is as much a part of >> industrial food production as midwinter grapes, >> and becoming more so. In 2006, sales of organic >> foods and beverages totaled about $16.7 billion, >> according to the most recent figures from Organic >> Trade Association. >> Still, those sales amounted to slightly less than >> 3 percent of overall food and beverage sales. For >> all the hoo-ha, organic food is not making much >> of an impact on the way Americans eat, though, as >> Mark Kastel, co-founder of The Cornucopia >> Institute, puts it: " There are generic benefits >> from doing organics. It protects the land from >> the ravages of conventional agriculture, " and >> safeguards farm workers from being exposed to >> pesticides. >> But the questions remain over how we eat in >> general. It may feel better to eat an organic >> Oreo than a conventional Oreo, but, says Marion >> Nestle, a professor at New York University's >> department of nutrition, food studies and public >> health, " Organic junk food is still junk food. " >> Last week, Michelle Obama began digging up a >> patch of the South Lawn of the White House to >> plant an organic vegetable garden to provide food >> for the first family and, more important, to >> educate children about healthy, locally grown >> fruits and vegetables at a time when obesity and >> diabetes have become national concerns. >> But Mrs. Obama also emphasized that there were >> many changes Americans can make if they don't >> have the time or space for an organic garden. >> " You can begin in your own cupboard, " she said, >> " by eliminating processed food, trying to cook a >> meal a little more often, trying to incorporate >> more fruits and vegetables. " >> Popularizing such choices may not be as >> marketable as creating a logo that says >> " organic. " But when Americans have had their fill >> of " value-added " and overprocessed food, perhaps >> they can begin producing and consuming more food >> that treats animals and the land as if they >> mattered. Some of that food will be organic, and >> hooray for that. Meanwhile, they should remember >> that the word itself is not synonymous with >> " safe, " " healthy, " " fair " or even necessarily >> " good. " >> >> Mark Bittman writes the Minimalist column for the >> Dining section of The Times and is the author, >> most recently, of " Food Matters: A Guide to >> Conscious Eating. " >> > > > > >--- > >To send an email to >-! >Groups Links > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Hi Yarrow I think it does suggest that he is a little more objective - if I promote a vegetarian / vegan diet, I do so from a background of having made a choice for myself, which can then make it seem like I am proselytising about it... if a non vegetarian does, then he can't be accused of bias... BB Peter - <yarrow Tuesday, March 24, 2009 9:41 PM Re: Mr. Bittman is not a vegetarian Yes, I think he's written some of the most pro-veg articles I've seen in the past year. But the most pro-veg one he wrote in the NY Times had the credit line at the end " Mr. Bittman is not a vegetarian, " which made me laugh. As if that made him more believable, or more " objective. " So whenever I see one of his excellent articles, that line comes to mind. At 6:57 PM +0000 3/24/09, shinobibombay wrote: >Mark Bittman is one of my favorite speakers. >Whether he is a veg*an or not. In case anyone >has not seen it here is a good link to see/hear >him speak. > >http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/mark_bittman_on_what_s_wrong_with_what_we_ea\ t.html > >Bill-in Utah > > , yarrow wrote: >> >> I like this paragraph: >> >> >> To eat well, says Michael Pollan, the author of >> " In Defense of Food, " means avoiding " edible >> food-like substances " and sticking to real >> ingredients, increasingly from the plant kingdom. >> (Americans each consume an average of nearly two >> pounds a day of animal products.) There's plenty >> of evidence that both a person's health - as well >> as the environment's - will improve with a simple >> shift in eating habits away from animal products >> and highly processed foods to plant products and >> what might be called " real food. " >> >> >> >> >> March 22, 2009 >> Eating Food That's Better for You, Organic or Not >> By MARK BITTMAN >> In the six-and-one-half years since the federal >> government began certifying food as " organic, " >> Americans have taken to the idea with >> considerable enthusiasm. Sales have at least >> doubled, and three-quarters of the nation's >> grocery stores now carry at least some organic >> food. A Harris poll in October 2007 found that >> about 30 percent of Americans buy organic food at >> least on occasion, and most think it is safer, >> better for the environment and healthier. >> " People believe it must be better for you if it's >> organic, " says Phil Howard, an assistant >> professor of community, food and agriculture at >> Michigan State University. >> So I discovered on a recent book tour around the United States and >> Canada. >> No matter how carefully I avoided using the word >> " organic " when I spoke to groups of food >> enthusiasts about how to eat better, someone in >> the audience would inevitably ask, " What if I >> can't afford to buy organic food? " It seems to >> have become the magic cure-all, synonymous with >> eating well, healthfully, sanely, even ethically. >> But eating " organic " offers no guarantee of any >> of that. And the truth is that most Americans eat >> so badly - we get 7 percent of our calories from >> soft drinks, more than we do from vegetables; the >> top food group by caloric intake is " sweets " ; and >> one-third of nation's adults are now obese - that >> the organic question is a secondary one. It's not >> unimportant, but it's not the primary issue in >> the way Americans eat. >> To eat well, says Michael Pollan, the author of >> " In Defense of Food, " means avoiding " edible >> food-like substances " and sticking to real >> ingredients, increasingly from the plant kingdom. >> (Americans each consume an average of nearly two >> pounds a day of animal products.) There's plenty >> of evidence that both a person's health - as well >> as the environment's - will improve with a simple >> shift in eating habits away from animal products >> and highly processed foods to plant products and >> what might be called " real food. " (With all due >> respect to people in the " food movement, " the >> food need not be " slow, " either.) >> >From these changes, Americans would reduce the >> >amount of land, water and chemicals used to >> >produce the food we eat, as well as the >> >incidence of lifestyle diseases linked to >> >unhealthy diets, and greenhouse gases from >> >industrial meat production. All without >> >legislation. >> And the food would not necessarily have to be >> organic, which, under the United States >> Department of Agriculture's definition, means it >> is generally free of synthetic substances; >> contains no antibiotics and hormones; has not >> been irradiated or fertilized with sewage sludge; >> was raised without the use of most conventional >> pesticides; and contains no genetically modified >> ingredients. >> Those requirements, which must be met in order >> for food to be labeled " U.S.D.A. Organic, " are >> fine, of course. But they still fall short of the >> lofty dreams of early organic farmers and >> consumers who gave the word " organic " its allure >> - of returning natural nutrients and substance to >> the soil in the same proportion used by the >> growing process (there is no requirement that >> this be done); of raising animals humanely in >> accordance with nature (animals must be given >> access to the outdoors, but for how long and >> under what conditions is not spelled out); and of >> producing the most nutritious food possible (the >> evidence is mixed on whether organic food is more >> nutritious) in the most ecologically conscious >> way. >> The government's organic program, says Joan >> Shaffer, a spokeswoman for the Agriculture >> Department, " is a marketing program that sets >> standards for what can be certified as organic. >> Neither the enabling legislation nor the >> regulations address food safety or nutrition. " >> People don't understand that, nor do they realize >> " organic " doesn't mean " local. " " It doesn't >> matter if it's from the farm down the road or >> from Chile, " Ms. Shaffer said. " As long as it >> meets the standards it's organic. " >> Hence, the organic status of salmon flown in from >> Chile, or of frozen vegetables grown in China and >> sold in the United States - no matter the size of >> the carbon footprint left behind by getting from >> there to here. >> Today, most farmers who practice truly >> sustainable farming, or what you might call >> " organic in spirit, " operate on small scale, some >> so small they can't afford the requirements to be >> certified organic by the government. Others say >> that certification isn't meaningful enough to >> bother. These farmers argue that, " When you buy >> organic you don't just buy a product, you buy a >> way of life that is committed to not exploiting >> the planet, " says Ed Maltby, executive director >> of the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance. >> But the organic food business is now big >> business, and getting bigger. Professor Howard >> estimates that major corporations now are >> responsible for at least 25 percent of all >> organic manufacturing and marketing (40 percent >> if you count only processed organic foods). Much >> of the nation's organic food is as much a part of >> industrial food production as midwinter grapes, >> and becoming more so. In 2006, sales of organic >> foods and beverages totaled about $16.7 billion, >> according to the most recent figures from Organic >> Trade Association. >> Still, those sales amounted to slightly less than >> 3 percent of overall food and beverage sales. For >> all the hoo-ha, organic food is not making much >> of an impact on the way Americans eat, though, as >> Mark Kastel, co-founder of The Cornucopia >> Institute, puts it: " There are generic benefits >> from doing organics. It protects the land from >> the ravages of conventional agriculture, " and >> safeguards farm workers from being exposed to >> pesticides. >> But the questions remain over how we eat in >> general. It may feel better to eat an organic >> Oreo than a conventional Oreo, but, says Marion >> Nestle, a professor at New York University's >> department of nutrition, food studies and public >> health, " Organic junk food is still junk food. " >> Last week, Michelle Obama began digging up a >> patch of the South Lawn of the White House to >> plant an organic vegetable garden to provide food >> for the first family and, more important, to >> educate children about healthy, locally grown >> fruits and vegetables at a time when obesity and >> diabetes have become national concerns. >> But Mrs. Obama also emphasized that there were >> many changes Americans can make if they don't >> have the time or space for an organic garden. >> " You can begin in your own cupboard, " she said, >> " by eliminating processed food, trying to cook a >> meal a little more often, trying to incorporate >> more fruits and vegetables. " >> Popularizing such choices may not be as >> marketable as creating a logo that says >> " organic. " But when Americans have had their fill >> of " value-added " and overprocessed food, perhaps >> they can begin producing and consuming more food >> that treats animals and the land as if they >> mattered. Some of that food will be organic, and >> hooray for that. Meanwhile, they should remember >> that the word itself is not synonymous with >> " safe, " " healthy, " " fair " or even necessarily >> " good. " >> >> Mark Bittman writes the Minimalist column for the >> Dining section of The Times and is the author, >> most recently, of " Food Matters: A Guide to >> Conscious Eating. " >> > > > > >--- > >To send an email to >-! >Groups Links > > > --- To send an email to -! Groups Links Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 So does that mean only a vegan can " objectively " write about meat-eating? Only monks can talk about procreation? At 8:46 AM +0000 3/25/09, Peter wrote: >Hi Yarrow > >I think it does suggest that he is a little more objective - if I promote a >vegetarian / vegan diet, I do so from a background of having made a choice >for myself, which can then make it seem like I am proselytising about it... >if a non vegetarian does, then he can't be accused of bias... > >BB >Peter > >- ><yarrow > >Tuesday, March 24, 2009 9:41 PM > Re: Mr. Bittman is not a vegetarian > > >Yes, I think he's written some of the most >pro-veg articles I've seen in the past year. But >the most pro-veg one he wrote in the NY Times had >the credit line at the end " Mr. Bittman is not a >vegetarian, " which made me laugh. As if that made >him more believable, or more " objective. " So >whenever I see one of his excellent articles, >that line comes to mind. > > >At 6:57 PM +0000 3/24/09, shinobibombay wrote: >>Mark Bittman is one of my favorite speakers. >>Whether he is a veg*an or not. In case anyone >>has not seen it here is a good link to see/hear >>him speak. >> >>http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/mark_bittman_on_what_s_wrong_with_what_we_e\ at.html >> >>Bill-in Utah >> >> , yarrow wrote: >>> >>> I like this paragraph: >>> >>> >>> To eat well, says Michael Pollan, the author of >>> " In Defense of Food, " means avoiding " edible >>> food-like substances " and sticking to real >>> ingredients, increasingly from the plant kingdom. >>> (Americans each consume an average of nearly two >>> pounds a day of animal products.) There's plenty >>> of evidence that both a person's health - as well >>> as the environment's - will improve with a simple >>> shift in eating habits away from animal products >>> and highly processed foods to plant products and >>> what might be called " real food. " >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> March 22, 2009 >>> Eating Food That's Better for You, Organic or Not >>> By MARK BITTMAN >>> In the six-and-one-half years since the federal >>> government began certifying food as " organic, " >>> Americans have taken to the idea with >>> considerable enthusiasm. Sales have at least >>> doubled, and three-quarters of the nation's >>> grocery stores now carry at least some organic >>> food. A Harris poll in October 2007 found that >>> about 30 percent of Americans buy organic food at >>> least on occasion, and most think it is safer, >>> better for the environment and healthier. >>> " People believe it must be better for you if it's >>> organic, " says Phil Howard, an assistant >>> professor of community, food and agriculture at >>> Michigan State University. >>> So I discovered on a recent book tour around the United States and >>> Canada. >>> No matter how carefully I avoided using the word >>> " organic " when I spoke to groups of food >>> enthusiasts about how to eat better, someone in >>> the audience would inevitably ask, " What if I >>> can't afford to buy organic food? " It seems to >>> have become the magic cure-all, synonymous with >>> eating well, healthfully, sanely, even ethically. >>> But eating " organic " offers no guarantee of any >>> of that. And the truth is that most Americans eat >>> so badly - we get 7 percent of our calories from >>> soft drinks, more than we do from vegetables; the >>> top food group by caloric intake is " sweets " ; and >>> one-third of nation's adults are now obese - that >>> the organic question is a secondary one. It's not >>> unimportant, but it's not the primary issue in >>> the way Americans eat. >>> To eat well, says Michael Pollan, the author of >>> " In Defense of Food, " means avoiding " edible >>> food-like substances " and sticking to real >>> ingredients, increasingly from the plant kingdom. >>> (Americans each consume an average of nearly two >>> pounds a day of animal products.) There's plenty >>> of evidence that both a person's health - as well >>> as the environment's - will improve with a simple >>> shift in eating habits away from animal products >>> and highly processed foods to plant products and >>> what might be called " real food. " (With all due >>> respect to people in the " food movement, " the >>> food need not be " slow, " either.) >>> >From these changes, Americans would reduce the >>> >amount of land, water and chemicals used to >>> >produce the food we eat, as well as the >>> >incidence of lifestyle diseases linked to >>> >unhealthy diets, and greenhouse gases from >>> >industrial meat production. All without >>> >legislation. >>> And the food would not necessarily have to be >>> organic, which, under the United States >>> Department of Agriculture's definition, means it >>> is generally free of synthetic substances; >>> contains no antibiotics and hormones; has not >>> been irradiated or fertilized with sewage sludge; >>> was raised without the use of most conventional >>> pesticides; and contains no genetically modified >>> ingredients. >>> Those requirements, which must be met in order >>> for food to be labeled " U.S.D.A. Organic, " are >>> fine, of course. But they still fall short of the >>> lofty dreams of early organic farmers and >>> consumers who gave the word " organic " its allure >>> - of returning natural nutrients and substance to >>> the soil in the same proportion used by the >>> growing process (there is no requirement that >>> this be done); of raising animals humanely in >>> accordance with nature (animals must be given >>> access to the outdoors, but for how long and >>> under what conditions is not spelled out); and of >>> producing the most nutritious food possible (the >>> evidence is mixed on whether organic food is more >>> nutritious) in the most ecologically conscious >>> way. >>> The government's organic program, says Joan >>> Shaffer, a spokeswoman for the Agriculture >>> Department, " is a marketing program that sets >>> standards for what can be certified as organic. >>> Neither the enabling legislation nor the >>> regulations address food safety or nutrition. " >>> People don't understand that, nor do they realize >>> " organic " doesn't mean " local. " " It doesn't >>> matter if it's from the farm down the road or >>> from Chile, " Ms. Shaffer said. " As long as it >>> meets the standards it's organic. " >>> Hence, the organic status of salmon flown in from >>> Chile, or of frozen vegetables grown in China and >>> sold in the United States - no matter the size of >>> the carbon footprint left behind by getting from >>> there to here. >>> Today, most farmers who practice truly >>> sustainable farming, or what you might call >>> " organic in spirit, " operate on small scale, some >>> so small they can't afford the requirements to be >>> certified organic by the government. Others say >>> that certification isn't meaningful enough to >>> bother. These farmers argue that, " When you buy >>> organic you don't just buy a product, you buy a >>> way of life that is committed to not exploiting >>> the planet, " says Ed Maltby, executive director >>> of the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance. >>> But the organic food business is now big >>> business, and getting bigger. Professor Howard >>> estimates that major corporations now are >>> responsible for at least 25 percent of all >>> organic manufacturing and marketing (40 percent >>> if you count only processed organic foods). Much >>> of the nation's organic food is as much a part of >>> industrial food production as midwinter grapes, >>> and becoming more so. In 2006, sales of organic >>> foods and beverages totaled about $16.7 billion, >>> according to the most recent figures from Organic >>> Trade Association. >>> Still, those sales amounted to slightly less than >>> 3 percent of overall food and beverage sales. For >>> all the hoo-ha, organic food is not making much >>> of an impact on the way Americans eat, though, as >>> Mark Kastel, co-founder of The Cornucopia >>> Institute, puts it: " There are generic benefits >>> from doing organics. It protects the land from >>> the ravages of conventional agriculture, " and >>> safeguards farm workers from being exposed to >>> pesticides. >>> But the questions remain over how we eat in >>> general. It may feel better to eat an organic >>> Oreo than a conventional Oreo, but, says Marion >>> Nestle, a professor at New York University's >>> department of nutrition, food studies and public >>> health, " Organic junk food is still junk food. " >>> Last week, Michelle Obama began digging up a >>> patch of the South Lawn of the White House to >>> plant an organic vegetable garden to provide food >>> for the first family and, more important, to >>> educate children about healthy, locally grown >>> fruits and vegetables at a time when obesity and >>> diabetes have become national concerns. >>> But Mrs. Obama also emphasized that there were >>> many changes Americans can make if they don't >>> have the time or space for an organic garden. >>> " You can begin in your own cupboard, " she said, >>> " by eliminating processed food, trying to cook a >>> meal a little more often, trying to incorporate >>> more fruits and vegetables. " >>> Popularizing such choices may not be as >>> marketable as creating a logo that says >>> " organic. " But when Americans have had their fill >>> of " value-added " and overprocessed food, perhaps >>> they can begin producing and consuming more food >>> that treats animals and the land as if they >>> mattered. Some of that food will be organic, and >>> hooray for that. Meanwhile, they should remember >>> that the word itself is not synonymous with >>> " safe, " " healthy, " " fair " or even necessarily >>> " good. " >>> >>> Mark Bittman writes the Minimalist column for the >>> Dining section of The Times and is the author, >>> most recently, of " Food Matters: A Guide to >>> Conscious Eating. " >>> >> >> >> >> >>--- >> >>To send an email to >>-! >>Groups Links >> >> >> > > >--- > >To send an email to -! >Groups Links > > > > > >--- > >To send an email to >-! Groups Links > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Hi YarrowYour metaphor's don't work, since vegans have made an active decision to have an unusual diet, and similarly monks have made an active decision to have an unusual lifestyle in regards to procreation: because they have made unusual decisions they are not, by definition, objective about those decisions. And I suspect you know full well what the difference is between objective and subjective opinions, since you're clearly an intelligent person.BBPeter2009/3/25 <yarrow So does that mean only a vegan can " objectively " write about meat-eating? Only monks can talk about procreation? At 8:46 AM +0000 3/25/09, Peter wrote: >Hi Yarrow > >I think it does suggest that he is a little more objective - if I promote a >vegetarian / vegan diet, I do so from a background of having made a choice >for myself, which can then make it seem like I am proselytising about it... >if a non vegetarian does, then he can't be accused of bias... > >BB >Peter > >- ><yarrow > >Tuesday, March 24, 2009 9:41 PM > Re: Mr. Bittman is not a vegetarian > > >Yes, I think he's written some of the most >pro-veg articles I've seen in the past year. But >the most pro-veg one he wrote in the NY Times had >the credit line at the end " Mr. Bittman is not a >vegetarian, " which made me laugh. As if that made >him more believable, or more " objective. " So >whenever I see one of his excellent articles, >that line comes to mind. > > >At 6:57 PM +0000 3/24/09, shinobibombay wrote: >>Mark Bittman is one of my favorite speakers. >>Whether he is a veg*an or not. In case anyone >>has not seen it here is a good link to see/hear >>him speak. >> >>http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/mark_bittman_on_what_s_wrong_with_what_we_eat.html >> >>Bill-in Utah >> >> , yarrow wrote: >>> >>> I like this paragraph: >>> >>> >>> To eat well, says Michael Pollan, the author of >>> " In Defense of Food, " means avoiding " edible >>> food-like substances " and sticking to real >>> ingredients, increasingly from the plant kingdom. >>> (Americans each consume an average of nearly two >>> pounds a day of animal products.) There's plenty >>> of evidence that both a person's health - as well >>> as the environment's - will improve with a simple >>> shift in eating habits away from animal products >>> and highly processed foods to plant products and >>> what might be called " real food. " >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> March 22, 2009 >>> Eating Food That's Better for You, Organic or Not >>> By MARK BITTMAN >>> In the six-and-one-half years since the federal >>> government began certifying food as " organic, " >>> Americans have taken to the idea with >>> considerable enthusiasm. Sales have at least >>> doubled, and three-quarters of the nation's >>> grocery stores now carry at least some organic >>> food. A Harris poll in October 2007 found that >>> about 30 percent of Americans buy organic food at >>> least on occasion, and most think it is safer, >>> better for the environment and healthier. >>> " People believe it must be better for you if it's >>> organic, " says Phil Howard, an assistant >>> professor of community, food and agriculture at >>> Michigan State University. >>> So I discovered on a recent book tour around the United States and >>> Canada. >>> No matter how carefully I avoided using the word >>> " organic " when I spoke to groups of food >>> enthusiasts about how to eat better, someone in >>> the audience would inevitably ask, " What if I >>> can't afford to buy organic food? " It seems to >>> have become the magic cure-all, synonymous with >>> eating well, healthfully, sanely, even ethically. >>> But eating " organic " offers no guarantee of any >>> of that. And the truth is that most Americans eat >>> so badly - we get 7 percent of our calories from >>> soft drinks, more than we do from vegetables; the >>> top food group by caloric intake is " sweets " ; and >>> one-third of nation's adults are now obese - that >>> the organic question is a secondary one. It's not >>> unimportant, but it's not the primary issue in >>> the way Americans eat. >>> To eat well, says Michael Pollan, the author of >>> " In Defense of Food, " means avoiding " edible >>> food-like substances " and sticking to real >>> ingredients, increasingly from the plant kingdom. >>> (Americans each consume an average of nearly two >>> pounds a day of animal products.) There's plenty >>> of evidence that both a person's health - as well >>> as the environment's - will improve with a simple >>> shift in eating habits away from animal products >>> and highly processed foods to plant products and >>> what might be called " real food. " (With all due >>> respect to people in the " food movement, " the >>> food need not be " slow, " either.) >>> >From these changes, Americans would reduce the >>> >amount of land, water and chemicals used to >>> >produce the food we eat, as well as the >>> >incidence of lifestyle diseases linked to >>> >unhealthy diets, and greenhouse gases from >>> >industrial meat production. All without >>> >legislation. >>> And the food would not necessarily have to be >>> organic, which, under the United States >>> Department of Agriculture's definition, means it >>> is generally free of synthetic substances; >>> contains no antibiotics and hormones; has not >>> been irradiated or fertilized with sewage sludge; >>> was raised without the use of most conventional >>> pesticides; and contains no genetically modified >>> ingredients. >>> Those requirements, which must be met in order >>> for food to be labeled " U.S.D.A. Organic, " are >>> fine, of course. But they still fall short of the >>> lofty dreams of early organic farmers and >>> consumers who gave the word " organic " its allure >>> - of returning natural nutrients and substance to >>> the soil in the same proportion used by the >>> growing process (there is no requirement that >>> this be done); of raising animals humanely in >>> accordance with nature (animals must be given >>> access to the outdoors, but for how long and >>> under what conditions is not spelled out); and of >>> producing the most nutritious food possible (the >>> evidence is mixed on whether organic food is more >>> nutritious) in the most ecologically conscious >>> way. >>> The government's organic program, says Joan >>> Shaffer, a spokeswoman for the Agriculture >>> Department, " is a marketing program that sets >>> standards for what can be certified as organic. >>> Neither the enabling legislation nor the >>> regulations address food safety or nutrition. " >>> People don't understand that, nor do they realize >>> " organic " doesn't mean " local. " " It doesn't >>> matter if it's from the farm down the road or >>> from Chile, " Ms. Shaffer said. " As long as it >>> meets the standards it's organic. " >>> Hence, the organic status of salmon flown in from >>> Chile, or of frozen vegetables grown in China and >>> sold in the United States - no matter the size of >>> the carbon footprint left behind by getting from >>> there to here. >>> Today, most farmers who practice truly >>> sustainable farming, or what you might call >>> " organic in spirit, " operate on small scale, some >>> so small they can't afford the requirements to be >>> certified organic by the government. Others say >>> that certification isn't meaningful enough to >>> bother. These farmers argue that, " When you buy >>> organic you don't just buy a product, you buy a >>> way of life that is committed to not exploiting >>> the planet, " says Ed Maltby, executive director >>> of the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance. >>> But the organic food business is now big >>> business, and getting bigger. Professor Howard >>> estimates that major corporations now are >>> responsible for at least 25 percent of all >>> organic manufacturing and marketing (40 percent >>> if you count only processed organic foods). Much >>> of the nation's organic food is as much a part of >>> industrial food production as midwinter grapes, >>> and becoming more so. In 2006, sales of organic >>> foods and beverages totaled about $16.7 billion, >>> according to the most recent figures from Organic >>> Trade Association. >>> Still, those sales amounted to slightly less than >>> 3 percent of overall food and beverage sales. For >>> all the hoo-ha, organic food is not making much >>> of an impact on the way Americans eat, though, as >>> Mark Kastel, co-founder of The Cornucopia >>> Institute, puts it: " There are generic benefits >>> from doing organics. It protects the land from >>> the ravages of conventional agriculture, " and >>> safeguards farm workers from being exposed to >>> pesticides. >>> But the questions remain over how we eat in >>> general. It may feel better to eat an organic >>> Oreo than a conventional Oreo, but, says Marion >>> Nestle, a professor at New York University's >>> department of nutrition, food studies and public >>> health, " Organic junk food is still junk food. " >>> Last week, Michelle Obama began digging up a >>> patch of the South Lawn of the White House to >>> plant an organic vegetable garden to provide food >>> for the first family and, more important, to >>> educate children about healthy, locally grown >>> fruits and vegetables at a time when obesity and >>> diabetes have become national concerns. >>> But Mrs. Obama also emphasized that there were >>> many changes Americans can make if they don't >>> have the time or space for an organic garden. >>> " You can begin in your own cupboard, " she said, >>> " by eliminating processed food, trying to cook a >>> meal a little more often, trying to incorporate >>> more fruits and vegetables. " >>> Popularizing such choices may not be as >>> marketable as creating a logo that says >>> " organic. " But when Americans have had their fill >>> of " value-added " and overprocessed food, perhaps >>> they can begin producing and consuming more food >>> that treats animals and the land as if they >>> mattered. Some of that food will be organic, and >>> hooray for that. Meanwhile, they should remember >>> that the word itself is not synonymous with >>> " safe, " " healthy, " " fair " or even necessarily >>> " good. " >>> >>> Mark Bittman writes the Minimalist column for the >>> Dining section of The Times and is the author, >>> most recently, of " Food Matters: A Guide to >>> Conscious Eating. " >>> >> >> >> >> >>--- >> >>To send an email to >>-! >>Groups Links >> >> >> > > >--- > >To send an email to -! >Groups Links > > > > > >--- > >To send an email to >-! Groups Links > > > --- To send an email to -! Groups Links <*> / <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: /join ( ID required) <*> To change settings via email: -digest -fullfeatured <*> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.