There are a lot of actions undertaken by PETA of which most people are unaware.  One of them is buying stock in publicly traded meat companies, such as Tyson. 

According to a story on Meatingplace, PETA owns stock in several companies as part of a campaign to influence these companies through stockholder’s meetings.  As stock prices plunge, PETA has been forced to buy more stock in these companies to maintain the minimum level of at $2000 worth to participate in the meetings.

I’m all for stockholders having a say and holding public companies accountable for their actions.  I’m adamant about humane treatment for all God’s creatures (our ranch’s founding principle is “respect for all life”).  I’m not a fan of PETA.  PETA doesn’t want animals treated humanely, they want to abolish all use of animals and their environment for human sustenance, comfort or entertainment.  I put no trust in an organization that will use any ends to their means, including causing harm to animals and people.

PETA’s participation in these companies will not be primarily for reform, but publicity. 

Back in September,  I sat down with my boys and had a talk about Christmas.  We talked about how Christmas is a celebration of love and family.  The reason for presents is to celebrate what we have to give and to share the love and abundance we have. 

So, we decided to aim for homemade or homegrown presents this year.  Little did I know that I was part of a fad! Buy Nothing  or Make Something is all over the internet, including an offer to buy the “What would Jesus Buy” DVD for “Buy Nothing Christmas”.

Here’s our deal:  My commitment is to spend whatever time necessary to work on projects together and to buy the supplies.  The boys can choose to play rather than working on projects each afternoon or evening.  For any presents they decide to buy rather than make, I’ll take them shopping, but they spend their own money for half of what it costs. 

Late September, we sat down and made two lists.  One boy wrote down the names of all the people we would like to give presents.  The other boy wrote down all the possible things we could make or do for presents.  

Since then, we’ve been plugging away.   We had a couple refresher lessons on macrame, and made a trip to the craft store.  Both boys learned needlepoint on plastic canvas.  The oldest boy learned cross-stitch.  We have even finished some projects!  

December starts the baking season.  A wonderful side benefit of this process is that we can make all these goodies, and the boys understand that the stuff will be boxed up for other people (thus avoiding their sugar highs and expanding mom’s waistline).

As for me, lest I be hypocritical, I’ve had to take a look at my own gifting agenda.  Fortunately, I can pack up some of our home-grown premium Angus beef or dip into my stock of tie-dyes.  And, I can now macrame a bracelet an evening during movie night.

The boys are having a great experience.  We’ve spent a lot of quality time together during a period when one of my boys has been having a tough time otherwise.  They aren’t talking about what they want for Christmas, they are talking about what they are giving!  Unlike the hurried and harried trips to the mall, as we work on projects, we talk about the people for whom we are making them.  Christmas IS about family, sharing and love.

So far, I would say this is shaping up to be the best Christmas ever. 

Feliz Navidad!

*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*

Cowboy Logic: Most people spend money they don’t have to buy things they don’t need just to impress people they don’t like

I don’t have the answer, but it’s an interesting debate.  I’m going to paraphrase heavily from Dot.Earth, because frankly, this is way out of my area of expertise. 

George Washington Carver was of the opinion (back when there were only 2 billion people on earth) that as we depleted the energy stores from ores and oil, we could fully replace them with energy produced on our farms.  But, now that we are pushing 7 billion people, it is unlikely that we can grow enough biofuel AND food to provide our needs without developing every inch of land possible. 

Ultimately, it is sunlight that provides our energy.  It seems logical that the more directly we harvest that sunlight, the more efficient we will be.  Looked at in that way, solar (and wind) power, followed by the stored solar energy in oil and other fossil fuels are arguably more efficient than using plants to convert sunlight to carbon. 

The debate continues:  Some argue that intensified agriculture can cut land use; concentrated agriculture leads to increases in production efficiencies.  Others argue that as more of our crops go to ethanol, more land is pushed into row-crop production that is best left to other uses. 

As a biologist (and therefor completely unqualified to offer an opinion), I believe that any system that has built-in redundancies in its abilities to meet its needs is inherently healthier and better able to adapt to changing circumstances than a system that has only one source.  In other words, as long as we don’t go overboard and become completely dependent on biofuels, having additional options for our energy is probably a good thing.

One of the issues that people often bring up to me as a beef producer is the “footrprint” of eating meat versus a strictly vegetarian diet.  I know that my cattle are raised on land that could not be (or should not be) used for any sort of cultivation, but I’ve been looking for some good research reports on the subject.   I got some leads from friends at the American Farmland Trust.

A study at Cornell University looked at a range of diets in terms of how much of New York’s population could be fed by food produced within the state.  Although a strictly vegetarian diet uses the least total land mass, a diet that includes some meat and dairy is more efficient in terms of total land use and sustainability.  The reason is that fruits, vegetables and grains must be grown on high-quality cropland. Meat and dairy products from ruminant animals are supported by lower quality, but more widely available, land that can support pasture and hay.

The Delta Farm Press cites the same study, but also points out that biotechnology can further reduce the footprint through less chemicals (i.e. bt Cotton) or getting more production from fewer animals (i.e. rBST).

I’ll let you in on a special Halloween secret that has saved many a tussle over too much Halloween candy at our house:  The Tooth Fairy is the Great Pumpkin’s sister. Not many people know this, but the weekend before Thanksgiving, if children leave their uneaten Halloween candy outside the bedroom door, the Tooth Fairy will come take it and replace it with a coin for each piece.  She usually leaves bigger coins for the big stuff! [note of guilty admission; she leaves the most for the stuff Mom especially likes]

Let your kids know ahead of time, and you’d be surprised how much easier limiting their sweet intake is!  My kids make candy cities and candy castles with their haul, but they show remarkable self-control over how much they eat, because they also compete on who has the most savings in their savings accounts.

The New York Times recently published an open letter by Michael Pollan to the next “Farmer in Chief”.  It begins:

It may surprise you to learn that among the issues that will occupy much of your time in the coming years is one you barely mentioned during the campaign: food.

Although we don’t think about it too often, our food production system is inextricably linked with health, climate change, use/dependence on fossil fuels and economics.

Some of my favorite points in the letter:

• Cheap food  that is highly processed, high fat and/or highly sweetened has hidden costs in an increase in partially preventable  illnesses, such as obesity, heart disease, type II diabetes.
• New policies in food subsidies should promote healthy food choices, local economies, diversity and quality over quantity (as measured in calories).
• Conservation is not an either/or proposition relative to food production.  We can produce food in ways that have minimal, or even beneficial effects on the environment.
• Farmland preservation and support of more of our population making a living at agriculture are critical to a healthy food system.  This means training and incentivising young farmers.
• Decentralizing food production will get more people in touch with where their food comes from.  Consumers that really understand food production are less likely to make unreasonable legislative demands and more reasonable diet choices.
• The new first family should establish their own “Victory Garden” on the South lawn of the White House.
• Lunch needs to be an educational part of the school day.  We need to raise kids that can make good food choices and  know how to cook.

We touched on this same topic earlier in this blog.  Most of all, I agree with Pollan that the food crisis paired with our energy costs presents an exceptional opportunity for real reform.

Kids cereals still too sugary.  According to Consumer Reports, 11 top kids cereals have as much sugar as a glazed donut, and two are more than 50% sugar by weight.  Best bets for fiber and low sugar? Cheerios, Kix, Honey Nut Cheerios (all General Mills), and Life (Quaker Oats).

 The Organic Milk Debate: Is big the same as bad? Consumers and activist groups are saying yes.  Do industrial-scale organic farms violate the intentions of the organic laber, or is it the next step in bringing organic to the masses?

Eating Healthy on a Budget:  Lots of links and tips in this post from BlogHer.  I’m still a fan of more fresh, less processed, more home-grown and home-cooked.

Bill of Rights for Young Athletes.  From Arizona Mama.  Not food-safety related, but relevant to all of us who have school-age children involved in athletics or any other myriad of activities.  Hitting home for me in particular is every child’s right (athlete or not) to be treated with dignity.

Yo-Yo powered i-phone charger.  From Ecogeek.  Several times cooler, more convenient, and better for the environment than a solar powered charger.  Not sure you’ll be seeing this one the market any time soon, but it’s a fun idea!

Does Eating Local really do any good?  Economic Sense makes the case for increased efficiency of production as a viable way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, rather than eliminating whole types of food.  Revisit our earlier post on the same National Geographic article.

The case of the disappearing supermarket:  From Chow.  Critics argue that San Francisco’s trend away from big supermarkets and toward smaller groceries (like Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods) is harmful to those with lower incomes.  Chow maintains “The fact that, in general, high-calorie food is cheaper than fruits and vegetables is entirely unrelated to supermarkets”.

PETA asks Ben and Jerry’s to use human breast milk instead of cow’s milk .  From Barfblog.  Ben and Jerry’s responded by saying, “We applaud PETA’s novel approach to bringing attention to an issue, but we believe a mother’s milk is best used for her child.”

Lead warnings from SmartMama. One in 10 children in the United States has blood lead levels about 5 micrograms lead per deciliter of blood according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Here’s a good update on lead sources in children, including a cool device that tests for lead, cadmium and other heavy metals on toys and surfaces.

Make it a Green Halloween:  From Natural Family Online.  A grassroots movement to brand treats and other items that are child/environment/people friendly.  Think outside the candy-box.

Eco-choice:  Toilet Paper or Bidet?  I’m not going to spoil it by answering here.  You’ll have to go to Green Daily’s blog to find out.

The Corn Refiners Association (CRA), through its website SweetSurpise.com and a slew of TV and print ads, is stating that High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is safe in moderation. While many in the blogosphere have roundly criticized the CRA, few have actually bothered to take note of the message being put forward: HFCS isn’t the poison that consumers think it is.

The Washington Post’s Jennifer Huget echoes this assessment:

“I hate to admit it — and don’t get me wrong, I don’t think corn syrup is health food or that the industry has anything but its own best interests in mind — but I think the group is right on this one. The American Medical Association in June issued a report saying there’s not enough evidence to prove that HFCS contributes to overweight, obesity or diabetes any more than other sweeteners. (The report does note that more research is needed.)”

Most of the harshest critiques read more like theater reviews than meaningful health pieces. They come from the perspective that these ads are portrayals of mindless “Stepford Wives” doing the bidding of big corporations. Blogs like MomLogic have even concluded that, somehow, the campaign is trying to convince people that HFCS is the cornerstone of a nutritious diet.

But the principle reason that these ads are important is because of the portrayal of one mother talking to another about how unreliable word of mouth can be on food safety.  Moms shouldn’t accept idle gossip or scary evening news stories about what’s found on supermarket shelves. And if that’s the loudest statement from the CRA’s efforts, why would you want to muzzle it?

There is an uplifting story in the UK newspaper The Times about the 20th anniversary of “Send a Cow”.  The program sent live, pregnant cows to Africa as a way to alleviate hunger and poverty and foster independence. The author, an inaugural contributor 20 years ago, went to see if allegations that the program was keeping Africa poor, were true or not.

Some unique and key aspects make this program more than just a “throw money at it” charity:

• The cows (and their resulting income) are the property of the women in the family,
  

  we find that if the profit from the milk goes to the woman, it will end up back with the family. With the men, we couldn’t be quite so certain.

• The first calf of each gift-cow must be given to a new family, who in turn must gift the first calf of that cow.  In Rwanda, a calf born to a Hutu must be given to a Tutsi family

Still, there have been opponents.

Environmentalists argue that the entire scheme is unsound because not only are bovines poor converters of food, but cows frequently break wind and emit damaging methane. But an independent carbon audit of this entire cow-giving process, gas and all, including the huge amount of fertility returned to the soil, has shown it to be so carbon-friendly that they’re practically in love with it. This, fortunately, spares Send a Cow an embarrassing encounter with the redoubtable Mrs Kibuuka where it says: “Sorry, your six kids will not be going to school after all because your cow farts too much.”

Send a Cow is still an active organization.  Also check out another of my favorite charities, Heifer International .  [p.s.  why not give a cow, sheep or goat as a gift in the name of that hard-to-buy-for person?]