Eco-Chick · The modern girl's guide to living green & fabulous.

High Fructose Corn Syrup IS Bad for Your Kidney, Liver and the Planet (but can be Funny Too)!

The original SHAMEFUL ad that was showing during the spring and early summer. Really.

Anyone with even a modicum of concern about what they eat (or what their family eats) has cut out high fructose corn syrup.

WHY is HFCS so bad for us? Mainly, because it’s processed, and processed foods are what are making us fat, by sneaking ingredients into our bodies that our bodies never evolved to digest. Michael Pollan has recommended eating foods with no more than a handful of ingredients and avoiding any ingredients our grandparents wouldn’t recognize; HFCS has never existed before human beings manufactured it for cheap sweetener. And it’s really cheap, meaning companies can easily add it to thousands of products that never even had sugar or sweetener in them to begin with (like potato chips)! In addition:

-High Fructose Corn Syrup is typically made from genetically-modified corn.

-HFCS has been linked to higher levels of kidney damage according to this study and to fatty liver disease in this study.

-Some HFCS has also been found to contain detectable levels of mercury (17 out of 55 products containing HFCS tested high on the charts for mercury). There are NO safe levels of mercury for women of childbearing age or children.

-It’s bad for our environment. “Most corn is grown as a monoculture, meaning that the land is used solely for corn, not rotated among crops. This maximizes yields, but at a price: It depletes soil nutrients, requiring more pesticides and fertilizer while weakening topsoil.”

-It is suggested that diabetics avoid it because they body doesn’t process it like sugar (glucose) which can wreak havoc on blood sugar levels.

-HFCS makes us fat. Long story short is that fructose, the sugar in HFCS, doesn’t stimulate leptin, a hormone which tells your body it’s full. So you’ve consumed a bunch of processed sugar-like calories, but your body doesn’t get the message, leading you to eat more calories. Fructose is also “an unregulated source of “acetyl CoA,” or the starting material for fatty acid synthesis. This, coupled with unstimulated leptin levels, is like opening the flood gates of fat deposition.”

But instead of responding appropriately to a cause of ill health and obesity, the corn industry has decided to try to justify it! You are on the WRONG side of history, folks. The people that are pushing HFCS as OK are in the same book as those folks who fought smoking bans for all those years. Shameful.

If you hear of scientific reports that say that HFCS is ok, check who’s behind that research (as the Mayo Clinic points out here). The food industry is rife with ‘reports’ put out by food manufacturers themselves, and as we saw with the tobacco industry reports saying smoking is ‘ok in moderation’ (the same claim HFCS folks are making here) I trust that data as far as I can throw it.

And while the evidence about HFCS and how unhealthy it is continues to mount, some comedians have taken the situation into their own hands. This is an hilarious parody of the Corn Refiner’s ad above.

And the HILARIOUS rebuttals. Gotta love a great satire. The second and third are priceless!

You Might Be an Eco Chick If…..

….you’ve decided that since you’ve made it this far this summer without A/C, you’re just going to keep going and tough it out, just to know you still can (and to save carbon emissions and cash).

….going to the regular grocery store (and gazing into other people’s carts filled entirely with processed food) stresses you out. And inadvertently walking down the household cleaning aisle makes you feel like you were toxified with all the offgassing going on.

….you think that Cash for Clunkers should have had higher MPG requirements.

Soy's Eco Creds

Last month, when Starre asked us all for our New Year’s resolutions, I didn’t have to think twice about them because I’ve been thinking so much about these goals over the last year. But I just put all my eco goals for the year out there for the world to see without elucidating and that raised this question:

Why is soy considered “not necessarily doing better for the environment”? I thought that tofu was a good nonmeat protein alternative.

Here’s my attempt at answering that question, but bear with me: there’s a big debate about soy so there’s a lot of nonsense out there and I don’t want to rumor-monger. And along those lines, I won’t get into the health issue regarding soy (I know one dietitian who says it’s good for you and another who says only in moderation and though I trust both of them, the truth seems to be a few years away yet).

So the closest thing I have for an answer is to say, as I said in that previous New Year’s post, that I try to lead a one-earth life as it is so the things that I’m working on are pretty specific to me and what I think I can handle doing. I mean, it would be silly for me to say I’ll cut back on driving when the only time I get in a car is when I visit my ‘rents in the US which doesn’t happen all that many days in the year. And so, for me, the next step my vegan lifestyle has to take is less processed food and that means removing soy from my diet and eating more veggies and beans. Of course, eating tofu is not as much of an eco-sin as eating meat. As Starre said in her recent post to the new Pres:

Meat production is the most energy- and water-intensive food you can eat. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Department reports that 18% of greenhouse gases come from meat and dairy production. Go veg at least half-time Mr. President, and you will save your heart, your colon, and the planet.

Going local while veg is the next best thing you can do for you and the planet. Soy, however, doesn’t grow here in Germany and it’s not always easy in the US, either, to get locally-grown and processed tofu (especially that made from soy that hasn’t been genetically engineered, which is a huge enviro no-no in my book, and which accounts for 85% of US grown soy). In some of the countries that export soy to the US, it has become such a viable crop due to biofuels and its use as a cattlefeed that eco havoc is being wreaked in some places, and I don’t want to get behind that anymore by buying beans from Brazil. Or from anywhere else. So if I can swap a mushroom burger for a tofu burger, I will. At least, that’s what I’m resolving to do. But for everyone else, well, that’s up to you.

Deep Economy: Q&A with Bill McKibben

When Bill McKibben wrote The End of Nature in 1989, it was the first popular press book to address global warming in a meaningful way. Since then, McKibben has not only carved out a career as an environmental journalist; he has become one of the most steadfast and trustworthy voices in the arena.

McKibben is currently at work promoting Step It Up 2007—a decentralized protest calling for Congress to introduce measures to cut carbon emissions 80% by 2050—which will take place on April 14 in over 800 locations across the country.

In his latest book, Deep Economy (Henry Holt, 2007), McKibben submits that we’re past the point of changing our light bulbs and hoping for the best. Instead, it’s time to challenge the prevailing economic ideology of “More is Better,” with local yet systemic alternatives.

McKibben recently took some time from his work to discuss Deep Economy with Eco-Chick.

Eco-Chick: How does the idea of deep economy differ from the idea of local economy?

McKibben: Local economies are the main prescription, I think, for dealing with the deep problems of our current system—that it’s driving the Earth off an ecological cliff, and that it isn’t making us as happy as it seems to. We’ve thought much too shallowly about what we want out of the economy: not simply more, but a satisfying and workable world.

Eco-Chick: In Deep Economy, you say that it’s time to move beyond “More is Better,” but qualify that by saying, “researchers report that money consistently buys happiness right up to about $10,000 per capita income, and that after that point the correlation disappears…” (41). Do you see environmentalism as something of a class privilege? If so, do you think that has been sufficiently recognized by the environmental movement?

McKibben: I think that not caring about the environment is a kind of class privilege. The very poorest people—in this country and around the planet—feel the effects of the damage more than the rest of us do. (Go to New Orleans to see what I mean, and after that Bangladesh.) The onus on cleaning up should fall most heavily on those of us who have made the most mess—in this case, by pouring CO2 into the atmosphere, carbon that is directly related to our consumption. And we shouldn’t point too many fingers at China for their carbon emissions, not while our per capita emissions are four times greater. Instead, we need to figure out how to re-engage with the rest of the world to help them develop on something other than our energy path.

Eco-Chick: Since the Democrats took control of the House and Senate last November, many Americans have expressed hope that Congress will finally address growing public concern about global warming. However, you note in Deep Economy that unless we also critically examine our marriage to economic growth—something the Democrats have failed to do—we cannot expect to arrive at meaningful solutions to climate change and other environmental crises. What, if anything, can we reasonably expect from the Democratic Party, both in Congress and in the upcoming Presidential election?

McKibben: I hope that the Democrats will set targets—dramatic and ambitious ones—somewhere near the scientific mandate. At stepitup07.org, we’ve been saying 80% cuts by 2050. If that happens, it will help set in motion the train of events that will, hopefully with enough speed, wean us away from a world of fossil-fueled hyper-growth and towards something more durable. Congress won’t vote against growth. They may vote for higher energy prices (under some guise like cap and trade), which will then help lead us in saner directions. But an awful lot of the work is going do have to be done on the local and state level.

Eco-Chick: As I read more about local economy and, specifically, local food production, it seems to me that the discussion might need to include a reconsideration of the traditional gender roles that Americans have challenged in recent decades. In other words, the move from processed food to fresh, locally grown food requires that there be someone cooking in the kitchen. Do you think that this is part of the dialogue or is it a non-issue by this point?

McKibben: What can I say? At our house, I do the cooking. I guess I don’t think that cooking is such a bad thing—better for your body, for the planet, and probably for your mood than subcontracting it to some fast food kitchen. The fact that we’ve largely forgotten how to cook is a problem, and if we relearn, I sure hope it won’t be attached to gender as it has been in our past.

Eco-Chick: Likewise, does the idea of deep economy suggest that we might need to reconsider the roles that children and grandparents can play in a family and a community?

McKibben: Yep. Children and grandparents are now viewed as slightly problematic since they’re not contributing to economic growth. But any sensible community anywhere in the world has knit [children] into the fabric of real life—not by “child labor,” but by allowing ways that they can help. And it’s the same with grandparents.

Eco-Chick: Your research for Deep Economy took you to India, China, and Cuba, as well as cities and towns across the U.S. To me, one of the elephants in the room is that many of the most committed, knowledgeable and active environmentalists (those who would be most open to the idea of deep economy) are also people who love to travel, partly because they appreciate seeing alternatives to their own ways of thinking and living. Is there a way to reconcile travel and deep economy? Is it enough to buy a hybrid and carbon credits? Or should we heed poet Gary Snyder’s advice and, “Find your place on the planet, dig in, and take responsibility from there”?

McKibben: I think that Snyder is basically right. One of the hypocrisies of my life is that I spend a great deal of time traveling to tell people to use less carbon. I hope I end up a few gallons to the good. Of course, I buy carbon offsets, but that’s fairly token. My real joy is to stay and home and my favorite vacation of recent years is described in a book called Wandering Home, about a three-week backpack trip across my home county.

Eco-Chick: Deep Economy is dedicated to Wendell Berry. What influence has he had on your work?

McKibben: I read him first at an impressionable age, and he shocked me out of believing that the conventional wisdoms of the world were, in fact, so obvious. As I told him recently when we shared a stage, he completely changed the course of my life, and for that I’m about 85 percent grateful.

Eco-Chick: It’s been 18 years since you published The End of Nature, the first popular press book to address global warming (as far as I know). What has changed—in terms of scientific knowledge, public and government action, and your own concerns about the issue—since then? Are you satisfied with how we are responding?

McKibben: The science has gotten steadily grimmer. We didn’t understand how finely poised the Earth’s physical systems were, so we’re seeing huge responses to warming (such as Arctic melt) sooner than we would have expected. The political response—especially in this country—has been slower than I would have thought. The last six years have been totally and completely wasted, and they were important years. At the moment, though, I’m feeling a little optimistic. The response to stepitup07.org has been so much larger than I could ever have guessed and I think that we’re finally nearing a tipping point.