I Have A Dream Speech– The Mantra For Sustainability

by
Dr. Martin Luther King at a press conference.

Dr. Martin Luther King at a press conference. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Dr. Martin Luther King‘s “I Have A Dream Speech” is a timeless work that is relevant today, particularly to the movement for sustainability.  This famous address delivered at the March on Washington 50 years ago focused on the plight of Blacks in America and the racial injustices of that era, and Dr. King’s words and leadership served as a lightning rod for social and political upheaval in America.  Since that famous speech, Americans, specifically Blacks, have witnessed major changes in their lives, gaining greater access to jobs, better housing and equal education.  However, there still is a lot of work to be done.

As we fast forward to 2013, we see that Dr. King’s speech is still relevant today in terms of the fight for sustainability, not only in the United States, but also globally.  My personal recognition of this fact comes as a result of taking an online class at Stanford University on the “Introduction To Sustainable Product Development and Manufacturing”.  This class includes lectures, videos and interactive group projects with fellow students globally, along with peer review.

The course begins with a video on the “Story Of Stuff,” an eye-opening explanation on the textbook theory of “materials economy” — the movement of “things” from extraction to production, distribution, consumption and finally depletion.  The author, Annie Leonard, explains how this linear theory is flawed because in its application to a finite world, it fails to address the impact of outside forces on production of goods, i.e., the environment, societies, cultures and economies.  This theory also does not account for the influence of corporations on our lives and the policies and programs adopted, which are undertaken solely for the purpose of improving the bottom line.  The rise of mega corporations that lobby to reduce government oversight and then exploit natural and human resources, creating inferior products with reduced shelf life to encourage heightened consumerism has resulted in a global crisis.  The natural resources of the earth are being depleted at an alarming rate, and humans are being misguided, overworked and exploited.  This is not sustainable.

We now witness the redefinition of the term “value” being reduced to “ownership of stuff”.  It then follows that certain segments of the world population, specifically, the economically disadvantaged (generally minorities and emerging nations), are assigned a lesser value in society.  The desire to “raise one’s value,” albeit based on erroneous definition of the term, leads to exasperating attempts to “keep up with the Joneses”.  So many people are mentally and physically exhausted and distressed, it is no wonder that the American Psychiatric Society had to revise the DSM codes.  While the movement for sustainability largely focuses on water and energy conservation, protection of natural resources and upgrades to infrastructure, the dialogue must also include human rights and justice.  Products and services must be priced fairly to include a living wage for laborers.  Also, access to health care and health insurance must be recognized as a part of the human rights that D. King spoke about.  The honesty and character of a person must trump “ownership of stuff”.

Fifty years ago, Dr. King voiced our “need for liberation“.  We still need liberation, principally from the confines of materialism and unhealthy lifestyles.  He also said, “[w]e must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline . . . we cannot walk alone”.  This call for self-service and determination rings true today.  Each one of us can start with small steady steps to endorse sustainable living.  We can get off the endless cycle of wasting money on inferior products and services.  We can support businesses that employ green practices and that invest in its employees.  We can take responsibility for the space we occupy on this earth.  The first step to achieve sustainability is to believe in it.  This belief begins with a dream of the possibilities, and the grassroots commitment of each of us will lead to a revolution.

I invite you to watch the video of the “Story of Stuff” and to commit to carry on the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King.  To do so is to live green, be green.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GorqroigqM

Rebellious Naturals Dig Their Heels In On Organics

by

It is amazing that in this whimsical world of information and technology, we are bombarded on a frequent basis with “new” and often-conflicting information on health regimens and dietary and nutritional information.  Yesterday Vitamin D was a good thing.  Today it is bad.  The same thing applies to fish oil– a miracle supplement a few months ago and now useless.

I find it refreshing that Jesse Ziff Cool, chef and lecturer, and owner of Cool Cafe has dug in her heels on the health benefits of organic nutrition.  It is interesting to note that Jesse Cool operates out of Stanford University, the home of the recent study questioning organics.  It is with strong conviction that Ms. Cool, who also is the author of Simply Organic, states, “I’ve been pioneering and advocating organics for 37 years.  Once you really embrace that, you don’t want to feed yourself or anyone near you anything that could some day harm you.  All you want is real food”.  Her philosophy will not be changed by one study.

Others in the business of organics concur with Ms. Cool.  They include Bob Quinn, the president of KAMUT International (www.Kamut.com) and Arran Stephens, CEO of Nature’s Path (http://us.naturepath.com).  These two men note that the Stanford study is inconsistent with their experiences of 25 and 45 years respectively.  I agree with the theory of organics from a common sense approach.  Surely food grown without “toxic pesticides, glyphosate herbicides, synthetic fertilizers, genetically modified organisms, sewage sludge and radiation” must be healthier for everyone—farmers, consumers and the environment, than food produced using these substances.

It is important to keep abreast of research and studies on organics and other matters affecting your health and the environment.  It also is important for each of us to turn on our internal filters and delete false or faulty information from our internal and external databases.  As quoted by Voltaire and aptly restated by Ellen Kamer, (columnist at the Edgie Veggie) “tend your own garden”.  Let’s eat green, live green be green.

Rebellious Naturals refuse to be moved by Stanford Study which dismisses the benefits of organics

Reports on Stanford Organic Food Study are Misleading

by

Yesterday several television newscasts reported the findings of a Stanford University study on organic foods. The study, “[a]re Organic Foods Safer or Healthier than Conventional Alternatives?  A Systematic Review,” was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine on September 4, 2012.  The researchers concluded, “[t]he published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.  Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria”.

Personally, I find the media reaction amusing and a clear example of the lack of understanding of the principal goals of the green movement.  Conversely, maybe I have it all wrong.  All this time, I believed that a berry was a berry with certain vitamins in it, and the point of being produced organically was to avoid the introduction of pesticides to it in the growing process.  In my mind, the same thing applied to the production of meat for human consumption.  Organically raised meat and poultry does not contain harmful drug-resistant bacteria.  However, these news reports seem to indicate that organic foods were somehow super foods that contain added ingredients that promote good health.

Informed buyers of organic food know that what makes the products better are the substances that are missing from them—pesticides and drug-resistant bacteria.  Also they know that the missing pesticides are not around to run off of the fields to pollute the water supply.  The pesticides are not around to negatively impact the health of the people working in the fields to produce the crops.  Finally, the pesticides are not around to kill the honeybees that pollinate the crops.

After garnering viewers’ attention with their misleading headlines, some of the news reporters mentioned as an aside that the study results did show that organic fruits and vegetables contain about a 30% lower level of pesticides than conventional fruits and vegetables and that the concentration of drug-resistant bacteria in organic poultry and pork is about 60% less than the amount in their conventional counterparts.  To this viewer, that is significant and is a step in the right direction.  Of course organic products cost more, but if organic foods were the rule rather than the exception, the cost differential would narrow.  Also, it is expected that the positive impact of a healthier diet would be realized in reduced illnesses and their accompanying medical costs.

Of note, it was pointed out that organic foods are a great choice for pregnant women.  Well—should we only maintain a healthy diet if we are reproducing, or should we eat healthy foods always?  It seems from the newscasts that the millennial generation understands what is going on because they were reported as the group most likely to eat organic foods.  Obviously, priorities are a matter of choice because compared with many older people, this group is just starting out in the workforce and generally have lower incomes and fewer assets.  Yet they put healthy food high on their priority list.

There is so much information out there on green initiatives.  It is so important that we carefully study the information fed to us and separate fact from fiction.  Let’s think green, educate green, live green, be green.