Vol. 15 No. 2 EarthSave promotes a shift toward a healthy plant-based diet. Spring 2004

INSIDE

EarthSaveEarthSaveNEWS

Non-profitUS Postage

PAIDNo. 114

Tujunga, CA

Type-2 Diabetes: the expectedadaptation to overnutrition

The mostfamous vegetarianthat neverwasP. 5

The Forumof ancientRome: ameat-freezone?P. 10

by John McDougall, M.D.

Sixteen million people in the United States havetype-2 diabetes, which shortens lifespan by up to 15years, leads to almost 300,000 deaths annually, andcosts about $100 billion annually. Since 1980 theincidence has increased by 30%. Born in the year2000, your male child's lifetime risk of developingtype-2 diabetes is nearly 33%, and a female's risk

will be 39% whenfollowing the Westerndiet.1 Worldwide,135 million peoplehave type-2 diabetesand by 2025 the inci-dence is predicted toreach 300 millionpeople worldwide.This form of diabeteswas once referred toas "adult-type dia-betes" because in thepast, type-2 diabeteswas rare in children.However, over the lasttwo decades, there

has been a 10-fold increase in incidence of type-2diabetes in children, because of the rapidly growingnumbers with obesity from an escalating exposureto rich foods, compounded by a lack of exercise.2

The general state of poor health of Westerners,as reflected by diabetes, escalates unchecked for 3important reasons:

1) This growing epidemic of type-2 diabetesand obesity is fueled by huge profits generatedby a food industry super-sizing everything bystuffing their irresistible morsels with fat, sugar,refined flour, and calories.

2) Medical doctors continue to prescriberemedies that have never cured a single case ofdiabetes. Furthermore, the usual "poly-pharma-cology" of medications they rely upon promotesweight gain, heart disease, and hypoglycemia,along with other serious adverse effects. Fromall these expensive medications there is a smallreduction in complications, such as kidney andeye damage, which still fails to offset thetremendous harm done by their efforts.

3) The American Dietetic Association hasremained steadfast in their recommendation of aportion-controlled version of the Western(American) diet - an impossible diet to follow(because of its complex rules and semi-starva-tion nature) - made up of ingredients, like fat,sugars, refined foods, and cholesterol, thatcaused the patients' problems in the first place. In 1927 Dr. E. P. Joslin, founder of the famous

Joslin Diabetic Center in Boston, suspected a high-fat, high-cholesterol diet might favor the develop-ment of diabetes and its major complication, ather-osclerosis.3 He prophetically wrote: "I believe thechief cause of premature atherosclerosis in diabetes,save for advancing age, is an excess of fat, an excessof fat in the body (obesity), an excess of fat in thediet, and an excess of fat in the blood. With anexcess of fat diabetes begins and from an excess offat diabetics die, formerly of coma, recently of ath-erosclerosis." And now, 75 years after Joslin's far-sighted message, diabetes is the fastest growing dis-ease in the world.

Type-2 Diabetes: A Runaway EpidemicCaused by Rich Foods

The cause of this skyrocketing health tragedy iseasily seen by observing everyday people striving

John McDougall, M.D.

DIABETES/PAGE 8

by Brenda Davis, RD

Soy has enjoyed considerablefavourable press over the pastdecade. We have seen reports ofsoy reducing risk of heart disease,cancer, osteoporosis, and reducingsymptoms of menopause. Justwhen soy seemed to be on top ofthe world, arti-cles and web-sites began toappear claimingthat this new-found healthhero was reallya villain in dis-guise. Soy bash-ers said all thehype about soywas really justpropaganda, andthat in truth, soy was not a healthfood, but rather a dangerous sub-stance that should be carefullyavoided by humans. In fact, anti-soy advocates claim that eatingsoy raises risk of cancer, osteo-porosis, thyroid problems, birthdefects, reproductive problems,nutritional deficiencies andAlzheimer's disease. This has leftconsumer wondering if soy is real-ly a saint or a sinner.

First, it is important to under-stand that soy is not somethingnew. The soybean has been usedfor food for centuries, particularlyin the Orient. Traditional forms ofsoy foods included fresh or frozenbeans from the soy pod (called

edamame), soy milk, tofu, and fer-mented foods, such as tempeh,miso and soy sauce. More recentlysoy has become a huge hit inNorth America, with all of the tra-ditional forms of soy widely avail-able in addition to numerous oth-ers, such as soy nuts, soy-basedmeat analogues, soy-based protein

beverages, soychips, soy icecream, soyyogurt, and thelist goes on.These productshave becomestaples formany vegetari-ans and vegans.So, the questionof the safety ofsoy is one that

certainly deserves serious consid-eration.

Soy and Breast Cancer

Claim: Soy increases risk ofbreast cancer.

Among the very first healthclaims made for soy is that it mayreduce incidence of breast cancer.It seemed so obvious when onecompared the very low rates ofbreast cancer in Asian countriesusing large amounts of soy withrates in North American countriesthat used comparatively smallamounts of soy. The risk reduction

We are desperate for help tokeep our family together and lov-ing each other. My grandson hasbeen a vegetarian since he wasabout thirteen. He is now twenty-five and currently lives with us.His continual anger at our eatingmeat causes much unhappiness

and division within our family.We are supportive of his lifestyleand cook veggie food for himwhen we are together, but moreand more he won't join familycelebrations and is highly criticalof the rest of us. Surely vegetari-anism isn’t supposed to be asource of conflict in families. Itis hurting us all badly. What doother families do? How do mostvegetarians feel about this?Certainly he will never convinceanyone to become a vegetarianthrough his angry ways. Pleasegive a concerned granny somedirection. I don't want to lose my

grandson, and I don't knowwhere to turn.

Jo Stepaniak responds:Many vegetarians, especially

teens and young adults, areincensed about the abominablecruelties heaped on animalsraised for food and their rampantand needless deaths. It can bedifficult for these committedyoung people to understand whyfriends and relatives don’t “seethe light,” particularly when thesolution seems so clear, at leastto them. Sometimes those whoare closest to them turn into “theenemy” because they continue toeat meat even after they havebeen presented with myriad validreasons to become vegetarian. Aswith any social cause, vegetari-ans can be self-righteous andmay behave indignantly when

Tension at the table

ASK JO/PAGE 2

Is soy safe?

SOY/PAGE 11

Ask Jo 2

Health News 3

Perspectives 4

Chapter Happenings 7

Food &Politics 9

?

?

?

?

?

ASKASK JOJO STEPANIAKSTEPANIAK

2 Spring 2004 Ask Jo EarthSave News

Jo Stepaniak, MSEd, is anauthor and educator who has beeninvolved with vegetarian- andvegan-related issues for nearlyfour decades. She holds a masterof science degree in education andan undergraduate degree in sociol-ogy and anthropology. Jo is thecoauthor (along with VesantoMelina, MS, RD) of RaisingVegetarian Children, a compre-hensive guide for bringing uphealthy vegetarian children andmaintaining family harmony,author of Compassionate Livingfor Healing, Wholeness &Harmony, an invaluable guide -book for restoring inner and outerpeace and inspiring kinship andharmony with all life, The VeganSourcebook, the definitiveresource for compassionate veganliving, and Being Vegan, a ques-tion-and-answer guide to theessentials of vegan philosophy andethics, with practical, down-to-earth advice on how to incorporate

these principles into everyday life.She also is the author and coauthorof over a dozen additional booksand has been a contributing authorto many other books, pamphlets,national publications, and maga-zines. visit her online atwww.vegsource.com/jo

others disagree with them. Theyalso can feel betrayed by theirloved ones when their family’sactions collude with the veryindustries they vehemently andsteadfastly oppose.

For those whose motivationfor being vegetarian is rooted ina sincere ethic of reverence forlife, the matter presents a senseof urgency. Every plate of meatrepresents an unnecessary, vio-lent death--one that could havebeen prevented had other choicesbeen made by the diner. At thesame time, some young peopleoften forget that their nonvege-tarian friends and family fallunder the same umbrella of lifeas other animals and are equallydeserving of respect and loving-kindness. It’s a delicate balanc-ing act that can be hard for somepeople to negotiate.

An alternate possibility isthat your grandson simply is anangry person, and if he wasn’tangry that the world isn’t vege-tarian, he likely would selectanother target for his resentment.Just because a cause espousescompassion doesn’t mean that allthe supporters of that cause arecompassionate individuals.People are drawn to social caus-es for a variety of reasons, someof which may not necessarilyentail selflessness.

Although you prepare vege-tarian meals for your grandson, itsounds as though he will not besatisfied until the entire family iseating vegetarian meals alongwith him. One of the joys of din-ing with other people is sharingthe same dishes. Perhaps youcould begin bridging the gulf bymaking vegetarian meals thewhole family could enjoy on thenights he has dinner at home.Making an effort to meet himhalfway--not by merely servinghim vegetarian foods but byshowing a willingness to sitdown and dig your fork intothem, too--will demonstrate thatyou not only want to complywith his wishes but that you alsosupport him.

Having a totally plant-basedmeal now and then, and even forcelebrations, is not such a bigsacrifice, especially when youcan cook meat at any other timeyou like. In fact, it’s a healthfulchoice that could expand thefamily’s dining repertoire. Eatingvegetarian meals is not a com-promise of a meat-eater’s ethics.On the other hand, to vegetari-ans, having family members orother loved ones eating meat intheir presence can feel like anaffront to their most deeply heldbeliefs.

Participating in vegetarianmeals together will enable yourgrandson to feel included in the

family, rather than being treatedlike an outsider. Instead of offer-ing lip service or providingsomething “special,” sharing thesame dishes would be a tangibledemonstration of your concernand support.

The answer seems to lie inyour (and the other family mem-bers’) willingness to compro-mise about the food that isserved when your grandson ishome for meals. It is essentialthat you talk with your grandsonopenly about your concerns andfeelings. While you may notwish to become a vegetarian, it iscritical that you weigh the con-cessions you are prepared tomake in order to salvage the rela-tionship and demonstrate yourrespect for and ability to honoryour grandson’s decision. At thesame time, you must ask himwhat you can do (short ofbecoming a vegetarian yourself)to make him more comfortable atmealtimes and restore your bond.He needs to know how you arefeeling in specific words andthrough direct conversation,rather than a show of exaspera-tion. You will feel a sense ofrelief by communicating insteadof keeping your emotions aboutthis bottled up. You both need toestablish your limitations as wellas expand your boundaries witheach other. A little bit of “give”can go a very long way.

Ask Jo StepaniakDo you have questions about being vegegetarian or vegan?Send them to us at AskJo@earthsave.org and we’ll forwardthem to bestselling author, Jo Stepaniak. Jo can address indi-vidual concerns as well as general inquiries about veganethics, vegetarian philosophy, practical applications, and liv-ing compassionately.

Joanne Stepaniak, MSEd

Dear Jo: An acquain-tance of mine recently found outthat my boyfriend and I are vege-tarians, and, of course, was curiousto know why. He said that hehoped it wasn’t to “save the cows”because it won’t work -- one per-son not eating animal productsisn't going to change anything. Iexplained to him that I wasn’t theonly one and that there are quite afew vegetarians around the world.He still insisted that it wouldn’twork because our food habits areso ingrained into our society andthat people are basically addictedto animal products. I told him thatthere have been many examples inthe past where something that wasonce an integral part of a societywas abolished because we eventu-ally concluded that it was wrong.He claimed that this was differentand that our society is not going tochange the way it eats.

I'm going to be a vegetarian nomatter what. I don’t want to sup-port this part of society even if it isgoing to be around forever, butperhaps more people would bewilling to try it if they actuallythought it would do some good.Can vegetarianism alone bringabout large-scale change in today’sworld?

Jo responds: Thereare countless choices we makeevery day of our lives that arebased on the simple reason that we

believe them to be the right choic-es for us. We don’t necessarilyhave to believe that the outcome ofour decisions will be earth-shatter-ing or momentous. In fact, in mostinstances, the end results are fairlyinconsequential. Even if someonepoints out that our behavior is notgoing to have an impact on anyoneelse, chances are we will continueto make the same choices regard-less.

For instance, as a society, webelieve that stealing is unethical.Most individuals in our societybelieve this as well, so the majori-ty of people do not steal. Becauseof this belief, we teach our chil-dren not to steal and we punishthem if they do. There are materialbenefits that thieves derive fromtheir actions, so they may continueto steal in spite of the harsh conse-quences they could face if they getcaught. Nevertheless, few of uswould say we do not steal merelybecause it is a crime and we areafraid we will get in trouble.

We don’t expect people to con-gratulate us for not stealing. Wealso do not say that we hope ournon-stealing will encourage othersnot to steal. On the contrary, wegenerally say we do not stealbecause we think it is wrong. Eventhough we may be surrounded bytempting items, we typically don’teven entertain the idea of stealingthem. This is because the ethic ofnon-stealing is an essential threadin the moral fabric of our cultureand us as individuals.

For those who do not eat ani-mals because we believe it iswrong, the inability to convincethe masses of our belief would bea sorry excuse for abandoning it.We do not give up on other moralimperatives, such as stealing, sim-ply because there will always bethieves. Why should vegetarianismbe any different? It would be thesame as saying, “If I can’t stop allthe evils of the world, I may aswell give up and engage in themmyself.” Doing what you feel isright through practicing an ethic ofcompassion should not be contin-gent on a particular outcome. Theworld will follow when it is ready.A life based on truth, love, andcaring will always bring about afuture filled with more of thesewonderful qualities, even if wedon’t live long enough to see ithappen.

Certainly, being a healthy,thriving example of vegetarianismcould potentially influence thosearound us without any attempt atpersuasion or even uttering a wordabout it. When enough people areopen to the idea of vegetarianism,it will take hold. In the meantime,all we can do is take care to heedour conscience. By doing so, weare planting seeds for the future.But, more importantly, we are lis-tening to our hearts right now. Alife well lived doesn’t need to con-cern itself with its legacy. Theright means will always bringabout the right ends.

Will Vegetarianism Make ADifference?

Dear Jo: I am keenlyaware of your views on compas-sion for all living things -- evenhumans who think it is acceptableto eat meat, or humans who thinkthey were put on this earth to dom-inate animals and eat their flesh, orhumans who use animals for enter-tainment, or humans who thinkthat war is necessary or that hunt-ing is valuable. I find myselfunable to reach such levels ofempathy. I am not even charitableenough to excuse them simplybecause they do not know howanimals suffer for trivial humanpurposes. How do you find it inyour heart to be open to such peo-ple? Why do you allow them suchlatitude?

Jo responds: Thefundamental, underlying tenet ofvegan philosophy is "reverence forlife." This principle does not con-fine "reverence" to those withwhom we agree or identify, nordoes it restrict it to those for whomwe feel empathy. It also does notlimit reverence to specific lifeforms. Although this straightfor-ward precept is all-encompassing,do not be fooled by its simplicity.The phrase "reverence for life" issuccinct and melodious, butputting it into practice is morecomplex than may first appear.

When people regard theirviewpoints as the sole proper andmoral ones, they become criticalof and combative toward thosewho do not see eye to eye withthem. Self-righteousness snow-balls. It makes us hardhearted andobstinate, and it sabotages anyattempt to sway others to our posi-tion. It is naive to assume ourviews will be respected when weare unwilling to hear and respectopposing perspectives.

Acknowledging opinions thatare at odds with our own does notindicate approval of them. It mere-ly signifies that we are willing togrant our opposition the samedegree of respect we would like toreceive. Among the most demand-ing hurdles for contemporaryhumans is learning tolerance,understanding, and humility.Knowing how and when to apolo-gize and admit our shortcomingsand mistakes is paramount if weare ever to advance as a species.

It is convenient to blame thesorry state of the world on every-one who disagrees with us, whiledenying our own contributions.When we convey an attitude ofmoral superiority, we add to the

pool of cynicism and contemptthat marginalizes rather thanunites.

As activists, we must considerwhat it is we want to accomplishand how to best attain these goals.Hostility and hatred breed hostilityand hatred. Therefore, it is sense-less to perpetuate this type of neg-ativity if our true aim is peace andcompassion. Turning opponentsinto objects of antipathy will notpersuade them we are right ordraw them to our side.

Compassion is not the exclu-sive domain of vegans. There areomnivores who are among themost kind and caring people onearth, and there are vegans whoare selfish and self-absorbed. If weprofess to be compassionate butshare our compassion selectively,we in effect are identical to thosewe condemn. We cannot have itboth ways. Mahatma Gandhi said:"Be the change you wish to see inthe world." If we are not charitabletoward all life, we have no justifi-cation to petition the sympathyand support of others. If we do notexemplify the ideals we claim toembrace, our appeals will be hol-low and insincere.

The point of veganism is toepitomize compassion, not toprove ourselves correct. When weare judgmental, we may feel amomentary rush of righteousness,but at what cost? Getting to know,empathize with, and even befriendthose whose opinions clash withour own helps foster the peacefuland caring world we envision.Through tolerance we buildbridges rather than burn them. Bydeveloping an appreciation of theopposition, we learn what isimportant to them and can recog-nize the values and hopes weshare. Establishing commonground and encouraging mutualrespect leads to greater under-standing and a willingness to hearwhat each has to say. We have farmore in common with our adver-saries than differences. Ourhumanity alone is an inseparablebond of reciprocal emotions andexperiences.

Putting our compassion to thetest can be painful and frightening,which is perhaps why so few peo-ple have the courage to do it. Atthe same time, it is heartening andliberating to cease seeing peoplewith divergent views as "theenemy." When we recognize theseamless aspects of life, we canstop hating and start loving. Onlywhen our hearts open fully will theideals of veganism take hold.

Compassion for all?

Ask Jo/FROM PAGE 1

EarthSave News Health News Spring 2004 3

Dr. Greger’s health updatesFlax Seeds and the Stress Response

A study was just published in the Journalof the American College of Nutrition on theeffects of flax seed consumption on cardio-vascular responses to mental and psycholog-ical stress.[JACN 22(6):494] How your bodyreacts to stress--like how much your bloodpressure goes up when you're anxious--is animportant predictor of heart disease risk. SoCanadian researchers had people sprinkle 3tablespoons of ground flax seed onto what-ever they were eating every day for a fewmonths. Then the researchersexposed the research subjects toa variety of stressors and mea-sured their stress response. Andthose eating flax had significant-ly healthier physiological reac-tions to stressful conditions.Their blood pressure, for exam-ple, stayed much more stable.

The researchers attribute theheart healthy attributes of flaxnot only to their omega 3 con-tent, but their unique concentra-tion of these anti-tumor antioxi-dant phytoestrogens called lig-nans. So, if anyone's stressedthat they've been feeding theirfamily toxic fish, switching over to flaxmight help in more ways than one.

Greens May Prevent Colon CancerJapanese researchers recently investigat-

ed the relation between the consumption ofvegetables and gastrointestinal cancers in amulticenter, hospital-based case controlstudy.[Nutrition and Cancer 46(2):138] Theyfound that cruciferous vegetables, and broc-coli in particular, to be associated with sig-nificantly reduced risk of cancers of thedigestive tract, especially colon cancer.People eating broccoli three or more times aweek seemed to cut their risk of certain can-cers almost 95%! Stated another way, thismeans that compared to people who regular-ly ate broccoli, those that rarely ate it seemedto be ten times more likely to develop certaintypes of cancer.

Scientists suspect that the powerful anti-cancer properties of the cruciferous veg-etable family (which also contains brusselsprouts, kale, collards, mustard and beet

greens) may lie in a unique class of com-pounds called glucosinolates that greatlyenhance your own body's ability to detoxifycarcinogens. Because we've so polluted ourenvironment, even vegans can't escape expo-sure to a wide array of carcinogens. By eat-ing greens every day we can boost our liver'sability to neutralize these toxins and reduceour risk of developing cancer.

In this election season, vote for thegreens party...!

Poop Happens - fre-quently!

With a title like"Nutrition and Lifestyle inRelation to BowelMovement Frequency," Iknew it just had to begood.[20] In the biggeststudy of it's kind ever,British researchers com-pared the reported bowelhabits of about 15,000meateaters to 5000 vegetari-ans and about 1000 vegans.

The study was pepperedwith memorable quotes like"That non meat-eaters have

a higher frequency of defecation is well doc-umented" and "Our finding of a very cleartrend towards an increasing number of bowelmovements with a more rigorous degree ofvegetarianism could be a field for furtherinvestigation."

Constipation is the most common gas-trointestinal complaint in the United States,leading to millions of doctor visits everyyear. Constipation can increase one's risk fora hiatal hernia, varicose veins, hemorrhoids,and painful conditions with names like "analfissure."

The researchers conclude "Being vege-tarian and especially vegan is strongly asso-ciated with a higher frequency of bowelmovements." Vegans, for example, werethree times more likely to have daily BMs.

It's like we've always said: vegans are justregular people!

Visit Dr. Greger on the web athttp://www.VeganMD.org

Michael Greger M.D.

reduced risk for AMD (P for trend = .001).@2.For an excellent 65 slide description of

ARMD go to:http://www.eyesight.org/Pictorials/PicSlide_Show/pic slide_show.html

3. Goodwin and Mercer. Introduction toPlant Biochemistry. Pergamon Press. Oxford,1983. p99

(for the subtle differences in carotenoidmolecular structures).

Is Macular Degeneration a Dietary Deficiency Disease?By William Harris, M.D.

The incidence of Age Related MacularDegeneration (ARMD) appears to have goneup over the past fifty years. It's not clearwhether there has been an absolute increaseor whether it's just because the US popula-tion is growing older, but ARMD was not acommon problem when I was in training 40years ago, and my General Ophthalmologytext from 1983 barely mentions it.

The choroidal neovascular "wet" form ofthe disease (CNV) is responsible for ~90%of the severe loss of vision in ARMD. It iscaused by a growth of abnormal blood ves-sels under the macula (central part of theretina). These vessels leak fluid, lift the mac-ula off its Bruch=s membrane, and causescar tissue that attacks central vision over aperiod that can range from a few months tothree years. It is now the leading cause ofblindness in the United States with 200,000new cases in the United States each year,usually people in their mid 70s.

Most of the research money seemsdirected toward drugs, genetics, laser treat-ment, retinal transplants, and possibleautoimmune factors. However, numerousjournal articles point to the role of nutrientsin preventing the disease in the first place.Vitamin E appears to be concentrated in thenormal macula and reduced in the abnormal.Beta-carotene (BC) not only splits to formretinal, a part of rhodopsin, the light detect-ing trigger of the eye, but has antioxidantproperties as well. Vitamin C may also be aprotective antioxidant while lutein and zeax-anthin, barely distinguishable from BC,become photo-protective elements in the

Retinal Pigment Epithelium (RPE) in theback of the retina.

To the right is a list of the USDA SR-13top scorers for lutein & zeaxanthin (L&Z).Most of these are also good vitamin C, E,and BC sources but with the exception ofwheat germ (vitamin E) no grain producthad any at all. The first animal food, egg,came in # 50 with 55 mcg/100gm.

According to the National 5-A-DayCommittee, only 36% of the U.S. public isaware they should be consuming the recom-mended 5 servings of fruits and vegetablesdaily. USDA figures show that the actualfood consumption of the American publiclooks more like the food pyramid turnedupside down with ~ 66% of Calories comingfrom animal foods and grains, and only 34%from vegetables and fruit. U.S. and worldagriculture has always been heavily based ongrains, either consumed directly, or fed toanimals that are then consumed, but neithergrains nor any animal food contain morethan a trace of vitamins C, E, BC, lutein, orzeaxanthan. Perhaps this is the real reasonthat AMD is on the rise.

References:1. Dietary carotenoids, vitamins A, C, and E, and

advanced age related macular degeneration. EyeDisease Case Control Study Group. JAMA Nov 91994, 272 (18) p1413 20, ISSN 0098 7484

Seddon JM; Ajani UA; Sperduto RD; et al.A.. Adjusting for other risk factors for AMD, we

found that those in the highest quintile of carotenoidintake had a 43% lower risk for AMD compared withthose in the lowest quintile (odds ratio, 0.57; 95% con-fidence interval, 0.35 to 0.92; P for trend = .02).Among the specific carotenoids, lutein and zeaxan-thin, which are primarily obtained from dark green,leafy vegetables, were most strongly associated with a

4 Spring 2004 Perspectives EarthSave News

2003 ended with a bang when mad cow disease was discovered inWashington state. This Winter issue of EarthSave News we present anumber of interesting perspectives on the subject, including an articlefrom Michael Greger, MD looking at a controversy now gainingincreasing attention -- whether a US version of mad cow disease hasalready been here for years, perhaps killing thousands annually (seepage 5).

EarthSave’s prescient Test Cows Now initiative has taken someimportant steps forward. In April of last year, John Robbins present-ed Presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) with thousands ofsignatures collected by EarthSave from people demanding more madcow testing. Rep. Kucinich has responded with a promise (along withRep. George Miller (D-CA)) to introduce legislation which wouldmandate increased testing for mad cow (see page 5).

You might ask, why is an organization which promotes a shift awayfrom a meat-based diet and toward plant-based eating interested intesting cattle for mad cow? Because if there is widespread mad cowin the US herd -- as many experts believe -- this is a fact consumershave a right to know so that they can make informed choices abouttheir diets. And making diet choices based on accurate and honestinformation is what EarthSave promotes.

The past Fall also saw a celebration of the 15th anniversary of thepublication of Diet for a New America. This is, of course, the seminalwork that brought EarthSave International into existence. Its author -- our founder, John Robbins --continues to inspire people tolive healthier, saner and morecompassionate lives. He and hiswork were honored in Octoberat an event at Roxanne's, a fab-ulous gourmet raw foods restau-rant in Larkspur, CA (see pages6 and 7).

We have been heartened bythe outpouring of positive com-ments in response to last issue'sarticle on restructuringEarthSave, and have selected afew to print in the Letters sec-tion, below. Thanks so much foryour support in this transition. And please consider using the form atthe bottom of page 12 to make a donation to help EarthSave continueour critical work. Our planet and our health are depending on it.

Yours for a happy, healthy and well-informed New Year,John D. Borders, Jr., JDCHAIR, EARTHSAVE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

A word from the Chair

Think About It...

John Borders and family.

Happy New World

Night to rememberWhat a joy it was to read the

spectacular remarks of Jeff Nelson[“An Evening Honoring JohnRobbins”] in the Winter 2004EarthSave News! For me it wasthe highlight of the issue.

It is interesting how differentpeople view “normalicy.” It ishard to fathom how some peopleconsider it “normal” to participatein and help perpetuate mass mur-der, slow suicide, and environmen-tal rape. Thank you for the power-ful writing.

Karen MarcusPalm Desert, CA

Most common problem for which people go to doctors in the U.S.: High blood pressureIdeal blood pressure (without medication): 110/70 or less

Average blood pressure of vegetarians: 112/69Average blood pressure of non-vegetarians: 121/77

Incidence of high blood pressure in meat eaters compared to vegetarians: Nearly triplePatients with high blood pressure who achieve substantial improvement after switching to a vegetarian diet: 30%-70%

Incidence of high blood pressure among senior citizens in the U.S.: More than 50%Incidence of high blood pressure among senior citizens in countries eating traditional, low-fat plant-based diets: Virtually none

Read John Robbins’ The Food Revolution for these and many other important facts about the impact of diet choices onthe environment, our health, and all life on earth.

Letters

Annual medical costs in the United States directly attributable to smoking: $65 billionAnnual medical costs in the United States directly attributable to meat consumption: $60-120 billion

Most common cause of cancer mortality worldwide: lung cancerNumber of lives lost in the U.S. to lung cancer annually: 150,000

Impact on risk of lung cancer for people who frequently eat green, orange and yellow vegetables: 20%-60% reductionImpact on risk of lung cancer among people who consume a lot of apples, bananas and grapes: 40% reduction

NEWSEarthSaveEarthSave CARYN HARTGLASS

SECRETARY

MARK EPSTEIN

TREASURER

JULES OAKLANDER, D.O.ANIL SUBRAMANISANDY LAURIE

Legal AdvisorMORGAN WARD

STITES &HARBISON • LOUISVILLE, KY

Executive DirectorCARYN HARTGLASS

Newsletter ContributorsDAN BALOGH,JOHN D.BORDERS,JR.,J.D., JOEL

FUHRMAN MD, MICHAEL GREGER MD, JEFFREYMASSON, JOHN MCDOUGALL MD, JEFF

NELSON, S ABRINA NELSON, J OHN STAUBER.

Editorial BoardJOHN BORDERS, JEFF AND SABRINA NELSON,

CYNTHIA VOTH

Graphic Design & ProductionGREG LEMIRE

MOVING? Please make sure theaddress on your mailing label iscurrent. Please contact us with

updates.

MEMBERSHIP DATEPlease check your membershipdate on your address label -- it

may be time to renew! EarthSaveMagazine is published quarterly by

EarthSave InternationalPO Box 96

New York, NY 10108Tel: 800-362-3648Fax: 718-228-2491

information@earthsave.org

More than 35 chapters andbranches -see page 12

EarthSave News is distributed as amembership benefit to EarthSavemembers. Basic annual member -

ship in is $35 (tax-deductible).

COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONSWe welcome your feedback and

ideas. Please write or email us.

Contributors The deadline for articles, letters andphotos for the next issue is June 30,2004, for consideration in the next

issue. Fax, mail, or e-mail submissionsto the Editor at the office, or to

information@earthsave.org.

The editor reserves the right toreject or edit all submissions.

Opinions expressed by contributorsare not necessarily those of

EarthSave International.

EarthSave educates, inspires andempowers people to shift toward adiet centered on fruits, vegetables,grains and legumes -- food choicesthat are healthy for people and for

the planet. Our influence andeffectiveness is dependent uponour members, donors, and bene-

factors.

©2004 EarthSave International

Image copyrights held by theartists.

Our MissionEarthSave educates people

about the powerful effects ourfood choices have on the

environment, our health and alllife on Earth, and encourages a

shift toward a healthy,plant-based diet.

JOHN ROBBINSFOUNDER, BOARD CHAIR EMERITUS

Board of Directors

JOHN D. BORDERS, JR., J.D.CHAIR

JEFF NELSONVICE-CHAIR

Serious about saving therainforest? Stop eating it

Booming Brazilian beefexports could be the main cul-prit behind a sharp rise in defor-estation of the Amazon jungleas cattle farmers cut deeper intothe forests, a leading researchinstitute reported in March.

The report, "Hamburgerconnection Fuels AmazonDestruction," by the Indonesia-based Center for InternationalForestry Research was releasedas environmentalists fearedthe latest Amazon destruc-tion rates could be thehighest ever.

The deforestationrate in the world'slargest jungle jumped40 percent in the 12months to the middleof 2002 and theauthors of the reportalong with other envi-ronmentalists are brac-ing for figures for thesubsequent year whichcould be yet higher. Thelatest data should be released incoming weeks.

At around 9,840 squaremiles, the deforestation figurefor 2001/2002 was the secondhighest on record and represent-ed an area slightly smaller thanHaiti.

David Kaimowitz, director-general of the center, said thereport showed this surge wasbeing fueled by a steep rise incattle farming in the Amazon,helped by Brazilian beefexports and the eradication offoot-and-mouth disease in theAmazon.

While environmentalistshave feared that the spread ofsoybeans in the Amazon posed

the greatest threat, the reportshowed that the amount ofdeforested land dedicated tocattle pasture is six times aslarge as land with cultivatedcrops.

Brazil has the world's largestcommercial cattle herd.

"In a nutshell, cattle ranch-ers are making mincemeat outof Brazil's

Amazon rainforests," saidKaimowitz. "This is the threatthat in the long-term is over-whelmingly the most danger-ous."

"LUNGS OF THE WORLD"The Amazon, an area of con-

tinuous tropical forest justunder half the size of the conti-nental United States, has beendescribed as the "lungs of theworld" because of its vastcapacity to produce oxygen.Environmentalists also fear itsdestruction as it is home to up to30 percent of the planet's animaland plant species.

The report showed that

Brazil's cattle herd doubled inthe last decade to 175 millionhead in 2002 and that theAmazon accounted for 80 per-cent of that rise, with 57 millioncows.

Meanwhile, Brazil's beefexports soared to a record $1.5billion last year, three times asmuch as in 1995, and the coun-try is expected to become theworld's top beef exporter this

year. Exports are mainlyhigh quality beef from

Brazil's south, but aslarge parts of theAmazon were declaredfoot-and-mouth freein recent years,Amazon cattle hasincreasingly steppedin to feed domestic

beef demand."Brazil's success in

combating foot-and-mouth disease may be

good news for the cows,but it is bad news for the

forest," said Kaimowitz.Kaimowitz said the fact that

Amazon beef is not exportedmakes no difference because itis filling the gap created by ris-ing exports in the domestic mar-ket.

The report recommendedurgent action to stop land-grab-bing by large-scale cattle farm-ers, who have been drawn to theAmazon because of the risingprices for the region's cattle, andfor the government to rethinkroad projects in the Amazon.

"Our concern is that is thatnext year and after that defor-estation could mushroom," saidKaimowitz.

EarthSave News Book Reviews Spring 2004 5

Reviewed by Dan Balogh

Jeff Masson must be getting grief from all sides.After Masson co-wrote his best-selling "WhenElephants Weep: The Emotional Lives of Animals,"circus enthusiasts, hunters, and all those who make aliving or derive pleasure from animals in confine-ment, must have been up in arms, resentful of theguilt pangs Masson was helping bring to the surface.The release of "The Emperor's Embrace: Reflectionson Animal Families and Fatherhood" must have addedto that.

One could assume, however, that his books ondogs ("Dogs Never Lie About Love: The EmotionalWorld of Dogs") and cats ("The Nine EmotionalLives of Cats: A Journey Into the Feline Heart") weremuch more palatable to most people. After all, welove our pets like family members - so we know theyhave feelings, right? That's a no-brainer.

But after lulling his audience into a false sense ofsecurity, Masson is back with what might turn out tobe his most cathartic book yet -"The Pig Who Sang to the Moon:The Emotional World of FarmAnimals." Why so cathartic?Because this one hits the reader onthe gut level (literally). It deals notwith the animals we glimpse in cir-cuses or zoos, or the animals thatsleep in our laps. Far from it. Thisbook deals with the emotional livesof animals we know much moreintimately - the ones we kill, thenput into our mouths, chomp on, andswallow.

Basically, all animals (includingus) have evolved in a given naturalenvironment over millions of yearsto the point where we developedvery specific instinctual behaviorsthat helped our species survive.Masson spends lots of time describ-ing, in obvious loving detail, manyof those behaviors, including the incredible lovemothers have for their children, no matter what thespecies. Performing these behaviors makes us all feelgood, which indicates to us that we're on the righttrack (furthermore, when something doesn't feelgood, we know we're off track). The problem is,today's farm animals live in completely pervertedenvironments than those in which they evolved. Andbecause of this, they are routinely denied the oppor-tunity to exercise those urges (like chickens unable totake dust baths, or cows unable to nurse their young).Consequently, they are denied the pleasure and hap-piness that accompany those behaviors. And this con-tinues throughout their entire lives.

Why haven't farm animals adapted to domestica-tion? Because, according to Masson, evolutionarychanges in animals occur on the order of hundreds ofthousands of years. But their environment, throughdomestication on farms, has changed much moreswiftly - on the order of only thousands of years.Evolution simply hasn't had time to catch up. Pigs,cows and chickens in the year 200,000 A.D. (!) mightbe adjusted to current conditions, but until then theseanimals continue to suffer, their evolutionary needscontinually ignored simply for our gustatory pleasure.And while the worst offenders are the factory farms,any animal kept outside its natural environment issubject to the same problems.

The final irony is that even those animals who areallowed a life as natural as possible on the moreenlightened farms, are killed much sooner than theywould have died naturally - simply because we likehow they taste. As Masson says, it's disingenuous toclaim that these animals were well cared for when weall know the ultimate goal is their exploitation (no onewould bother otherwise). Imagine the same argumentbeing used for our beloved cat or dog - "Well, yeah, Idid end up killing Snuggles 12 years before she wouldhave died in order to make this cat stew, but at least I

allowed her a very good 1-year life." I don't think so.So why the difference in the way we think of cats

versus pigs? Are cats smarter? Not at all. And even ifthey were, is intelligence the standard by which wechoose to eat or not to eat? Do we eat only dumb ani-mals?

Masson ponders these questions and many morein the 250 pages of this powerful book. Each animal(pig, chicken, cow, goat/sheep, duck) is given its ownchapter where facts, history and anecdotes are power-fully balanced. For instance, we learn the followingabout pigs: they're cleaner than dogs and easier tohousetrain, of all animals their flesh is most like ours(something to think about when we bite into our nextham sandwich), they are incredibly friendly and willcuriously follow us all day. But how does Massondescribe a pig on a factory farm? "The pig's life hasbeen distorted, perverted, deformed, contortedbeyond recognition. They are not allowed to live anypart of their lives in the natural world outside. Theynever see the sun." And, unfortunately, the assessment

is basically the same for the otheranimals whose emotional lives areexplored so poignantly in this book -all sentient beings who have wonder-ful characteristics all their own,many identical to ours, like the lovewe have for our children. The discus -sion, at times, can be brutal becausethe truth can be that way, butMasson, who is optimistic about cur-rent trends toward animals, does asuperb job of balancing the goodwith the bad.Some of this material has been cov-ered elsewhere. For instance, KarenDavis's superb "Poisoned ChickensPoisoned Eggs: An Inside Look atthe Modern Poultry Industry" willteach you more about the extraordi-nary life of chickens (and the crueltyinflicted upon them) than this book.But Masson's book might be the only

one available that provides a comprehensive view ofall farm animals. In fact, the reason Masson wrote thebook was his impatience with being sent to the chil-dren's section whenever he asked a bookstoreemployee where he could find books on farm ani-mals!

It's easy to remain despondent when one consid-ers the fact that 10 billion animals (not counting fishor other aquatic creatures) are killed for human con-sumption in just the United States every year - espe-cially when it's been clear for hundreds of years thatwe don't need to eat animals to survive (vegetariansand vegans have lived long healthy lives throughoutrecorded history). And mounting evidence shows thatvegans live longer and healthier than others (just don'texpect the cow, pig, chicken and dairy industries toagree). As Gandhi said - first they ignore you, thenthey laugh at you, then they fight with you, then youwin. Currently, almost no one is ignoring the fact thatanimals have emotions. Most folks are no longerlaughing. Many folks are fighting over it, with somebattles being won and some being lost. Clearly, how-ever, the cycle is closer to the end than the beginning.Surely there's room for optimism, and Masson showshis own by closing the book with many ways the read-er can help the plight of farm animals - beyondbecoming a vegetarian or a vegan.

At one point, Masson quotes W. H. Hudson,author of the celebrated "Green Mansions" and one ofthe world's great writers on birds. Hudson tells thestory of another lover of birds who left behind thebustle of English society to settle down on the drearyeastern coast of England because "it was the only spotin England in which, sitting in his own room, he couldlisten to the cry of the pink-footed goose." SaidHudson in response to hearing this, "Only those whohave lost their souls will fail to understand." Thesame can be said of the lessons Masson teaches us inthis book.

The Pig Who Sang to the Moon:The Emotional World of Farm Animalsby Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson

Reviewed by Dan Balogh

When DC-area serial snipersuspects John Muhammad andLee Malvo were arrested back in2002, news sources reported thatMuhammad was, among otherthings, a vegetarian. One non-veg-etarian friend playfully teased me,asking how it felt to have a serialkiller in my "club." I asked himhow it felt to have every other ser-ial killer that ever lived, in his club.We both laughed and moved on tomore important things. But I stillwondered why the dietary prefer-ence of Muhammad was importantenough to make the news. Is itbecause vegetarians are stillviewed with suspicion, like mem-bers of secret societies where,between meals, we flay ourselveswith bambooshoots and thensubmerge our-selves in tanks ofice water to purifyour bodies whileplotting our nextsniper attack? Oris something elseat work here?

It's not just thedietary habits ofserial snipers thatmake the news.History seemsintent on remind-ing us that one ofthe world's great-est criminals wasalso a vegetarian -some even allegethat he was a rawfoodist. Or was he? HistorianRynn Berry, historical advisor tothe North American VegetarianSociety and author of severalbooks on vegetarianism, examinesthe historical accuracy of AdolphHitler's vegetarianism in his newbook "Hitler: Neither VegetarianNor Animal Lover."

The conclusion is right there inthe title itself, so it's no surprisethat Berry presents evidence,mostly by quoting at length fromsecondary sources, that demon-strates beyond a doubt that Hitlerwas neither a vegetarian nor ananimal lover - not even close. Oneof the problems is how loosely theword "vegetarian" has been inter-preted by writers throughout histo-ry. After all, is a lacto-ovo-pesco-pollo-bovine-porcine vegetarianone who eats eggs and dairy, andoccasionally fish, sometimeschicken, sometimes beef, andsometimes pork? The word losesall meaning when accompanied byso many qualifications.

Does it really matter, though,whether the world erroneouslythinks Hitler was a vegetarian?

Perhaps an equally importantquestion is why the association isbeing made with such relish (bynon-vegetarians, of course) in thefirst place. Martin Rowe, foundingpublisher of Lantern Books,explores this question in thebook's introduction, which is itselfa third of the book's length. Oftenthe Hitler vegetarian claim is animplication, via guilt throughassociation, that vegetarian com-passion doesn't guarantee anything- after all, the murderer of twelvemillion people was a vegetarian,so vegetarians should get off theirhigh horses! After Rowe explainswhy it's important to attack theerroneous claim, Berry proceedsto do so.

It's a quick, but eye-opening,read. In under fifty pages Berry,

with laser beamfocus, paints avery unattrac-tive picture ofan insecure manwho was cursedwith healthp r o b l e m sthroughout hislife, was proba-bly a closeth o m o s e x u a lwho did every-thing in hispower to hide it(read the book ifyou're wonder-ing what thishas to do withvegetarianism),and who mighthave occasion-

ally gone on vegetarian binges sothat his chronic excessive flatu-lence was less noxious. It bogglesthe mind, reading the passages thatBerry has expertly isolated fromso many disparate sources, thatHitler was able to reach such aposition of power. The book isactually an expansion of an earliermonograph of Berry's entitled"Why Hitler Was Not aVegetarian" (1994) which was thecover story of the first issue ofRowe's "Satya" magazine. Thismay explain some of its repetition(for example, an entertainingquote from chef Dione Lucasdescribing Hitler's favorite dish,stuffed squab, appears word-for-word in two separate chapters).

Will this book put to rest themyth that Hitler was a vegetarian?I doubt it. As long as vegetariansand meat eaters spar, Hitler's veg-etarianism will be a favorite topicof contention, facts notwithstand-ing. But now vegetarians can citethis book next time they are goad-ed into another thankless debateon this topic.

Hitler: Goose Stepperand Goose EaterA review of Rynn Berry’s Hiltler: NeitherVegetarian Nor Animal Lover

Book reviewer Dan Balogh is a frequent contrib-utor to EarthSave News and a member ofEarthSave® New York City. He works as a systemsengineer in the telecommunications industry.

Dear Dr. Harris:I am 45 years old, 5’ 5” and

weigh 130. It seems that eachauthor I read claims that accord-ing to "research", his or her dietis the best approach.

I have read so many books ondiet and nutrition -- especiallybooks by cardiologists. Among

them are books by Drs. RobertSuperko, Lance Gould, JohnP.Cooke, Stephen Sinatra,William Castelli, et al.

Each of the above prescribesdiets which include some animalfoods and some include wholeeggs and olive oil.

While respecting your work

and others who advocate veganapproaches, I am totally con-fused.

Each of the above doctorsseems quite convincing. Whatdoes one do? I would appreciateyour comments.

Dr. Harris Responds:According to the figures you

provided, your body mass indexis 21.7 (normal is between 18.4

and 25) so you're OK in thatdepartment.

I agree it is very confusingwith all the books out there, andyou haven't even mentionedRobert Atkins, John McDougall, and Dean Ornish.

With the exception ofCastelli I haven't even heard ofthe ones you mention.

Schlock diet books are adime a dozen, so in making your

decision look first for programstouting magic money makingsupplements and expensive sem-inar programs -- and cross themoff your list.

The best dietary advice is toosimple for profit. The primedeterminants of health are regu-lar exercise and a whole food,preferably largely raw, vegandiet.

William Harris, M.D.

Best diet for health?

6 Spring 2004 Ask John EarthSave News

Ask John RobbinsEarthSave Founder, bestselling author &humanitarian

John Robbins is the founderand Board Chair Emeritus ofEarthSave International. He isthe author of The FoodRevolution -- How Your DietCan Help Save Your Life andOur World.

He is also author of the inter-national bestseller Diet for aNew America -- How Your FoodChoices Affect Your Health,Happiness, and the Future ofLife on Earth, The AwakenedHeart -- Meditations on FindingHarmony in a Changing World,and the widely acclaimedReclaiming Our Health --Exploding the Medical Myth andEmbracing the Source of TrueHealing.

The only son of the founder ofthe Baskin-Robbins ice creamempire, John Robbins wasgroomed to follow in his father'sfootsteps, but chose to walkaway from Baskin-Robbins andthe immense wealth it represent-ed to "...pursue the deeper

American Dream...the dream ofa society at peace with its con-science because it respects andlives in harmony with all lifeforms. A dream of a society thatis truly healthy, practicing a wiseand compassionate stewardshipof a balanced ecosystem."Submit your questions or mes-sages to John on his website:www.FoodRevolution.org

John Robbins

Isn't the uncertain, undocumented potential riskof GM foods preferable to the very certain andimminent danger of starvation of millions of theworld's people? How can you and other over-zeal-ous environmentalists stand in the way of the hun-gry being fed?

John Robbins responds:You are not alone in hoping that genetically

modified (GM) foods might bring solutions tomalnutrition and world hunger.

These hopes were never more dramaticallyillustrated than in 2000, when Time magazine ran acover story titled "Grains of Hope." The articlejoyfully announced the development of a geneti-cally engineered "golden rice." This new strain ofGM rice has had genes from viruses and daffodilsspliced into its genetic instruc-tions. The result is a form ofrice that is a golden-yellowcolor (much like daffodil flow-ers), and that produces beta-carotene, which the humanbody normally converts intovitamin A.

Nearly a million childrendie every year because they areweakened by vitamin A defi-ciencies, and an additional350,000 go blind. Golden rice,said Time, will be a godsend forthe half of humanity thatdepends on rice for its majorstaple. Merely eating this ricecould prevent blindness anddeath.

The development of goldenrice was, it seemed, compelling and inspiring evi-dence that GM crops are the answer to malnutritionand hunger. Time quoted former U.S. PresidentJimmy Carter: "Responsible biotechnology is notthe enemy, starvation is."

Shortly after the Time cover story, Monsantoand other biotechnology companies launched a $50million marketing campaign, including $32 millionin TV and print advertising. The ads, completewith soft focus fields and smiling children, saidthat "biotech foods could help end world hunger."

Other ad campaigns have followed. OneMonsanto ad tells the public: "Biotechnology isone of tomorrow's tools in our hands today.Slowing its acceptance is a luxury our hungryworld cannot afford."

Within a few months, the biotech industry hadspent far more on these ads than it had on develop-ing golden rice. Their purpose? "Unless I'm miss-ing something," wrote Michael Pollan in the NewYork Times Magazine, "the aim of this audaciousnew advertising campaign is to impale people likeme-well-off first-worlders dubious about geneti-cally engineered food-on the horns of a moraldilemma… If we don't get over our queasinessabout eating genetically modified food, kids in thethird world will go blind."

The implication of the ads is that lifesavingfood is being held hostage by anti-science activists.

In the years since Time proclaimed the promis-es of golden rice, however, we've learned a fewthings you might bear in mind the next time yousee one of these commercials.

For one thing, we've learned that golden ricewill not grow in the kinds of soil that it must to beof value to the world's hungry. To grow properly, itrequires heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides -expensive inputs unaffordable to the very peoplethe variety is supposed to help. And we've alsolearned that golden rice requires large amounts ofwater-water that might not be available in precise-ly those areas where vitamin A deficiency is aproblem, and where farmers cannot afford expen-sive irrigation projects.

And one more thing-it turns out that golden ricedoesn't work, even in theory. Malnourished peopleare not able to absorb vitamin A in this form. Andeven if they could, they'd have to eat an awful lot ofthe stuff. In order to satisfy his minimum require-ment for the vitamin, an eleven-year-old boy wouldhave to eat 27 bowls of golden rice a day.

I'm sure that given enough time and enoughmoney, some viable genetically modified (GM)crops could be developed that contain more nutri-ents or have higher yields. But I'm not sure thateven if that happens, it will benefit the world'spoor. Monsanto and the other biotech companiesaren't developing these seeds with the intention ofgiving them away. If people can't afford to buy

GM seeds, or if they can't afford the fertilizers andpesticides the seeds require, they'll be left out.

Poverty is at the root of the problem of hunger.As Peter Rosset, director of Food First, reminds us,"People do not have vitamin A deficiency becauserice contains too little vitamin A, but because theirdiet has been reduced to rice and almost nothingelse."

And what, pray tell, has reduced these people tosuch poverty and their diets to such meager fare?In the words of the British writer George Monbiot,"The world has a surplus of food, but still peoplego hungry. They go hungry because they cannotafford to buy it. They cannot afford to buy itbecause the sources of wealth and the means ofproduction have been captured and in some casesmonopolized by landowners and corporations. The

purpose of the biotech industryis to capture and monopolizethe sources of wealth and themeans of production…

"GM technology permitscompanies to ensure that every-thing we eat is owned by them.They can patent the seeds andthe processes which give rise tothem. They can make sure thatcrops can't be grown withouttheir patented chemicals. Theycan prevent seeds from repro-ducing themselves. By buyingup competing seed companiesand closing them down, theycan capture the food market,the biggest and most diversemarket of all.

"No one in her right mindwould welcome this, so the corporations must per-suade us to focus on something else… We are toldthat…by refusing to eat GM products, we arethreatening the developing world with starvation,an argument that is, shall we say, imaginative…"

With rare exceptions, genetically engineeredcrops are being created not because they're produc-tive or because they address real human needs, butbecause they're patentable. They are not beingdeveloped to help subsistence farmers feed them-selves.

The biotech companies have invested billionsof dollars because they sense in this technology thepotential for enormous profit, and the means togain control over the world's food supply. It isincreasingly obvious that if they succeed, the poorwill not benefit, and those who are hungry will notfind themselves fed.

If you doubt this, consider this reality. Forcountless centuries farmers have fed humanity bysaving the seed from one years crop to plant thefollowing year. But Monsanto, the company thatclaims its motives are to help feed the hungry, hasdeveloped what it calls a "Technology ProtectionSystem" that renders seeds sterile. Commonlyknown as "terminator technology," and developedwith taxpayer funding by the USDA and Delta &Pine Land Company (an affiliate of Monsanto), theprocess genetically alters seeds so that their off-spring will be sterile for all time. If employed, thistechnology would ensure that farmers cannot savetheir own seeds, but would have to come back toMonsanto year after year to purchase new ones.

Critics refer to these genetically engineeredseeds as suicide seeds, and they are none toohappy with them. "By peddling suicide seeds, thebiotechnology multinationals will lock the world'spoorest farmers into a new form of genetic serf-dom," says Emma Must of the World DevelopmentMovement. "Currently 80 percent of crops indeveloping countries are grown using farm-savedseed. Being unable to save seeds from sterile cropscould mean the difference between surviving andgoing under."

To these companies, the terminator and otherseed sterilizing technologies are simply businessventures that have been designed to produce prof-it. In this case, there is not even the implication ofbenefit to consumers. "Monsanto's goal," saysRachel's Environment and Health Weekly, "iseffective control of many of the staple crops thatpresently feed the world."

I wish I could speak more highly of GM foodsand their potential. But the technology is now heldtightly in the hands of corporations whose motivesare, I'm afraid, very different from what they wouldhave us believe.

Don't buy the hype.

I heard your speech at a majorconference recently, and while Iadmire your integrity, I takeexception to something you said.You seem to believe that non-vio-lent environmentalists are at riskfrom anti-terrorist legislation.Please, stop exaggerating. Haveyou become paranoid? Or are younow supporting the people whoburn SUVs at car dealerships?

John Robbins responds:Thanks for your question.I was specifically referring to

legislation introduced into theWashington state legislature byState Senator Val Stevens ofOlympia (R-39), called the"Animal and Ecological TerrorismAct."

The bill invokes the specter ofterrorism to restrict long-standingpolitical rights to non-violentprotest. Specifically, it definesterrorist "eco-terrorist organiza-tions" as "two or more personsorganized for the purpose of sup-porting any politically motivatedactivity intended to obstruct ordeter any persons from participat-ing in an activity involving ani-mals or…natural resources."

Under the cover of targetingpeople who spike trees slated forlogging, or burn SUVs at car deal-erships, the legislation's definitionof "eco-terrorist" is so broad that itwould include citizens signing apetition to save old-growth forests,passing out vegetarian literature,or simply joining a group like theSierra Club or EarthSave.

According to Ralph G. Neas,President of People for theAmerican Way, "This dangerouslybroad definition of 'terrorist'would catch anybody who's eversent in $10 to save the pandas. It'sa thinly disguised effort to squashenvironmental activism and intim-idate citizens who want to speakout."

The bill would create a lawenforcement database of "eco-ter-rorists." As of this writing, the billhas not yet passed, but the Senatehas passed a budget bill thatincludes $50,000 for the database.

Washington is not the onlystate where this is happening. The

Washington legislation was draft-ed by the American LegislativeExchange Council (ALEC), whichhas drafted virtually identical billsthat have been introduced in NewYork, Texas, Hawaii, Arizona, andSouth Carolina. Furthermore,U.S. Congresswoman DarleneHooley of Oregon has introduceda federal version in the U.S. Houseof Representatives.

I don't believe it's paranoid tosee that these bills are intended tolimit the first amendment rights ofenvironmental and animal welfareorganizations and activists. And Ifail to see how they would do any-thing at all to prevent real terror-ism. If our elected officials can'ttell the difference between theSierra Club and Al Qaeda, we're inbig trouble.

No, I don't support people whoburn SUVs at car dealerships.That's not really what this legisla-tion is about. If ALEC gets its wayand bills are passed that criminal-ize dissent, the people who want toburn SUVs will continue to do so.But what will change, and what tome is of immense importance, isthat it will become increasinglydangerous to speak your con-science, and to advocate for asane, healthy, and sustainable wayof life.

I don't believe it's paranoid torecognize the threat posed bygroups such as ALEC. Based inWashington, DC, ALEC is fundedby right-wing foundations and bymore than 300 corporations andtrade associations.

Corporations fund ALECbecause they want to re-write thelaws which regulate their activi-ties. Although ALEC refers toitself as a membership organiza-tion for state legislators (and paysfor state legislators to travel to itsmeetings), its primary function isto enable strip-mining and chemi-cal companies to write environ-mental laws, drug companies towrite prescription drug laws,insurance companies and HMOexecutives to write health carelaws, and fast food chains that paylow wages to write laws that wouldabolish the minimum wage and

CAN GMOS HELP FEED THE HUNGRY?

Environmentalists at riskfrom “anti-terrorist” laws

TERRORIST/PAGE 10

EarthSave News Chapter Happenings Spring 2004 7

by Patti Breitman

On March 25 EarthSave Marinplayed host to a free communityforum on How to Reduce YourRisk of Cancer. A panel of expertsspoke and answered questions onhow what we eat affects our riskfor cancers of the breast, prostateand colon. More 80 people attend-ed this panel discussion, most ofwhom either have had cancer orloved someone who has.EarthSave Marin co-chair PattiBreitman moderated the panel.

The panelists were NatalieLedesma, M.S., R.D. from theUCSF Cancer Resource Center,Meredith McCarty, founder ofHealing Cuisine, and JosephKeon, Ph.D., author of The TruthAbout Breast Cancer

All three panelists agreed onthe big picture: To reduce our riskof cancer, we should be eating aprimarily plant-based diet. Weshould minimize or eliminate ani-mal fats and minimize processedfoods, sugar, salt, and alcohol.

All the panelists agreed alsothat there is no "magic bullet."There is no single food that weshould focus on, and too much ofanything is not a good idea. Butyou cannot eat too many vegeta-bles, they insisted, and wholefoods in great variety from theplant kingdom are our bestdefense against cancer. Whenorganically grown foods are avail-able, these are preferred.

Natalie Ledesma emphasizedthe importance of color in the diet,noting that the different colors indifferent fruits and vegetablesindicate the different nutritiveproperties of each. She also point-ed out that if we are going to eatfish, we should be careful to dis-tinguish between farmed and wildsalmon, and choose only wildsalmon. Joe Keon focused on thefact that the protein, natural andsynthetic growth hormones, andfat in dairy products, along withthe hundreds of chemicals we areexposed to every day disrupt thehormone balance in humans, andpredispose us to a high risk forcancer. He mentioned that all fish,even wild salmon, are laden with avariety of toxins, many of whichwere found to be present in the

breast milk of women who atefish. Meredith McCarty remindedus that whole grains, sea vegeta-bles, and small quantities of soy-beans, tofu, and tempeh have beenan important part of the diet in cul-tures known for their longevitytoday and throughout history.Unlike fish, she told us, whichstore toxins in their tissue, plantsfrom the sea retain far fewer toxinsand are a safe food that offer awide variety of important miner-als.

Moderator Patti Breitmancalled on everyone to bring thisinformation to the many groupsthat say they are fighting cancer,but still serve wine and cheese attheir events. She singled out TheAmerican Cancer Society for theirmisguided Beef Barons' Balls -fund raising events where ribs andbarbecued beef are featured on themenu. (To urge the ACS to stopthis campaign, write to JohnSeffrin, CEO, American CancerSociety, 1599 Clifton Rd. NE,Atlanta, GA 30329; fax: 404-329-7530).

EarthSave Marin could offerthis event free to the public thanksin part to the generosity of localbusinesses that offered prizes for araffle: Millennium Restaurant,VeganUnlimited.com, BurrousBrothers Carpet and UpholsteryCleaning, Donna's Tamales,Whole Foods Markets, Ten SpeedPress, Organic Bouquet.com andVegNews magazine. PanelistsMeredith McCarty and JosephKeon also contributed signedcopies of their books as prizes.

Creative and generousEarthSave members contributedsnacks for guests. Delicious beandips, tofu dips, cashew dips,smoked tofu and fresh veggieswere available alongside fruit plat-ters donated by Whole FoodsMarkets. For the two dozen or soEarthSave members in attendence,this food and information werefamiliar. But the event offered newperspectives and new taste treatsfor the scores of peope who hadn'tbeen familiar with EarthSavebefore, and heard that night, forthe first time, about the powerfuleffects our food choices have onour health.

EarthSave Louisville's Taste of HealthSunday, April 25th, 2004 11am - 5pm

Bellarmine University, Frazier Hall (2005 Newburg Road)

EarthSave Louisville's annual festival of delicious food andgreat fun designed to teach visitors why, how, and where tochoose foods that are healthy for people and for the planet.Includes a restaurant sampling fair (15 area restaurants),educa-tional activities, cooking demonstrations, children's activities,bookstore and yoga classes. Speakers will include Dr. MichaelGregor on "Mad Cow Disease - Learn How to SafeguardYourself and Your Family ", Stephen Bartlett on "Healthy Food,Peace and Economic Justice". Nationally renowned vegan ChefKen Bergeron will teach participants techniques for makingdelicious plant-based meals at home. For more information,visit www.tasteofhealth.org, email louisville@earthsave.org orcall us at 502-458-8515.

by Jennifer Rubenstein

The Louisville chapter is offer -ing EarthSave's HealthyBeginnings classes this spring. Theabove photo shows a few class par -ticipants on the "Guided ShoppingTour" at Rainbow Blossom, a localhealth food store..

Healthy Beginnings classeswere designed to aid people inmaking the shift to a plant-baseddiet. Let's face it, it can be a chal-lenge! Most of us were raised eat-

ing a meat-centered diet, and thechange can be a shocker. Manypeople have questions about meet-ing their nutritional needs and whatto replace familiar comfort foodswith. Shopping becomes a newexperience, with a host of freshingredients and products formingthe basis of your new diet. And get-ting a vegetarian meal at a restau-rant can seem intimidating.

That's why EarthSave created"Healthy Beginnings: A Course inPlant-Based Eating." This fun andinformative six-session course fea-

tures discussions and demonstra-tions on everything from planning ahealthy diet to shopping for newingredients to cooking delicious(and sometimes decadent!) meals.By the time you graduate, you'llhave the information, skills andconfidence necessary to make asuccessful, permanent change inyour diet. Louisville's next six-week class session begins inSeptember. For more information,visit www.louisville.earthsave.org,email louisville@earthsave.org orcall us at 502-458-8515.

EarthSave Marin’s Cancer Forum

EarthSaveLouisvilleputsHealthyBeginningsinto action

Q

A big turnout for the evening.

Joe Keon (seated) listens to Natalie Ledesma. Patti Breitman, right.

Joe Keon Meredith McCarty

Marin photos by Stan Rosenfeld and Frank Burrous

8 Spring 2004 Diabetes & Diet EarthSave News

for the "good life."4-6 Feasting from theking's table brings on the diseases of royal-ty, like obesity, gout, and diabetes.Worldwide, the incidence of type-2 diabetesincreases in direct proportion to the con-sumption of meat, dairy products, sugars,fats, and calories by the residents. Type-2diabetes has taken the greatest toll on"minority" populations brought to theWestern diet by migration to cities and giantindustries providing cheap fast food.

Native Americans, for example the PimaIndians of Arizona, introduced to theWestern diet over the past 75 years, are nowafflicted so severely that as many as one-half of them has diabetes.7 However, theirgenetic cousins, the Tarahumara Indians ofMexico, following a diet consisting of 90%corn and pinto beans (chili), and vegetables(like squash), are free of type-2 diabetes - aswell as obesity and heart disease.8,9Similar dramatic rises - from immunity toepidemic proportions - of type-2 diabeteshave been seen in other people likeAfricans, African-Americans, Mexicans,Chinese, and Polynesians, as they adopt theWestern diet with enthusiasm.10-12 Thereare no exceptions to this observation thatwhen populations of people following astarch-based diet (rice, corn, potatoes, sweetpotatoes, etc.), switch to a diet of rich foods- meats, dairy products, added oils, andrefined foods - they become overweight anddiabetic, and develop heart disease, breast,prostate and colon cancers, gallbladder dis-ease, arthritis, multiple sclerosis, and bowelproblems. No exceptions!

Diabetes Is an Adaptive Responseto Overnutrition

The malnutrition caused by the high-fat,low-fiber Western diet places serious bur-dens on the body and requires it to makeadaptions in order to survive under adverseconditions. The calories consumed in excessof our needs cause us to gain fat - this is anatural, expected change. Soon a point isreached when this accumulation becomescounterproductive - a point when any fur-ther excess body weight is likely to causeserious physical harm. When this haz-ardous excess is reached, the body puts "thebrakes on" in order to slow the rate of gain.This is accomplished by a variety ofchanges that cause the hormone insulin tobecome less potent. 13,14 In other words,our cells become resistant to the actions ofthe fat-gaining hormone, insulin - a statereferred to as "insulin resistance."

One of insulin's primary jobs is to pushfat into the fat cells - thus saving fat for theday when no food is available (which forWesterners never comes). If it were not forthe adaptive mechanisms which allow forthe development of "insulin resistance,"people would commonly expand until theybecame so large that they could not get outof bed or fit through a doorway - a very rarecondition that does occur in 1000-poundsized people who need a forklift to movethem to the hospital. (They make headlinesin the newspaper.)

One of insulin's other important jobs is

to let sugar into the body's cells - with astate of "insulin resistance" the sugar cannotget into the cells easily - so it rises in theblood. The hallmark of the diagnosis of dia-betes is an elevated blood sugar above nor-mal (usually normal is below 115 mg/dlfasting). With impotent insulin, the caloriesof fat and sugar we consume cannot easilyenter the cells; the body is essentially starv-ing itself from the inside in a desperateattempt to compensate for the overfeedingcoming from the outside. To further reducethe burden of obesity, the body eliminates

calories by allowing sugar to spill over intothe urine, like water falling over a dam. Atthis stage sugar is found with a urine test -another common way to diagnosis diabetes.Most doctors and patients view the elevatedblood sugar as the enemy to be beaten downwith medications - the result is a fat, sicklypatient with a slightly lower blood sugar.

The Reason Medical Therapy ShouldBe Your Last Choice

Diabetic medications have never curedanyone of diabetes and actually compoundthe patients' problems. The patient goes tothe doctor, is diagnosed with diabetes,placed on medication, and told to loseweight. Unfortunately, these medicationsmake insulin more effective, causing morefat to be stored in the fat cells. The averageinitial weight gain when diabetic medica-tions are started is 8 to 20 pounds - due topartially counteracting the protective effectsof "insulin resistance." Thus the well-behaved patient takes the medications asdirected, but then gains weight, and as aresult of the added weight his diabetesbecomes worse. The patient returns to thedoctor, is given a firm scolding for gainingweight, and then more medications are pre-scribed because his sugars are even higherthan before - this additional medicationmakes the patient even fatter and the dia-betes more out of control. The vicious cyclecontinues - and the patient and doctor areleft guilt-ridden and confused about theirobvious medical failure. After all, they fol-lowed the pharmaceutical company'sinstructions exactly. Worse yet, the patientsare not one bit healthier from all this effortand expense.

More than 30 years ago, when I was inmedical school, I remember doctors arguingabout the benefits from aggressive use ofmedication to make the blood sugars lower,a practice referred to as "tight control."Ideally, keeping the blood sugars close tonormal makes sense, but in real life moreharm than good is done for type-2 diabetics.

First of all, no matter how hard the patientand the doctor work at their goal, the bloodsugar readings are all over the place - onetest shows 60 mg/dl and the next 260 mg/dl.Soon it becomes obvious to the patient thatthe short-term goal of "normalizing" theblood sugar levels is impossible using med-ications.

The next carrot held out is for long-termbenefits: preventing complications later inlife. In truth, studies have shown there issome benefit for the eyes and the kidneyswith better control of blood sugar (especial-

ly for type-1 diabetics).15-17 However, themajor threat to the life of a diabetic is fromheart attacks and strokes - diseases of thelarge blood vessels. Intensive medical ther-apy using the most high-tech drugs to lowerblood sugars has failed to reduce the riskfor, and improve survival from, these twomajor killers. In fact, the medications usedto combat sugar will actually create moresickness and death from heart disease.

Since the early 1970s every single edi-tion of the Physician's Desk Reference,found in every doctor's office, has carriedthis warning inheavy back print fortheir diabetic med-ications: "SPECIALWARNING ONINCREASED RISKOF CARDIOVAS-CULAR MORTALI-TY." The most com-monly prescribeddiabetic medications,known as sulfony-lureas,* cause funda-mental changes inthe function of cellsthat increase the riskof heart attacks.18These drugs, whichare called "antidia-betic agents" by thepharmaceutical com-panies, have recentlybeen shown to morethan double the riskof heart attacks and almost triple the risk ofearly death in patients after an angioplas-ty.19 I never prescribe this type of diabet-ic pills, and always ask my patients to stopthem. All diabetics should be actively look-ing for a better approach - and so should anydoctor interested in his patients' welfare.

The Treatment of Type-2 Diabeteswith a Low-Fat, Plant-Food Diet

Multiple studies dating as far back as the

1920s have shown the benefits of a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet in the treatmentof type-2 diabetes.23 For example, studiesfrom the University of Kentucky MedicalSchool reported as many as two-thirds ofdiabetics were able to discontinue insulinand almost all stopped oral agents.24 Arecent thorough review of the use of a vege-tarian diet in the treatment of type-2 dia-betes was published in the September 2003issue of the American Journal of ClinicalNutrition. In this review article Dr. DavidJenkins reported on research showingimprovements in blood sugars in diabeticswith 39% stopping insulin and 71% stop-ping diabetic pills after three weeks of ther-apy.25 Relief of diabetic neuropathy pains,reduced lipids (cholesterol and triglyc -erides), and weight loss have also beenreported with a low-fat, pure-vegetariandiet. Another recent research paper hasreported similar findings with a low-fat veg-etarian diet.26 Many of these people withtype-2 diabetes are cured of their diseasewithin three weeks, and most will be curedof their diabetes over time as they adhere toa low-fat, high carbohydrate diet, exercise,and lose all of their excess body fat.

This same kind of diet (in large partbecause of the restriction of animal protein)has been shown to dramatically improve thehealth of the kidneys of diabetics (protein inthe urine, a sign of diabetic kidney damage,decreases and disappears).27,28 Researchhas also shown diabetic damage found inthe eyes (retinopathy) can be reversed with alow-fat diet.29,30 It's interesting how kid-ney and eye damage, the two purported ben-efits from drug therapy, are actually bettertreated with diet than with medications, atno cost and no side effects. A low-fat vege-tarian diet has also been shown to reverseheart disease (atherosclerosis), the numberone killer of diabetics.31 Many otherresearchers have praised a low-fat vegetari-an diet as the best approach to prevent andtreat most diseases that plague people inmodern societies, including people withdiabetes.32-35 Possibly the most importanteffect of this dietary approach (combinedwith exercise) is the scientifically estab-lished fact that this is the easiest and mosteffective way to lose weight permanent-ly.36-39 Obesity is the underlying cause ofdiabetes.40

Practical Steps to Cure Type-2Diabetes

If you are one of the millions of diabeticpatients facing a hopeless future of worsen-ing diabetes, obesity, loss of vision, kidneyfailure, heart attacks, strokes, gangrene, andearly death and disability - even though youhave visited your doctors regularly, andtaken your medications faithfully - then it istime to break this downhill spiral by chang-ing your diet and exercise program. At thesame time ask your doctor to provide youwith sensible, conservative, care. I do thefollowing with my patients:

1) Stop diabeticpills and reduce oreliminate insulin. Inmost cases, I havemy patients stop allof their diabeticpills the day theystart the McDougalldiet and exerciseprogram and/or atleast half of theirinsulin. If thisreduction is notmade in a timelymanner, then theyrun a real risk ofdeveloping hypo-glycemia (too lowblood sugar). Iincrease or reducemedications basedon the patient'sresponse and as ageneral guideline I

try to keep their blood sugars between 150to 250 mg/dl while I am trying to adjusttheir medication needs. Stopping and/orreducing the medications reverses theweight gain immediately. (Insulin cannot bestopped in type-1 diabetes, but the dosage isoften reduced.)

2) Change them to a low-fat, high-fiber, plant-based diet: the McDougall diet.The diet should be based around starches

Type-1 vs. Type-2 DiabetesType-2 diabetes is often referred to as "adult-type" diabetes because

it usually develops later in life (as people gain weight from more richfood and less exercise) - however, this nomenclature is now less rele-vant as more children in Western societies become overweight and dia-betic. This form is also referred to as "non-insulin-dependent dia-betes" because insulin injections (or diabetic pills) are not required tostay alive. The pancreas of a person with type-2 diabetes produces aplentiful supply of insulin, but the insulin is relatively ineffective inthis condition. In other words, the body becomes resistant to theeffects of insulin - a condition commonly called "insulin resistance."13

Usually type-2 diabetics are overweight; however, when they are oftrim body weight, I usually find these people have actually lost someof their ability to produce insulin (their pancreas has been damaged),and therefore, they would be better classified as "a partial type-1 dia-betic."

Type-1 diabetes is also referred to as "childhood-type" diabetesbecause it has traditionally been the form of diabetes seen most oftenin young people. However, half of those with this disease are diag-nosed after the age of 19 years - so "childhood" is also a somewhatmisleading term for this disease. In this form of diabetes the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas have been damaged or destroyed andinsulin production is insufficient for blood sugar control. Becauseinsulin injections are required for survival, this type is referred to as"insulin-dependent diabetes." (Allergic reactions to cow-milk proteinsare usually the cause of type-1 diabetes - see my July 2002 Newsletterarticle, "The Pancreas - Under Attack by Cow-Milk," for more informa-tion.)

Diabetics have a metabolic handicap which impairs the body's abil-ity to defend and repair itself from injuries caused by the Western diet.As a result of this deficiency, diabetics of both types have an evenhigher risk than the general public of diseases like heart attacks, kid-ney failure, vision loss, strokes, cancer, and osteoporosis.

Diabetic MedicationsI Never Prescribe

The Sulfonylureas:

GlucovanceMetaglipAmarylDiaBeta

DiabineseGlucotrol

DIABETES/FROM PAGE 1

Without the protective effects of"insulin resistance," you might

never stop enlarging.

"Insulin resistance" has beentreated like a disease, but actu-ally can be a lifesaver for those

who eat large amounts ofunhealthy foods.

DIABETES/PAGE 10

EarthSave News Politics & Food Spring 2004 9

by Jonathan Rowe & Gary Ruskin

The Bush Administration has a problem with personalresponsibility. They make a big deal about it for nearly every-one -- except themselves and the corporate big shots whofinance their campaigns.

A case in point is the recent World Health Organization'sproposal to combat the spread of obesity, diabetes and relat-ed illnesses throughout the world. The WHO proposal --called officially the Global Strategy on Diet, PhysicalActivity and Health -- wouldencourage governments to adopt anumber of common-sense steps,from better food labeling and lim-its on junk food advertising to thepromotion of healthful diets withmore fruits and vegetables, andless sugar. It also urges govern-ments to make sure that schoolspromote such diets, not junk foodand soda pop.

Hardly radical stuff, and longoverdue. WHO's own studiesshow that unhealthful diets andphysical inactivity have becomethe leading causes of cardiovascu-lar disease, type 2 diabetes andsome types of cancer throughoutthe world.

One would think the U.S.would be eager to sign on. Weknow this problem first-hand:some two-thirds of us are over-weight, plus, the President himselfis a fitness buff. And let's face it.Much of the crescendo in globallard comes from the junk food dietthat U.S. companies such as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, McDonald's and Kraft have exported.

On top of all this, two years ago, President Bush calledfor a new ethos that says "we're responsible for our deci-sions." So you'd think he'd be the first to take some respon-sibility for the consequences of the actions of the country heleads. Fat chance. Instead, the Bush Administration hasblocked the WHO anti-obesity plan, and re-opened it forweakening amendments. The Administration has hauled outits focus-group-tested slogans to pass the buck -- and ensurelots of them for its friends in the junk food industry.

First, "science." Whenever the Administration wants tomuddy the waters it invokes the experts in the white coats. Sohere, William R. Steiger, a top aide at the Department ofHealth and Human Services (and George Bush Sr.'s godson),wrote to WHO that there are "numerous instances" where itsfood policies "are not supported with sufficient scientificevidence." Come on. Maybe the scientists employed by thejunk food industry can't figure this one out, but our grand-mothers did and their grandmothers before them. Dr. WalterTsou, president-elect of the American Public HealthAssociation, observed "Any mother with any common senseknows that you don't feed your kids cookies and ice creamevery day unless you want to see them gain weight."

Is that really so hard? Is it really so hard to figure out thata Big Mac and a large shake, with 1600 calories combined,might cause some problems on the obesity front?

As it happens there is no shortage of science that con-firms this common sense. Take fast food. One study pub-lished in the International Journal of Obesity found that boysand girls who ate fast food three times in the previous weekhad far higher calorie intakes: 40 and 37 percent, respective-ly - than did those who did not eat fast food. Another study,published in this month's issue of Pediatrics, estimates thatthe consumption of fast food could account for an additionalsix pounds of weight gain per child per year. But thisresearch is not paid for by the junk food industry. So in theinteresting logic of the Administration, that apparently makesit "junk science." Kaare R. Norum, the Norwegian professorwho chaired the scientific panel that advised WHO, notesthat the attacks on the WHO's scientific evidence "have notcome from scientists. They have come only from industry."

Next the administration invokes "personal responsibility."Steiger, the top HHS aide, wrote to WHO that theAdministration "supports personal responsibility to choose adiet conducive to individual energy balance, weight controland health." Steiger similarly told the Washington Post that"what's lacking" in the WHO approach "is the notion of per-sonal responsibility as opposed to what the government cando." This echoes the spokesman for the GroceryManufacturers of America, who said: "There is no mention[in the WHO strategy] of what we consider to be the funda-mentally important issue of individual responsibility."

The echo is not coincidental. Note that the BushAdministration is not demanding some personal responsibil-ity from junk food bigwigs such as sugar magnate Jose"Pepe" Fanjul, Safeway CEO Steven Burd, and Richard F.Hohlt, a lobbyist for Altria (formerly Philip Morris), which ismajority owner of Kraft. It is not asking them to take respon-sibility for the billions of dollars they and other junk food

marketers spend seducing our kids with saturation ads, norfor the obvious and predictable consequences of theseactions - i.e. the diseases associated with the consumption ofjunk food.

Each of these fat cats has purchased an indulgence in theform of bundled $200,000 contributions to the 2004 Bushcampaign. So the Administration points the finger instead atparents and their children. The finger comes no less from theDepartment of Health and Human Services, which probablyshould be renamed the Department of Junk Food Marketing

and Corporate Services. The sugar industry has wanted tohobble WHO since the organiza-tion said that free sugars shouldcomprise less than 10% of totaldaily calories. Last April, theSugar Association actually threat-ened WHO that it would sic itsallies in Congress on the U.S.'sannual $406 million contributions. Now, we agree that people do needto take more responsibility for thejunk they put into their mouths,and for their failure to get off theirbehinds. But the global obesitylobby has to take some responsi-bility too, for its nonstop propa-ganda campaign, especially whenit is aimed at children. Thatincludes Henry Kravis, foundingpartner of Kohlberg KravisRoberts, which is majority ownerof Channel One, an in-school mar-keting service that bombardsschoolchildren with ads for sodapop and junk food. True, Mr.Kravis has bundled $100,000 tothe Bush 2004 campaign. But

surely President Bush understands that sometimes, we justhave to say "No."

Executives such as Mr. Kravis seem to have a hard timegrasping another Administration nostrum -- that parents arethe proper guides to their children's behavior. They persist ininjecting themselves into the relationship between parentsand children. They seduce kids with ads crafted by psychol-ogists to turn the kids into relentless nags for junk food thatmany parents do not want their kids to have. These executiveshave got to take some responsibility for the way they disruptthe home. The President should remind them of this.

And it's time for the U.S. government to take someresponsibility itself, and stop hindering parents' efforts toinstill healthful eating habits in their kids. Forgotten in thedaily barrage of junk food ads is the way the governmentactually encourages these very corporations. Under U.S. taxlaw, for example, most corporate advertising is taxdeductible. So next time your kid throws a tantrum becauseyou don't want to buy her another Big Mac, you might recallthat your tax dollars are helping to pay for the ads thatinduced your child's snit.

The obesity lobby has developed a welfare mentality,and it's past time for the Bush people to show some toughlove. It should stop -- right now -- the tax break for advertis-ing of junk food, and advertising to children generally. Nomore taxpayer-subsidized meddling in the American family.No more corporate welfare to goad kids to throw tantrumsfor Whoppers, Cokes, M&Ms and the rest.

The President himself should take some personalresponsibility for this step. He should call Lanny Griffith andRob Leebern, lobbyists for the Grocery Manufacturers ofAmerica and Coke, into his office. He should tell them thateven though they each have bundled $100,000 to the Bush2004 campaign, the time has come for them to decidewhether they are going to be part of the problem or part ofthe solution -- and that the government isn't going to helpthem anymore if they persist in the former.

Then the President should get on the phone to Director-General J.W. Lee of WHO and apologize for the moral rela-tivists at his Department of Health and Human Services wholack the courage to stand up to the junk food lobby.

Eighteen months ago, President Bush himself said "whenI talk about personal responsibility in America, I expect thereto be corporate responsibility as well, and we will hold thoseto account who do not uphold those high standards inAmerica."

It's time for the President to walk his talk. He should holdjunk food and advertising executives accountable for theirrole in promoting obesity and disease throughout the globe.Literally millions of lives are at stake across the planet. Theworld needs a coalition of the willing in the cause of globalhealth and freedom from unchecked corporate influence onchildren. Who better than America to lead?

Jonathan Rowe is a writer, contributing editor to TheWashington Monthly, and a founder of the Tomales BayInstitute. Gary Ruskin is a founder of Commercial Alert. Formore information, visit www.commercialalert.org.

Tough love for the obesity lobbyThe Sweet andLowdown onSugarBy Kelly D. Brownell and Marion Nestle

To lose weight, people must eat less, bemore active, or both. The first part of that pre-scription, of course, raises the question, "Eatless of what?" For the World HealthOrganization and most nutritionists, one obvi-ous answer is sugars. But the United States andAmerican food companies seem to have a dif-ferent idea.

Last spring, the W.H.O. and another UnitedNations group, the Food and AgricultureOrganization, issued a report called "TheExpert Consultation on Diet, Nutrition and thePrevention of Chronic Diseases." It suggested astrategy of dietary changes for individuals,including limits on sugar consumption, as wellas policies that might make it easier for peopleto eat more healthfully.

The United States Department of Healthand Human Services should have applauded,but instead it produced a 28-page, line-by-linecritique centered on, of all things, what it calledthe report's lack of transparency in the scientif-ic and peer-review process. Although thedepartment framed the critique as a principleddefense of scientific integrity, much evidenceargues for another interpretation — blatant pan-dering to American food companies that pro-duce much of the world's high-calorie, high-profit sodas and snacks, especially the makersof sugars, the main ingredients in many of theseproducts.

The critique was sent to the W.H.O. in thehope that its executive board would reject itsreport when it met in January 2004. Instead, theboard decided to send the strategy to its fullmembership for a vote in May, but, under pres-sure from some member states, it gave dis-senters an extra month to comment before afinal draft is issued. If accepted in May, thestrategy won't be binding, but it would provideguidelines to countries seeking to reduce obesi-ty.

To understand the significance of this battle,it is crucial to know that Americans are notalone in gaining weight. Obesity is now a glob-al epidemic, with the International Obesity TaskForce estimating that one billion people areoverweight or obese. In all but the poorestcountries, obesity and its consequences — ris-ing rates of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, andso on — are overtaking malnutrition as majorhealth problems. Modern society, with its over-abundance of high-calorie food, makes health-ful eating difficult.

That the food industry is disputing theW.H.O.'s science is all the more astonishingbecause the report is notable for the stunningbanality of its dietary recommendations: eatmore fruits and vegetables, and limit intake offoods high in fats and sugars. Such recommen-dations are no different from those issued bygovernments and health organizations since thelate 1950's and are thoroughly supported byboth science and common sense.

One recommendation in the report raisedparticular ire — that people should limit "free"sugars. "Free" refers to sugars added to foodsthat aren't thought of as sweet — mayonnaiseand peanut butter, for example — as well as themore obvious soft drinks, snack foods, pastriesand candy. The report suggests an upper limit of10 percent of calories from added sugars —about the amount recommended by our ownDepartment of Agriculture's food pyramid.According to the Agriculture Department, ifyou eat 2,200 calories a day, you should limitadded sugars to 12 teaspoons. The typicalAmerican consumes 20. Added sugars made up11 percent of calories in American diets in thelate 1970's; they now are 16 percent overall and20 percent for teenagers. By itself, that 20-ounce Coke or Pepsi in a school vendingmachine provides 15 teaspoons of sugars.

Understandably, industry lobbyists areuneasy about calls to cut consumption of sug-ars. One trade group, the Sugar Association,demanded that the W.H.O. remove an early draftof the report from its Web site and conductanother scientific review. It also vowed to use"every avenue available to expose the dubious

SUGAR/PAGE 10

10 Spring 2004 EarthSave News

with the addition of fruits and veg-etables - there are no added veg-etable oils. Sample foods are: oat-meal, whole wheat pancakes orpotatoes for breakfast. Lunch canbe soups, salads, and sandwiches.And dinner may be thought of interms of ethnic dishes, likeMexican burritos, Chinese MuShu vegetables, Thai curried rice,or Italian whole grain pasta.

3) Ask them to exercise.Start at a comfortable level andgradually build up. Exerciseshould be increased to the equiva-lent of at least a half hour of walk-ing a day.

4) Check their other risk fac-tors for indications of serious dis-ease, such as cholesterol, triglyc-erides, and blood pressure. Thenmake diet and lifestyle modifica-tions to correct these (for example,fewer fruits and juices with hightriglycerides and cholesterol, andless salt with high blood pressure).

5) Have them take appropriatemedications only. For example, Iprescribe:

· · Small doses of insulinfor too much weight loss or if mypatient develops symptoms of dia-betes, like too frequent urinationor excessive thirst.

· · Cholesterol (andtriglyceride) lowering medicationsin order to reach ideal levels of150 mg/dl, especially for patientsat high risk for a stroke or heartattack. (See my September 2002and June 2003 Newsletters.)

· · Blood pressure lower-ing medications, are sometimesindicated in high-risk patientswhose blood pressure remains at160/100 mm Hg or greater formonths. (See my August 2002Newsletter.)

A prescription of a low-fat dietand exercise can be taught by anyinterested physician or dietitian.Most diabetics respond withindays - and with continued weightloss, most can be expected to stopall diabetic medications - and

regain lost health and appearance.The most difficult task for peoplewith diabetes is to break from tra-dition - the following words mayhelp. "The diet recommended bythe American Diabetic Associationvirtually guarantees all diabeticswill remain diabetic," claimed thepioneer nutritionist, NathanPritikin, 30 years ago. His experi-ences from treating thousands ofpeople with this disease convincedhim that type-2 diabetes is largelycurable by following a healthy dietand moderate exercise. Obviouslythe failure of modern diabeticmanagement has been known longbefore most diabetics developedtheir disease - yet nothing changesfor the better. Your only chance isto rebel against commonly accept-ed advice. Don't you think a revoltis long overdue based on the poorresults you have experienced sofar?

Subscribe to Dr McDougall’sfree newsletter at http://www.drmcdougall.com

References:1) Narayan KM. Lifetime risk for dia-

betes mellitus in the United States. JAMA2003; 290: 1884-90.

2) Ludwig DS, Ebbeling CB. Type 2diabetes mellitus in children: primary careand public health considerations. JAMA.2001 Sep 26;286(12):1427-30.

3) Joslin EP. Atheroscleriosis and dia-betes. Ann Clin Med 1927;5:1061.

4) Hinsworth HP. Diet in the aetiologyof diabetes. Proc R Soc Med 1949;42:323-6

5) West KM, Kalbfleisch JM,.Influence of nutritional factors on prevalenceof diabetes. Diabetes 1971; 20: 99-108.

6) Rao RH. The role of undernutritionin the pathogenesis of diabetes mellitus.Diabetes Care 1984; 7: 595-601.

7) Lee ET, Welty TK, Cowan LD, WangW, Rhoades DA, Devereux R, Go O, FabsitzR, Howard BV. Incidence of diabetes inAmerican Indians of three geographic areas:the Strong Heart Study. Diabetes Care. 2002Jan;25(1):49-54.

8) McMurry MP . Changes in lipid andlipoprotein levels and body weight inTarahumara Indians after consumption of anaffluent diet. N Engl J Med. 1991 Dec12;325(24):1704-8.

9) Briceno I, Barriocanal LA, PapihaSS, Ashworth LA, Gomez A, Bernal JE,Alberti KG, Walker M. Lack of diabetes inrural Colombian Amerindians. DiabetesCare. 1996 Aug;19(8):900-1.

10) Foliaki S. Prevention and control ofdiabetes in Pacific people. BMJ. 2003 Aug23;327(7412):437-9.

11) Ring I. The health status of indige-nous peoples and others. BMJ. 2003 Aug23;327(7412):404-5.

12) Ko G. Rapid increase in the preva-lence of undiagnosed diabetes and impairedfasting glucose in asymptomatic Hong KongChinese. Diabetes Care. 1999Oct;22(10):1751-2.

Mann JI. Diet and risk of coronary heartdisease and type 2 diabetes. Lancet. 2002Sep 7;360(9335):783-9.

13) Fujimoto WY. The importance ofinsulin resistance in the pathogenesis of type2 diabetes mellitus. Am J Med. 2000 Apr17;108 Suppl 6a:9S-14S.

14) Goldstein BJ. Insulin resistance asthe core defect in type 2 diabetes mellitus.Am J Cardiol. 2002 Sep 5;90(5A):3G-10G.

15) UK Prospective Diabetes Study(UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucosecontrol with sulphonylureas or insulin com-pared with conventional treatment and risk ofcomplications in patients with type 2 diabetes(UKPDS 33). Lancet. 1998;352:837-853.

16) DCCT Research Group. The effectof intensive treatment of diabetes on thedevelopment and progression of long-termcomplications in insulin dependent diabetesmellitus. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:977-986.

17) Ohkubo Y, Kishikawa H, Araki E, etal. Intensive insulin therapy prevents the pro-gression of diabetic microvascular complica-tions in Japanese patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: a randomizedprospective 6-year study. Diabetes Res ClinPract. 1995;28:103-117

18) Engler RL, Yellon DM.Sulfonylurea KATP blockade in type II dia-betes and preconditioning in cardiovasculardisease. Time for reconsideration.Circulation. 1996 Nov 1;94(9):2297-301.

19) Garratt KN, Brady PA, HassingerNL, Grill DE, Terzic A, Holmes DR Jr.Sulfonylurea drugs increase early mortality inpatients with diabetes mellitus after directangioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. JAm Coll Cardiol. 1999 Jan;33(1):119-24.

20) Purnell JQ. Effect of excessiveweight gain with intensive therapy of type 1diabetes on lipid levels and blood pressure:results from the DCCT. Diabetes Control andComplications Trial. JAMA. 1998 Jul8;280(2):140-6.

21) Colwell JA, Clark CM Jr. ForumTwo: Unanswered research questions aboutmetabolic control in non-insulin-dependentdiabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med. 1996 Jan1;124(1 Pt 2):178-9.

22) Gustafsson I, Hildebrandt P, SeibaekM, Melchior T, Torp-Pedersen C, Kober L,Kaiser-Nielsen P. Long-term prognosis ofdiabetic patients with myocardial infarction:relation to antidiabetic treatment regimen.The TRACE Study Group. Eur Heart J. 2000Dec;21(23):1937-43.

23) McDougall J. McDougall'sMedicine - A Challenging Second Opinion.New Century Publication 1985.

24) Kiehm TG, Anderson JW, Ward K.Beneficial effects of a high carbohydrate,high fiber diet on hyperglycemic diabeticmen. Am J Clin Nutr. 1976 Aug;29(8):895-9.

25) Jenkins DJ, Kendall CW, Marchie A,Jenkins AL, Augustin LS, Ludwig DS,Barnard ND, Anderson JW. Type 2 diabetesand the vegetarian diet. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003Sep;78(3 Suppl):610S-616S.

26) Nicholson AS, Sklar M, BarnardND, Gore S, Sullivan R, Browning S. Towardimproved management of NIDDM: A ran-domized, controlled, pilot intervention usinga lowfat, vegetarian diet. Prev Med. 1999Aug;29(2):87-91.

27) Raal FJ, Kalk WJ, Lawson M, EsserJD, Buys R, Fourie L, Panz VR. Effect of

moderate dietary protein restriction on theprogression of overt diabetic nephropathy: a6-mo prospective study. Am J Clin Nutr.1994 Oct;60(4):579-85.

28) Cupisti A. Vegetarian diet alternatedwith conventional low-protein diet forpatients with chronic renal failure. J RenNutr. 2002 Jan;12(1):32-7.

29) Van Eck W. The effect of a low fatdiet on the serum lipids in diabetes and itssignificance in diabetic retinopathy. Am JMed. 1959; 27:196-211.

30) Kempner W. Effect of the rice dieton diabetes mellitus associated with vasculardisease. Postgrad Med. 1958; 24:359-71.

31) Ornish D, Brown SE, Scherwitz LW,Billings JH, Armstrong WT, Ports TA,McLanahan SM, Kirkeeide RL, Brand RJ,Gould KL. Can lifestyle changes reversecoronary heart disease? The Lifestyle HeartTrial. Lancet. 1990 Jul 21;336(8708):129-33.

32) Segasothy M, Phillips PA.Vegetarian diet: panacea for modern lifestylediseases? QJM. 1999 Sep;92(9):531-44.

33) Fraser G. Ten years of life. Is it amatter of chance? Arch Intern Med.161:1645-52, 2001.

34) Key TJ, Davey GK, Appleby PN.Health benefits of a vegetarian diet. ProcNutr Soc. 1999 May;58(2):271-5.

35) Sabate J. The contribution of vege-tarian diets to health and disease: a paradigmshift? Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Sep;78(3Suppl):502S-507S.

36) Nicholas P. Hays; Raymond D.Starling; Xiaolan Liu; Dennis H. Sullivan;Todd A. Trappe; James D. Fluckey; William J.Evans. Effects of an Ad Libitum Low-Fat,High-Carbohydrate Diet on Body Weight,Body Composition, and Fat Distribution inOlder Men and Women: A RandomizedControlled Trial. Arch Intern Med.2004;164:210-217.

37) Jequier E, Bray GA. Low-fat dietsare preferred. Am J Med. 2002 Dec 30;113Suppl 9B:41S-46S.

38) Astrup A, Astrup A, Buemann B,Flint A, Raben A. Low-fat diets and energybalance: how does the evidence stand in2002? Proc Nutr Soc. 2002 May;61(2):299-309.

39) Wing R. Successful weight lossmaintenance. Annu Rev Nutr. 2001;21:323-41.

40) Pinkney J. Prevention and cure oftype 2 diabetes. BMJ. 2002 Aug3;325(7358):232-3.

Diabetic Treatments Increase Heart DiseaseUnfortunately for the patient, the doctors, and the drug companies "antidiabetic treat-

ments" -- pills and injectable insulin -- are actually "anti-diabetic-patient" in the sense thatthey commonly hurt the customer. Consider the results of these major studies:

m The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) is the largest study doneto show the effects of drug therapy on diabetics.20 Six and a half years of treatment withintensive insulin therapy for type-1 diabetics resulted in more weight gain, as well as high-er cholesterol, LDL (bad) cholesterol, triglycerides and blood pressure compared to peopletreated less aggressively. As expected from the rise in cholesterol, there was an increase inthe risk of heart disease and stroke for the treated patients.

m The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study in Glycemia Control and Complicationsin NIDDM study showed an increase in cardiovascular events in those receiving intensivetherapy.21 In this research paper diabetic patients with a history of a heart attack werestudied, and those treated with insulin or diabetic medications had an increased risk ofdeath.

m In a large European The TRACE Study Group, investigators found diabeticpatients with a history of heart attacks treated with diabetic pills and/or insulin had almosttwice the death rate as those diabetics treated with diet alone.22 Diabetics treated with-out medications (diet only) had the same death rate as people without diabetes.

DIABETES/FROM PAGE 8

nature" of the report, including asking members of Congress tochallenge the United States' $406 million in contributions to theW.H.O.

When food industry executives or government officials com-plain about the lack of “sound science,” self-interest is generally atwork. Internationally known scientists drafted the W.H.O. report.The report comes to obvious conclusions. Threatened by such con-clusions, food companies and their friends in government try topick apart the science, ridicule the process, and delay action, just asthe cigarette industry did for so many years. Senators Larry Craigand John Breaux, co-chairmen of the Senate Sweetener Caucus,asked Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson tocall on the W.H.O. to "cease further promotion" of the report, whiletrade associations for the sugar, corn refining and snack food indus-tries questioned the report's legitimacy and asked for Mr.Thompson's personal intervention. They got it.

By making its position on the W.H.O. indistinguishable fromthat of the food industry, the Bush administration undermines theefforts of more forward-thinking food companies and threatenspublic health. Its action underscores the need for government to cre-ate a wall between itself and the food industry when establishingnutrition and public health policy. Recommendations to cut back onsugars may not please food companies, but it's time to stop tradingcalories for dollars.

Kelly D. Brownell, professor of psychology at Yale, is author of"Food Fight: The Inside Story of the Food Industry, America'sObesity Crisis, and What We Can Do About It." Marion Nestle, pro-fessor of public health at New York University, is author of "FoodPolitics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health."

SUGAR/FROM PAGE 5

Veni, vidi, veggie...Roman gladiatorswere vegetarian

Roman gladiators were over-weight vegetarians who lived onbarley and beans, according to ascientific study of the largestgladiator graveyard discovered.

Analysis of the bones of morethan 70 gladiators recently foundnear Ephesus, the Roman capitalof Asia Minor, disproves the tra-ditional Hollywood images ofmacho carnivores with thephysique of boxers.

The dietary findings are fromscientists from the University ofVienna. The mass autopsy at thegraveyard site on the westerncoast of Turkey has challengedassumptions that gladiator train-ing was almost as brutal as thecontests.

Ancient Roman mosaicsdepict gladiators as stocky, heavymen but historians have tendedto assume this was a tribute totheir macho image rather than aliteral depiction of their size.

Meanwhile, experts havebeen puzzled by contemporaryreferences to gladiators as "bar-ley crunchers". KarlGrossschmidt, a forensic anthro-pologist at Vienna University,used chemical testing on thebones to reveal that gladiatorsstuck to a diet of barley andbeans to bulk out.

"They got enough of thisfood every day to make themvery fat and strong," he said. Heconcluded that they devised thediet primarily to protect them-selves from slashing wounds anddamage to nerves and blood ves-sels, with the layer of fat supple-menting their scant armor.

Bone samples subjected tochemical analysis confirmed thatthe gladiator’s vegetarian diet.The bone density was also signif-icantly higher than normal, as isfound in modern athletes as wellas in many individuals who eat adiet low in animal products.

Gladiators share their dietarypreferences with that of anotherlegendary fighter of the period --the Roman soldier. Romain sol-diers, it has long been known, atea largely vegetarian diet in orderto have a physical advantage overtheir omniverous adversaries.Historian Will Durant has docu-mented this interesting fact frommultiple sources. In his Caesarand Christ: The Story ofCivilization, Durant wrote:

Food in camp was sim-ple: bread or porridge,some vegetable, sourwine, rarely flesh: theRoman army conqueredthe world on a vegetari-an diet: Caesar's troopscomplained when cornran out and they had toeat meat.

EarthSave News Food Safety Spring 2004 11

was thought to be due to theisoflavones (mainly genestein anddaidzen) in soy. Isoflavones are atype of phytoestrogen (plant estro-gen) that has been thought to inter-fere with the ability of the potenthuman form of estrogen toincrease cell proliferation and,therefore, cancer risk. However,studies have been mixed. Whilesome do indeed show soy acting asan anti-estrogen, others suggestsoy may act as a weak estrogenitself, increasing cancer risk.Interestingly, some studies haveshown that while small amounts ofgenestein increase cell growth,large amounts inhibit it. Finally,there is some evidence that womeneating soy from an early age (espe-cially during puberty) do reducetheir breast cancer risk, whilethere seems to be less protectionfor those who begin to eat soy laterin life.

Conclusion: We still do notknow all the answers where soyand breast cancer are concerned.However, the evidence is suffi-cient to say that soy consumptiondoes not increase risk of breastcancer and may reduce risk insome people, especially if soy isconsumed from an early age. Forthose who have estrogen-positivebreast cancer, it also appears safeto use soy in moderation.

Soy and Thyroid

Claim: Soy contains naturalchemicals known as goitrogensthat interfere with thyroid func-tion. These can cause an enlarge-ment of the thyroid gland (a "goi-ter") and symptoms of hypothy-roidism, such as lethargy, dullness,coldness, and depression.

It is true that soy containsgoitrogens, as do many other foodssuch as cruciferous vegetables(cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli,and brussel sprouts), sweet pota-toes, lima beans, and millet.However, these foods have beenfound only to cause problemswhen iodine intake is low, becausegoitrogens do their damage byinterfering with the thyroid gland's

by John McDougall MD

One little Holstein dairy cowfrom a Yakima, Washington farmintroduced mad cow intoAmerica’s food supply andchanged the world forever. Canyou imagine the response whenconsumers discover 9 out of 10 ofthe herds in the US (89%) areinfected with leukemia virus?1This means millions of cowspresently have live, infectious,leukemia viruses – bovineleukemia virus – living insidethem. These viruses are known tocause cancers of the immune sys-tem, called leukemias and lym-phomas, in these cows. Morestartling will be the reaction whenthey learn that consuming taintedbeef has already infected as manyas 74% of people living in theUS.1

Hopefully, this will be a wake-up call that turns people fromsausages to sweet potatoes andporterhouse to potatoes. A revo-lution is long overdue, especiallysince scientists have known aboutthis health hazard for more than35 years. Yet, you have heard lit-tle or nothing about leukemiaviruses infecting your food sup-ply because of the spin placed onthis information by the cattleindustry and the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture. Theyhave taken the position: “untilproven guilty beyond any doubt,eating live leukemia viruses isperfectly safe.” Crude testingmethods available during the pasttwo decades have failed to findevidence of widespread infectionin humans from this cancer-caus-ing virus.

Now however, that excuse forkeeping the public in the dark isgone forever. Using state-of-the-art detection methods, inDecember of 2003 researchersfrom the University of California,Berkeley published their findingsthat three-fourths (74%) of peo-ple from their community – astudy population of 257 humans –have been infected with bovineleukemia viruses. This conclu-sion was based on the discoveryof antibodies against this infec-tious agent in the people’s blood.1The investigators hedged on therelevance of their conclusions bytaking the position that this com-mon presence of antibody couldhave been from dead, thoroughlycooked, viruses, as well as live,highly infectious ones. Anyonewho remembers eating burgers orsteaks “pink on the inside” knowsexposure to live viruses is univer-sal. The virus resides in whiteblood cells (blood lymphocytes)where circulating antibodies areunable to neutralize it. Therefore,once an animal is infected withthe virus, it is infected for life.(This is the case with humans,too.)

Disregard for the importance ofthis widespread problem is notuniversal. Many European coun-tries have conducted programs toeliminate infected herds. Forexample, in 1996, after thirtyyears of effort, Finland complete-ly eradicated the infection fromits cattle.2 Obviously, the Finnstake eating live leukemia virusesseriously. However, in other coun-tries, where the beef and dairyindustries make up a large part ofthe economy, there has been noeffort to clean up this cesspool ofinfection; for example 84% ofherds in Argentina and 70% inCanada are found to harbor thebovine leukemia virus.3-5

The spread of infection in cattlearises from accepted practices inthe cattle industry, such as feed-ing blood from slaughtered cowsas a formula and feeding pooledcolostrum (early milk) to calves –and the use of syringes, tattooing,and de-horning instruments on

multiple animals without propersterilization between uses.6 BLVis also passed directly from moth-er to calf through her milk. Mostinfected cattle do not live longenough to develop actual disease– they remain “healthy” andtherefore, are not separated fromthe herd. Approximately 1% to5% of infected cattle do developleukemia or lymphoma – many ofthese obviously diseased animalsstill become part of our food sup-ply. This virus is easily spreadfrom cow’s milk to other speciesof animals, and once infected theycan become ill with leukemia.For example, in 1974 it wasreported that when 6 infant chim-panzees were fed infected cow’smilk 2 died of leukemia within ayear.7 So what more evidencecould there be that these well-known animal infections are athreat to you and your family(who, by the way, are also ani-mals)?

In the laboratory this virus caninfect the cells of many species ofanimals, including humans.8 Thebovine leukemia virus has beenclassified in the same group asthe Human T-cellLeukemia/Lymphotropic virustype 1 (HTLV-1), which is knownto cause leukemia and lym-phomas in humans (Adult T-celll e u k e m i a / l y m p h o m a ) . 9Nationwide and worldwide,leukemia is more common inhigher dairy- and beef consumingpopulations.10,11 An increasedincidence of leukemia has beenfound among dairy farmers inmultiple studies.12-15 A recentstudy of Canadian workers foundthat those individuals working inoccupations associated with cattlehave approximately twice the riskof developing leukemia and lym-phoma.16

In addition to infecting whiteblood cells, these viruses alsoattack other cells in the body,such as cells of the breast and thelymph nodes. Leukemia virusesinfect the cells of a cow’s mam-mary gland (udder).17 One recentworrisome study found the virusin the breast tissues of 10 of 23human breast cancerpatients.18,19 Beef and dairyproduct consumption in variouspopulations has been found tocorrelate directly with an increas-ing incidence of another cancer ofthe immune system called lym-phoma.20-24

Meat from a thousand beef cat-tle often makes up a single ham-burger patty, because many bodyparts from many different cowsare processed at a single meatpacker. Most milk, cheese, andother dairy products are infectedwith these viruses, since the milkfrom many dairy farms is mixedin large vats at the dairy factorybefore processing and packaging.Pasteurization of milk kills manytypes of microorganisms, but it isnot foolproof. There is also con-cern that pasteurization maybreak the viruses into fragmentsthat may become even more dan-gerous.25

If you live in the United States,Canada, Argentina or any othercountry whose government isindifferent to this problem, youcan be pretty sure you will beconsuming beef with live wholeviruses, and dairy products con-taining whole viruses or frag-ments. Avoiding meat and dairyproducts is the most effectivemeans to prevent future infection.You are maybe thinking that thesmart move is to switch to chick-en and other poultry.Unfortunately, they are alsoinfected with cancer causingviruses.26 Your only safe choiceis a pure vegetarian diet.

Each year about 30,000 newcases of leukemia and 70,000 newcases of lymphoma occur for

“unknown reasons” in the USA. Ifind it hard to believe that none ofthese are due to infection withbovine leukemia viruses. Virusescausing leukemia should not sur-prise people – after all, you takeyour cat to the veterinarian forfeline leukemia virus vaccina-tions in order to prevent leukemiain your cat. As always, the burdenof proof of safety of a product lieswith those selling the food to youand your family. It has not beenproved safe to eat leukemia virus-es – and the evidence is evenmore damning now that we knowthese viruses infect the vastmajority of people who eat meatand milk products.

Don’t despair. If you live in acountry where people follow theWestern diet, your risk of devel-oping leukemia or lymphomaeach year is only one in 3000.Plus, these are primarily diseasesof children and the elderly, sug-gesting the strength of ourimmune system largely deter-mines whether or not we willdevelop this kind of cancer. Ourdiet is the major controllable assetwe have for strengthening thisdefense system. Even if you areinfected with bovine leukemiaviruses already, a change to aplant food based diet, like theMcDougall diet, will still reduceyour risk of developing leukemia.27 Preventing infections in thefirst place is the most sensibleaction parents can take with theirchildren by never feeding thesetainted foods – meats and dairyproducts – to their children.Clearly, there is sufficient evi-dence to take action; furthermore,there are no negative nutritionalconsequences from removingthese hazardous foods from yourdiet.

References:1) Buehring GC, Philpott SM, Choi

KY. Humans have antibodies reactive withBovine leukemia virus. AIDS Res HumRetroviruses. 2003 Dec;19(12):1105-13.

2) Nuotio L, Rusanen H, Sihvonen L,Neuvonen E. Eradication of enzooticbovine leukosis from Finland. Prev VetMed. 2003 May 30;59(1-2):43-9.

3) Sargeant JM. Associations betweenfarm management practices, productivity,and bovine leukemia virus infection inOntario dairy herds. Prev Vet Med. 1997Aug;31(3-4):211-21.

4) VanLeeuwen JA,. Seroprevalence ofinfection with Mycobacterium avium sub-species paratuberculosis, bovine leukemiavirus, and bovine viral diarrhea virus inmaritime Canada dairy cattle. Can Vet J.2001 Mar;42(3):193-8.

5) Trono KG. Seroprevalence of bovineleukemia virus in dairy cattle in Argentina:comparison of sensitivity and specificityof different detection methods. VetMicrobiol. 2001 Nov 26;83(3):235-48.

6) Gonda M. Bovine immunodeficien-cy virus. AIDS. 1992 Aug;6(8):759-76

7) McClure HM, Keeling ME, CusterRP, Marshak RR, Abt DA, Ferrer JF.Erythroleukemia in two infant chim-panzees fed milk from cows naturallyinfected with the bovine C-type virus.Cancer Res. 1974 Oct;34(10):2745-57.

8) Graves DC, Ferrer JF. In vitro trans-mission and propagation of the bovineleukemia virus in monolayer cell cultures.Cancer Res. 1976 Nov;36(11 Pt 1):4152-9.

9) Johnson J. Molecular biology andpathogenesis of the human T-cellleukaemia/lymphotropic virus Type-1(HTLV-1). Int J Exp Pathol. 2001Jun;82(3):135-47.

10) Hursting SD. Diet and humanleukemia: an analysis of international data.Prev Med. 1993 May;22(3):409-22.

11) Howell MA. Factor analysis ofinternational cancer mortality data and percapita food consumption. Br J Cancer.1974 Apr;29(4):328-36.

12) Kristensen P. Incidence and riskfactors of cancer among men and womenin Norwegian agriculture. Scand J WorkEnviron Health. 1996 Feb;22(1):14-26.

13) Reif J. Cancer risks in NewZealand farmers. Int J Epidemiol. 1989Dec;18(4):768-74.

14) Blair A. Leukemia cell types andagricultural practices in Nebraska. ArchEnviron Health. 1985 Jul-Aug;40(4):211-4.

15) Donham KJ. Epidemiologic rela-tionships of the bovine population andhuman leukemia in Iowa. Am J Epidemiol.1980 Jul;112(1):80-92.

16) Fritschi L, Johnson KC, KliewerEV, Fry R; Canadian Cancer RegistriesEpidemiology Research Group. Animal-related occupations and the risk ofleukemia, myeloma, and non-Hodgkin'slymphoma in Canada. Cancer Causes

Widespread Infection with Leukemia Virus from Meat and Milk ability to utilize iodine. Between1951 and 1961, several cases ofgoiter were diagnosed in infantswho had been fed infant formulamade from soy flour. These casesare frequently cited by the anti-soylobbyists to prove soy damagesthyroid function (especially ininfants). But not a single case ofgoiter in infants has been causedby soy formula since the 1960s. Atthat time the soy formula base waschanged from soy flour to soy pro-tein isolates, which are low ingoitrogens, and manufacturersbegan fortifying soy formula withiodine.

Soy does not cause thy-roid problems in healthy, well-nourished people who are not defi-cient in iodine. However, peoplewho do not have a reliable sourceof iodine could increase their riskof thyroid problems if they eat alot of soy and/or other foods richin goitrogens. Iodized salt, dairyproducts, and fish are the maindietary sources of iodine, and mostmultivitamin/mineral supplementsprovide the recommended dailyallowance. So the answer is not toavoid soy or cruciferous vegeta-bles, but to get enough iodine.

Conclusion: There is no evi-dence that eating soy foods regu-larly causes thyroid problems inhealthy people who include suffi-cient iodine in the diet.

Soy and Cognitive Function

Claim: Soyfoods, especiallytofu, can cause mental deteriora-tion and accelerate aging.

One study done in Hawaii (theHonolulu Heart Study) found thatJapanese-American men who atethe most tofu in middle age hadthe greatest mental deteriorationand dementia as seniors. Thisstudy is widely cited as evidencethat tofu may cause a reduction incognitive function. Interestingly,there have been at least three otherstudies that have suggested thatsoy provides significant beneficialeffects on cognitive function. Inaddition populations with relative-ly high soy intake (about a servinga day), including people in Asiaand Seventh-day Adventists, expe-rience lower rates of dementia thanthose populations who eat little ifany soy. While this does not provethat soy is beneficial, it does sug-gest that moderate soy consump-tion is likely not detrimental.

Conclusion: The weight of theevidence suggests that soy mayoffer some benefits to cognitivefunction, although more researchis needed before firm conclusionscan be made on this issue.

What about soy versus ricemilk? It all depends. If you aresensitive to soy or use a lot of soyproducts, you may wish to use for-tified rice milk. However, my pref-erence is for soy - especially forchildren. Soy is a much richersource of high quality protein, vit-amins and minerals. It also con-tains isoflavones, which are pro-tective for heart health and againstosteoporosis. I think it tastes bettertoo.

For more detailed informationabout each of these issues, the fol-lowing websites are most helpful:www.llu.edu//llu/vegetarian/soy2.htmlwww.foodrevolution.org/what_about_soy.htmwww.soybean.com/drsuz.htm

Brenda Davis is a registereddietitian in Kelowna, B.C., a glo-betrotting lecturer and the authorof several books, including WhyVegan and The New BecomingVegetarian.

Control. 2002 Aug;13(6):563-71. 17) Buehring GC, Kramme PM,

Schultz RD. Evidence for bovineleukemia virus in mammary epithelialcells of infected cows. Lab Invest. 1994Sep;71(3):359-65.

18) GC Buehring, KY Choi and HMJensen. Bovine leukemia virus in humanbreast tissues. Breast Cancer Res 2001,3(Suppl 1):A14

19) Buehring GC Evidence of bovineleukemia virus in human mammaryepithelial cells Semin Cell Dev Biol199735: 27A; Abstract V-1001.

20) Sarasua S, Savitz DA. Cured andbroiled meat consumption in relation tochildhood cancer: Denver, Colorado(United States). Cancer Causes Control.1994 Mar;5(2):141-8.

21) Zhang S, Hunter DJ, Rosner BA,Colditz GA, Fuchs CS, Speizer FE, WillettWC. Dietary fat and protein in relation torisk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma amongwomen. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999 Oct20;91(20):1751-8.

22) Fritschi L, Johnson KC, KliewerEV, Fry R; Canadian Cancer RegistriesEpidemiology Research Group. Animal-related occupations and the risk ofleukemia, myeloma, and non-Hodgkin'slymphoma in Canada. Cancer CausesControl. 2002 Aug;13(6):563-71.

23) Chiu BC. Diet and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in older women.JAMA. 1996 May 1;275(17):1315-21.

24) Cunningham AS. Lymphomas andanimal-protein consumption. Lancet. 1976Nov 27;2(7996):1184-6.

25) Ferrer JF. Milk of dairy cows fre-quently contains a leukemogenic virus.Science. 1981 Aug 28;213(4511):1014-6.

26) Johnson ES. Poultry oncogenicretroviruses and humans. Cancer DetectPrev. 1994;18(1):9-30..

27) Zhang SM, Hunter DJ, Rosner BA,Giovannucci EL, Colditz GA, Speizer FE,Willett WC. Intakes of fruits, vegetables,and related nutrients and the risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among women.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000May;9(5):477-85.

SOY/FROM PAGE 1

12 Spring 2004 Education EarthSave News

12 Month Membership NAME:_________________________________________________________________ADDRESS:______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________CITY:______________________________________ STATE:_____ ZIP:______________

DAY PHONE:________________________________EVE PHONE:________________________________E-MAIL:______________________________________________

MC/VISA/AMEX ______ ______________________________________EXP:_______

SIGNATURE______________________________ DATE:__________

Make checks payable in U.S.funds to EarthSave Internationaland return completed form to:

EarthSave International, PO Box 96 New York, NY 10108

$ Clip & send

Yes! I want to support EarthSave! Enclosed is my tax-deductible donation.

Pledge: $___________________/per monthI authorize monthly charges to my credit card (use signature line atright).Send me an authorization for automatic payments from my check-ing account.I'll ask my place of work to match my gift.Contact me with info about volunteer opportunities in my area.

qq

q

qq

q $20 Student/Senior q $35 Individualq $50 Family q $100 Patronq $500 Sustainer q $1,000 Lifetime Membershipq Other: $______________

Monthly Giving

Help us Save the Earth one bite at a time.

Join EarthSave today! With more than 40 local chapters and branches, there’s a groupof friendly people out there hoping to hear from you. For a complete list of our

local chapters, contact our home office at 800-362-3648or check us out on the web at http://www.EarthSave.org

On February 18, 2004, over 60leading scientists -- Nobel laure-ates, leading medical experts, for-mer federal agency directors, anduniversity chairs and presidents --voiced their concern over the mis-use of science by the Bush admin-istration. UCS is seeking the sig-natures of thousands of additionalU.S. scientists in support of thiseffort.

Successful application of sci-ence has played a large part in thepolicies that have made the UnitedStates of America the world’s mostpowerful nation and its citizensincreasingly prosperous andhealthy. Although scientific inputto the government is rarely theonly factor in public policy deci-sions, this input should always beweighed from an objective andimpartial perspective to avoid per-ilous consequences. Indeed, thisprinciple has long been adhered toby presidents and administrationsof both parties in forming andimplementing policies. Theadministration of George W. Bushhas, however, disregarded thisprinciple.

When scientific knowledgehas been found to be in conflictwith its political goals, the admin-istration has often manipulated theprocess through which scienceenters into its decisions. This hasbeen done by placing people whoare professionally unqualified orwho have clear conflicts of interestin official posts and on scientificadvisory committees; by disband-ing existing advisory committees;by censoring and suppressingreports by the government’s ownscientists; and by simply not seek-ing independent scientific advice.Other administrations have, onoccasion, engaged in such prac-

tices, but not so systematically noron so wide a front. Furthermore, inadvocating policies that are notscientifically sound, the adminis-tration has sometimes misrepre-sented scientific knowledge andmisled the public about the impli-cations of its poli-cies.

For example,in support of thepresident’s deci-sion to avoid regu-lating emissionsthat cause climatechange, theadministration hasconsistently mis-represented thefindings of theNational Academy of Sciences,government scientists, and theexpert community at large. Thus inJune 2003, the White Housedemanded extensive changes inthe treatment of climate change ina major report by theEnvironmental Protection Agency(EPA). To avoid issuing a scientif-ically indefensible report, EPAofficials eviscerated the discussionof climate change and its conse-quences.

The administration also sup-pressed a study by the EPA thatfound that a bipartisan Senateclean air proposal would yieldgreater health benefits than theadministration’s proposed ClearSkies Act, which the administra-tion is portraying as an improve-ment of the existing Clean Air Act.“Clear Skies” would, however, beless effective in cleaning up thenation’s air and reducing mercurycontamination of fish than properenforcement of the existing CleanAir Act.

Misrepresenting and suppress-

ing scientific knowledge for polit-ical purposes can have seriousconsequences. Had Richard Nixonalso based his decisions on suchcalculations he would not havesupported the Clean Air Act of1970, which in the following 20

years prevented more than200,000 premature deaths and mil-lions of cases of respiratory andcardiovascular disease. Similarly,George H.W. Bush would not havesupported the Clean Air ActAmendments of 1990 and addi-tional benefits of comparable pro-portions would have been lost.

The behavior of the WhiteHouse on these issues is part of apattern that has led Russell Train,the EPA administrator underPresidents Nixon and Ford, toobserve, “How radically we havemoved away from regulation basedon independent findings and pro-fessional analysis of scientific,health and economic data by theresponsible agency to regulationcontrolled by the White House anddriven primarily by political con-siderations.”

Across a broad range of policyareas, the administration hasundermined the quality and inde-pendence of the scientific adviso-ry system and the morale of thegovernment’s outstanding scientif-

ic personnel:s Highly qualified scientists

have been dropped from advisorycommittees dealing with child-hood lead poisoning, environmen-tal and reproductive health, anddrug abuse, while individuals

associated with orworking for indus -tries subject toregulation havebeen appointed tothese bodies.s Censorshipand political over-sight of govern-ment scientists isnot restricted tothe EPA, but hasalso occurred at

the Departments of Health andHuman Services, Agriculture, andInterior, when scientific findingsare in conflict with the administra-tion’s policies or with the views ofits political supporters.

s The administration is sup-porting revisions to theEndangered Species Act thatwould greatly constrain scientificinput into the process of identify-ing endangered species and criti-cal habitats for their protection.

s Existing scientific adviso-ry committees to the Departmentof Energy on nuclear weapons,and to the State Department onarms control, have been disband-ed.

s In making the invalid claimthat Iraq had sought to acquire alu-minum tubes for uranium enrich-ment centrifuges, the administra-tion disregarded the contraryassessment by experts atLivermore, Los Alamos and OakRidge National Laboratories.

The distortion of scientific

knowledge for partisan politicalends must cease if the public is tobe properly informed about issuescentral to its well being, and thenation is to benefit fully from itsheavy investment in scientificresearch and education. To elevatethe ethic that governs the relation-ship between science and govern-ment, Congress and the Executiveshould establish legislation andregulations that would:

s Forbid censorship of scien-tific studies unless there is a rea-sonable national security concern;

s Require all scientists onscientific advisory panels to meethigh professional standards; and

s Ensure public access togovernment studies and the find-ings of scientific advisory panels.

To maintain public trust in thecredibility of the scientific, engi-neering and medical professions,and to restore scientific integrityin the formation and implementa-tion of public policy, we call onour colleagues to:

s Bring the current situationto public attention;

s * Request that the govern-ment return to the ethic and codeof conduct which once fosteredindependent and objective scien-tific input into policy formation;and

s * Advocate legislative, reg-ulatory and administrative reformsthat would ensure the acquisitionand dissemination of independentand objective scientific analysisand advice.

To join in signing the state-ment, go online to:

http://www.ucsusa.org/form/rsimembers.php

Science, like any field of endeavor, relies onfreedom of inquiry; and one of the hallmarks ofthat freedom is objectivity. Now, more than ever,on issues ranging from climate change to AIDSresearch to genetic engineering to food addi-tives, government relies on the impartial per-

spective of science for guidance.President George H.W. Bush, April 23, 1990

Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking

worker safety laws.ALEC has produced hundreds of bills

designed to enhance corporate special inter-ests. These bills support the increased use offossil fuels, and expanded drilling and min-ing on public lands. And they limit the roleof scientific evidence in policy decisions,especially those regarding global climatechange. ALEC is vehemently opposed toefforts to control greenhouse gasses such ascarbon dioxide.

ALEC's "Animal and EcologicalTerrorism Act" is one example of thegroup's efforts. Another of their bills thathas also been introduced into state legisla-tures is called "The Environmental LiteracyImprovement Act." It creates an"Environmental Education Council" thatwould approve "acceptable environmental

education materials" for schools. The billstates that text materials must "not bedesigned to change student behavior, atti-tudes or values" nor "include instruction inpolitical action skills nor encourage politi-cal action activities." So much for a vibrantdemocracy.

Another bill, the "Pesticide PreemptionAct," would eliminate a local government'sability to control pesticide "registration,notification of use, advertising and market-ing, distribution, applicator training and cer-tification, storage, transportation, disposal,disclosure of confidential information orproduct composition." In other words, itrenders communities defenseless to therisks of toxic pesticide exposure fromunsafe application methods, poisonousingredients. And characteristically ofALEC's bills, it would limit a community'srights to know about such risks.

I wish our world was such that onlyparanoid people feared that our preciousfreedoms and environment were underattack. I wish I were exaggerating, and myconcerns for our future were not based inreality. It would be comforting if thesethreats were only imagined. Regrettably,however, this is not the case. ALEC is extra-ordinarily well funded, and has written billsto roll back environmental protection, dis-mantle public education, eliminate advancesin civil rights laws, and undermine workingfamilies. The threats of which I speak arequite real, as are ALEC's efforts to see themenacted into law. We must not allow them tosucceed.

It may seem naïve to speak of love whentalking about groups like ALEC, but Ibelieve that who we are and who we becomeare dependent in large part on the qualityand the force of the love we can bring to

bear on behalf of life. We are better able tofight such groups if we draw strength fromour love of our Earth, our love of democrat-ic principles, and our commitment to freespeech.

There is a lot of darkness in our worldand country today. One of my mentors,Martin Luther King, Jr., once said some-thing that I believe speaks to our currentmoment as much as when he said it:

"Difficult and painful as it is, we mustwalk on in the days ahead with an audaciousfaith in the future… When our days becomedreary with low-hovering clouds of despair,and when our nights become darker than athousand midnights, let us remember thatthere is a creative force in this universe,working to pull down the gigantic moun-tains of evil, a power that is able to make away out of no way and transform dark yes-terdays into bright tomorrows."

TERRORIST/FROM PAGE 6