For the concious decision maker looking for a unique dining experience “out of the norm” this is a great place for young and old.

I recommend you check it out.

Happy Earth Day!

If I asked those same people, if they would like to prevent their children from ever acquiring heart disease, osteoporosis or cancer, would their responses be the same?  Why is change so hard for people?

If you had asked me a few years ago, if I could make all the changes in my life that I have, I am quite certain my answer would have been no.  But, as I educated myself, my motivations grew, and living a more sustainable life became the only way I could feel positive about living and growing a family here on Earth.  If life all of a sudden isn’t matching our own values, we feel the desire for change.  So, perhaps changing people’s values is at the core of this issue.

I have read so many books over the last few years that have shaped and changed my views on the way I live my life and the way I want to teach my children to live their lives.  There is a vast amount of research and information our there that supports the drastic need for change in the ways we use this planet.  Humans today, particularly in North America, have built their lives around creating and maintaining modern-day conveniences, that asking people to put forth effort for change is almost impossible.

Last night I watched Jamie Oliver’s series The Food Revolution.  In this particular episode, he has every door slammed in his face as he makes his way trying to improve the foods we feed our children in schools and the food we so readily consume in fast food restaurants.  As much as it boggled his mind at people’s reactions and real lack of interest, it boggled my mind watching it.  Those are the same questions I ask myself all the time and what drove me to write this exact post.  I wanted to yell to Jamie through the tv screen “We believe you, we care, we want to know what we are putting in our and our children’s bodies!” 

I heard a radio broadcaster announce on the radio this morning as I was driving my kids to school, that new research has come out saying that girls are now hitting puberty at an average age of 9.  Go all the way back to 1840 and the average age was 16.  The announcer went on to say that doctors are baffled and don’t know why this is happening – perhaps higher rates of obesity, perhaps hormones.  Come on people!  What has changes so dramatically over the last 100 years to have such dramatic impacts on girls of today?  Our diet!  Doctors should be screaming that from the rooftops!  And more importantly, people should be listening, caring and willing to make positive changes.

I also read recently, that 2/3 rds of North American 12 year olds have the first stages of heart disease.  Jamie Oliver is on the right path to do for our kids what the parents who “don’t want to know”, should be doing.  It is a real shame we can’t see past our conveniences to see the real costs involved.  So kudos to you Jamie!

Let’s stop being afraid of information.  Let’s learn from it, question it, grow from it.  It is the only way that tomorrow will be better than today.

Why would we choose to do this you might ask?  Well for several reasons: improved health and wellbeing; reduced environmental impact; and reduced animal cruelty.  I will explain further:

1. Improved health and wellbeing:

 “The beef industry has contributed to more American deaths than all the wars of the last century, all natural disasters, and all automobile accidents combined.”-Neal Barnard, President, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

“We are now seeing fatty deposits in the coronary arteries of children as early as age three.  By age 12, two-thirds of children on a typical north american diet have these first stages of coronary heart disease.”-Charles Atwood, M.D., pediatrician and medical author.

Based on the largest study of its kind out of Boston University that followed the health of 5,000 meat eaters and 6,000 vegetarian and vegans over a period of 20 years showed on average vegetarians lived 7 years longer than that of meat eaters, and vegans lived on average 15 years longer.

All interesting and alarming “headlines” that certainly got our attention.  But what is it like to not eat a meal containing animal products for over a month and a half.  That right, we have not eaten meat, milk, cheese or other animal products in over a month.  Well I find I have more energy than ever, my previous digestion issues (IBS) have corrected themselves, and our meals have been more interesting than ever!  Tracy has found some amazing recipes full of healthy, fresh, and nutritious ingredients. In fact we haven’t yet repeated the same meal twice.  Way to go Tracy!

Our diet includes things like almond milk, coconut milk, soy milk, and rice milk.  I like them all, but rice milk has seemed to taste the closest to skimmed cow milk.  We also eat many different beans, soy cheese, fresh organic fruit and vegetables.  Earth’s General Store, Planet Organic, Save-on-Foods, and the Farmer’s Market have all the goods.  A little more expensive-yes, but we look at it as paying for a preventative measure against cancer, heart disease, and other serious ailments.

2. Reduced Environmental Impact:

“One cow grazing on one acre of grass will produce 58 pounds of meat, which is enough to sustain a person for two-and-a-half months.  If the same grass were replaced with soybeans, the beans would contain enough protein to sustain the same person for seven years!”-Good Medicine, Autumn, 1996.

“You can save more water by not eating 1 pound of beef than not showering for 9 months.”-John Robbins, The Food Revolution.

Having considered the last two quotes, the American food  industry brings to slaughter over 10 billion animals each year. Industrial livestock operations (ILO’s) contribute in huge ways to soil erosion, ground water pollution, antibiotic resistance in humans, hormone disruption in humans, greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and the list goes on… more on that later.

You should also know that the average North American eat sapproximately 95 animals each year.  I found this hard to believe, but have come across this statistic in several sources.

3. Reduced Animal Cruelty:

“Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings we are still savage.”-Thomas Edison, Inventor.

This third reason supporting veganism is pretty self-explanatory, but to add, research has shown that pigs have a higher intellectual and emotional intelligence than that of dogs.  We wouldn’t think of eating Fido now would we?

These are just a few points that we have come across as we begin to explore a new lifestyle, a new diet, and further reduced impact that actually leads to immediate improved health.

Some famous vegan/vegetarians (for interest sake):

• Plato
• Leonardi da Vinci
• Sir Isaac Newton
• Benjamin Franklin
• Mahatma Ghandi
• Vincent Van Gough
• Albert Einstein
• Henry Ford

One final thought: 

“All truth passes through 3 stages:

First, it is ridiculed.

Second, it is violently opposed.

Third, it is accepted as being self evident.”-Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher

 Keith

Tracy

Here is an interesting stat according to blog site “Carbon Neutral Blogs”:

“Every blog that attracts 15,000 hits per month generates on average around 3.5kg of carbon every year – this figure is worked out according to a study conducted by Alexander Wissner-Gross, PhD, physicist at Harvard University and environmental activist, who has worked out that an average website causes about 0.02g of carbon dioxide for each visit – so a blog attracting 15,000 visits per month contributes around 3.5kgs of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere per year. His study took into account the power consumed by computer usage, electricity hours and server cooler systems. Although 3.5kg’s a year doesn’t sound like a lot, when you consider that last February The Sunday Times reported that there was around 200m blogs in the world, it means that with an average readership of 15,000 hits per month blogs alone contribute around 700,000 tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere every year.”

I found this incredibly interesting and thought that you might too.  In exchange for linking to their blog posts from our site, this organization will plant a tree in an effort to “offset” the carbon emmisions related to the energy used in maintaining and surfing to our Reduced Impact Family blog.

Thanks guys!

Tracy

So I was at Save-On doing some grocery shopping the other day when I came across this product.

These are called Take & Toss Cups from a company called The First Years.  Yes, I did write Take & Toss.  Seriously?  This is how far we have come that we are actually still encouraging people, and more scary, our children, to buy products to use once and throw them out, never mind the fact that we are also encouraging children with developing brains and bodies to stick plastic in their mouths at every opportunity!  This company clearly does not care  for children and their futures. 

Check out this insert below about common misconceptions surrounding plastics from the Ecology Center in California.  This is information everyone should have before deciding to buy such a product.

Seven Misconceptions about Plastic and Plastic Recycling

Misconception # 1: Plastics that go into a curbside recycling bin get recycled. Not necessarily. Collecting plastic containers at curbside fosters the belief that, like aluminum and glass, the recovered material is converted into new containers. In fact, none of the recovered plastic containers from Berkeley are being made into containers again but into new secondary products such as textiles, parking lot bumpers, or plastic lumber – all unrecyclable products. This does not reduce the use of virgin materials in plastic packaging. “Recycled” in this case merely means “collected,” not reprocessed or converted into useful products.

Misconception # 2: Curbside collection will reduce the amount of plastic landfilled. Not necessarily. If establishing collection makes plastic packages seem more environmentally friendly, people may feel comfortable buying more. Curbside plastic collection programs, intended to reduce municipal plastic waste, might backfire if total use rises faster than collection. Since only a fraction of certain types of plastic could realistically be captured by a curbside program, the net impact of initiating curbside collection could be an increase in the amount of plastic landfilled. The Berkeley pilot program showed no reduction of plastic being sent to the landfill in the areas where the curbside collection was in operation. Furthermore, since most plastic reprocessing leads to secondary products that are not themselves recycled, this material is only temporarily diverted from landfills.

Misconception # 3: A chasing arrows symbol means a plastic container is recyclable. The arrows are meaningless. Every plastic container is marked with the chasing arrows symbol. The only information in the symbol is the number inside the arrows, which indicates the general class of resin used to make the container. The attorneys general of 11 states objected to false and misleading claims about plastic recyclability. The recent settlement that they reached with the American Plastics Council paves the way for a first-ever definition of what claims can or cannot be made about plastic recycling and recyclability.

Misconception # 4: Packaging resins are made from petroleum refineries’ waste. Plastic resins are made from non-renewable natural resources that could be used for a variety of other applications or conserved. Most packaging plastics are made from the same natural gas used in homes to heat water and cook.

Misconception # 5: Plastics recyclers pay to promote plastics’ recyclability. No; virgin resin producers pay for the bulk of these ads. Most such ads are placed by virgin plastic manufacturers whose goal is to promote plastic sales. These advertisements are aimed at removing or diminishing virgin plastic’s greatest challenge to market expansion: negative public conception of plastic as unrecyclable, environmentally harmful, and a major component of wastes that must be landfilled or burned.

Misconception # 6: Using plastic containers conserves energy. When the equation includes the energy used to synthesize the plastic resin, making plastic containers uses as much energy as making glass containers from virgin materials, and much more than making glass containers from recycled materials. Using refillables is the most energy conservative.

Misconception # 7: Our choice is limited to recycling or wasting. Source reduction is preferable for many types of plastic and isn’t difficult. Opportunities include using refillable containers, buying in bulk, buying things that don’t need much packaging, and buying things in recyclable and recycled packages

Plastic packaging has economic, health, and environmental costs and benefits. While offering advantages such as flexibility and light weight, it creates problems including: consumption of fossil resources; pollution; high energy use in manufacturing; accumulation of wasted plastic in the environment; and migration of polymers and additives into foods.

Plastic container producers do not use any recycled plastic in their packaging. Recycled content laws could reduce the use of virgin resin for packaging. Unfortunately, the virgin&endash;plastics industry has resisted such cooperation by strongly opposing recycled -content legislation, and has defeated or weakened consumer efforts to institute stronger laws. Plastic manufacturers recently decided that they will not add post consumer materials to their resins used in the USA.

There is a likelihood that establishing plastics collection might increase consumption by making plastic appear more ecologically friendly both to consumers and retailers. Collecting plastics at curbside could legitimize the production and marketing of packaging made from virgin plastic. Studies of garbage truck loads during the recent plastic pick-up pilot program showed no reduction of “recyclable” plastic containers being thrown away in the pilot areas (in fact, there was a slight increase). Due in part to increased plastic use, glass container plants around the country have been closing, including Anchor Glass Container Corporation in Antioch, putting 300 people out of work

Plastic recycling costs much and does little to achieve recycling goals. Our cost/benefit analysis for implementing curbside plastics collection in Berkeley shows that curbside collection of discarded plastics: involves expensive processing; has limited benefits in reducing environmental impacts; and has limited benefits in diverting resources from waste.

Processing used plastics often costs more than virgin plastic. As plastic producers increase production and reduce prices on virgin plastics, the markets for used plastic are diminishing. PET recyclers cannot compete with the virgin resin flooding the market.

Increasing the capture rates of glass, paper or yard debris in Berkeley could divert more resources from landfills than collecting plastics at curbside. The “recyclable” plastic to be collected in Berkeley at most would only amount to 0.3% of the waste stream.

Five Strategies to Reduce the Environmental Impact of Plastics

1. Reduce the use
Source reduction Retailers and consumers can select products that use little or no packaging. Select packaging materials that are recycled into new packaging – such as glass and paper. If people refuse plastic as a packaging material, the industry will decrease production for that purpose, and the associated problems such as energy use, pollution, and adverse health effects will diminish.

2. Reuse containers
Since refillable plastic containers can be reused about 25 times, container reuse can lead to a substantial reduction in the demand for disposable plastic, and reduced use of materials and energy, with the consequent reduced environmental impacts. Container designers will take into account the fate of the container beyond the point of sale and consider the service the container provides. “Design for service” differs sharply from “design for disposal”.

3. Require producers to take back resins
Get plastic manufacturers directly involved with plastic disposal and closing the material loop, which can stimulate them to consider the product’s life cycle from cradle to grave. Make reprocessing easier by limiting the number of container types and shapes, using only one type of resin in each container, making collapsible containers, eliminating pigments, using water-dispersible adhesives for labels, and phasing out associated metals such as aluminum seals. Container and resin makers can help develop the reprocessing infrastructure by taking back plastic from consumers.

4. Legislatively require recycled content
Requiring that all containers be composed of a percentage of post-consumer material reduces the amount of virgin material consumed.

5. Standardize labeling and inform the public
The chasing arrows symbol on plastics is an example of an ambiguous and misleading label. Significantly different standardized labels for “recycled,” “recyclable,” and “made of plastic type X” must be developed.

So, please keep these things in mind with your purchasing power. 

Tracy

There are 2 “MUST SEE” videos in the presentation below, but for easier access I have included their links here as well:

www.thestoryofstuff.com

http://storyofstuff.org/bottledwater/

Click here to open the presentation:

Eco-Lifestyle Presentation

Enjoy,

Keith

I have to share with you all a great project my girlfriend passed onto me that is happening here in Edmonton.  It is called “The Organic Box”.  It  provides weekly deliveries of local and non-local organic produce, brought in direct from local farmers and Canadian distributors depending on the season. Each box contains about 15-20 fresh fruits and vegetables delivered to your home or work. 

They aim to bring their members as close to their producers as possible, sourcing all their produce from local farmers throughout the Alberta growing season.  They will deliver a box of healthy organic, local fruit and vegetables to your doorstep weekly or bi-weekly – your choice.  The quality of the produce is guaranteed and deliveries begin mid May and run for 13 weeks.  Check it out at www.theorganicbox.ca. 

Tracy Fortin