Harvard Medical School found that
1 in 10 premature deaths is caused by eating red meat:
Small quantities of processed meat such as bacon, sausages or salami can increase the likelihood of dying by a fifth, researchers from Harvard School of Medicine found. Eating steak increases the risk of dying by 12%.
***
Red meat often contains high amounts of saturated fat, while bacon and salami contain large amounts of salt. Replacing red meat with poultry, fish or vegetables, whole grains and other healthy foods cut the risk of dying by up to one fifth, the study found.
***
The study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine followed more than 100,000 people for around 28 years asking them periodically about their diet and lifestyle.
It was found that for every serving of red meat – equivalent to 3 ounces (85 grams) – eaten each day there was an 18 per cent increased risk of dying from heart disease and a 10 per cent increased risk of dying from cancer.
***
“The research itself seems solid and is based on two large scale cohort studies monitored over a long period of time.”
Other studies have also found that eating too much meat causes cancer and other health problems.
But how much of the problem isn’t red meat … but the fact that what we’re eating isn’t what our grandparents wouldn’t even recognize as meat at all?
For all of human history – until the last couple of decades – people ate beef from cows (or buffalo or bison) which grazed on grass. The cows were usually strong and healthy. Their meat was lean, with very little saturated fat, as the critters ate well and got outdoor exercise. Their meat was high in good Omega 3 fats. See
this and
this, and
humans evolved to consume a lot of Omega 3 fatty acids in the wild game and fish which they ate (
more).
Today, on the other hand, beef is laden with saturated fat and almost entirely lacking healthy fats like Omega 3s, because the cows are force-fed food which makes them sick. Specifically, instead of their natural menu - grass - they are force-fed corn, which makes them sick. Because their diet makes them ill, they are given massive amounts of antibiotics. Even with the antibiotics, the diet and living conditions would kill them pretty quickly if they aren't slaughtered.
They are also given estrogen to fatten them up. And they are fed parts of other animals, which can
give them mad cow disease.
Well-known
food writer (and meat-lover) Michael Pollan gave a
must-read account of modern beef practices in the New York Times in 2002:
Cows raised on grass simply take longer to reach slaughter weight than cows raised on a richer diet, and the modern meat industry has devoted itself to shortening a beef calf’s allotted time on earth. ”In my grandfather’s day, steers were 4 or 5 years old at slaughter” …. now we get there at 14 to 16 months.” Fast food indeed. What gets a beef calf from 80 to 1,200 pounds in 14 months are enormous quantities of corn, protein supplements — and drugs, including growth hormones.
***
Calves have no need of regular medication while on grass, but as soon as they’re placed in the backgrounding pen, they’re apt to get sick. Why? The stress of weaning is a factor, but the main culprit is the feed. The shift to a ”hot ration” of grain can so disturb the cow’s digestive process — its rumen, in particular — that it can kill the animal if not managed carefully and accompanied by antibiotics
.
***
Growing the vast quantities of corn used to feed livestock in this country takes vast quantities of chemical fertilizer, which in turn takes
vast quantities of oil — 1.2 gallons for every bushel
. So the modern feedlot is really a city floating on a sea of oil.
***
Tanker trucks back up to silo-shaped tanks, into which they pump thousands of gallons of liquefied fat and protein supplement. In a shed attached to the mill sit vats of liquid vitamins and synthetic estrogen; next to these are pallets stacked with 50-pound sacks of Rumensin and tylosin, another antibiotic.
***
Corn is a mainstay of livestock diets because there is no other feed quite as cheap or plentiful: thanks to federal subsidies and ever-growing surpluses, the price of corn ($2.25 a bushel) is 50 cents less than the cost of growing it. The rise of the modern factory farm is a direct result of these surpluses, which soared in the years following World War II, when petrochemical fertilizers came into widespread use. Ever since, the U.S.D.A.’s policy has been to help farmers dispose of surplus corn by passing as much of it as possible through the digestive tracts of food animals, converting it into protein. Compared with grass or hay, corn is a compact and portable foodstuff, making it possible to feed tens of thousands of animals on small plots of land. Without cheap corn, the modern urbanization of livestock would probably never have occurred.
We have come to think of ”cornfed” as some kind of old-fashioned virtue; we shouldn’t. Granted, a cornfed cow develops well-marbled flesh, giving it a taste and texture American consumers have learned to like. Yet this meat is demonstrably less healthy to eat, since it c
ontains more saturated fat.
A recent study in The European Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that
the meat of grass-fed livestock not only had substantially less fat than grain-fed meat but that the type of fats found in grass-fed meat were much healthier. (Grass-fed meat has more omega 3 fatty acids and fewer omega 6, which is believed to promote heart disease; it also contains betacarotine and CLA, another ”good” fat.)
A growing body of research suggests that
many of the health problems associated with eating beef are really problems with cornfed beef.
In the same way ruminants have not evolved to eat grain, humans may not be well adapted to eating grain-fed animals
.
Yet the U.S.D.A.’s grading system continues to reward marbling — that is, intermuscular fat — and thus the feeding of corn to cows.
The economic logic behind corn is unassailable, and on a factory farm, there is no other kind. Calories are calories, and corn is the cheapest, most convenient source of calories. Of course the identical industrial logic — protein is protein — led to the feeding of rendered cow parts back to cows, a practice the F.D.A. banned in 1997 after scientists realized it was spreading mad-cow disease.
Make that mostly banned.
The F.D.A.’s rules against feeding ruminant protein to ruminants make exceptions for ”blood products” (even though they contain protein) and fat.
Indeed, my steer has probably dined on beef tallow recycled from the very slaughterhouse he’s heading to in June. ”Fat is fat,” the feedlot manager shrugged when I raised an eyebrow.
F.D.A. rules still permit feedlots to feed nonruminant animal protein to cows. (
Feather meal is an accepted cattle feed, as are pig and fish protein and chicken manure
.) Some public-health advocates worry that since
the bovine meat and bone meal that cows used to eat is now being fed to chickens, pigs and fish, infectious prions could find their way back into cattle when they eat the protein of the animals that have been eating them
. To close this biological loophole, the F.D.A. is now considering tightening its feed rules.
***
”When we buy supplement, the supplier says it’s 40 percent protein, but they don’t specify beyond that.” When I called the supplier, it wouldn’t divulge all its ”proprietary ingredients” but promised that animal parts weren’t among them. Protein is pretty much still protein.
Compared with ground-up cow bones, corn seems positively wholesome. Yet it wreaks considerable havoc on bovine digestion. During my day at Poky, I spent an hour or two driving around the yard with Dr. Mel Metzen, the staff veterinarian. Metzen, a 1997 graduate of Kansas State’s vet school, oversees a team of eight cowboys who spend their days riding the yard, spotting sick cows and bringing them in for treatment. A great many of their health problems can be traced to their diet.
”They’re made to eat forage,” Metzen said, ”and we’re making them eat grain.”
Perhaps the most serious thing that can go wrong with a ruminant on corn is feedlot bloat. The rumen is always producing copious amounts of gas, which is normally expelled by belching during rumination. But when the diet contains too much starch and too little roughage, rumination all but stops, and a layer of foamy slime that can trap gas forms in the rumen. The rumen inflates like a balloon, pressing against the animal’s lungs. Unless action is promptly taken to relieve the pressure (usually by forcing a hose down the animal’s esophagus), the cow suffocates.
A corn diet can also give a cow acidosis.
Unlike that in our own highly acidic stomachs, the normal pH of a rumen is neutral. Corn makes it unnaturally acidic, however, causing a kind of bovine heartburn, which in some cases can kill the animal but usually just makes it sick. Acidotic animals go off their feed, pant and salivate excessively, paw at their bellies and eat dirt. The condition can lead to diarrhea, ulcers, bloat, liver disease and a general weakening of the immune system that leaves the animal vulnerable to everything from pneumonia to feedlot polio.
Cows rarely live on feedlot diets for more than six months, which might be about as much as their digestive systems can tolerate.
”I don’t know how long you could feed this ration before you’d see problems,” Metzen said; another vet said that a sustained feedlot diet would eventually ”blow out their livers” and kill them. As the acids eat away at the rumen wall, bacteria enter the bloodstream and collect in the liver. More than 13 percent of feedlot cattle are found at slaughter to have abscessed livers.
What keeps a feedlot animal healthy — or healthy enough — are antibiotics. Rumensin inhibits gas production in the rumen, helping to prevent bloat; tylosin reduces the incidence of liver infection.
Most of the antibiotics sold in America end up in animal feed — a practice that, it is now generally acknowledged, leads directly to the evolution of new antibiotic-resistant ”superbugs.”
In the debate over the use of antibiotics in agriculture, a distinction is usually made between clinical and nonclinical uses. Public-health advocates don’t object to treating sick animals with antibiotics; they just don’t want to see the drugs lose their efficacy because factory farms are feeding them to healthy animals to promote growth. But the use of antibiotics in feedlot cattle confounds this distinction. Here the drugs are plainly being used to treat sick animals, yet the animals probably wouldn’t be sick if not for what we feed them.
I asked Metzen what would happen if antibiotics were banned from cattle feed. ”We just couldn’t feed them as hard,” he said. ”Or we’d have a higher death loss.” (Less than 3 percent of cattle die on the feedlot.) The price of beef would rise, he said, since the whole system would have to slow down.
”Hell, if you gave them lots of grass and space,” he concluded dryly, ”I wouldn’t have a job.”
***
I stopped by the shed where recent arrivals receive their
hormone implants
. The calves are funneled into a chute, herded along by a ranch hand wielding an electric prod, then clutched in a restrainer just long enough for another hand to inject a slow-release pellet of
Revlar, a synthetic estrogen
, in the back of the ear. [This] is virtually a universal practice in the cattle industry in the United States. (It has been banned in the European Union.)
American regulators permit hormone implants on the grounds that no risk to human health has been proved, even though
measurable hormone residues do turn up in the meat we eat. These contribute to the buildup of estrogenic compounds in the environment, which some scientists believe may explain falling sperm counts and premature maturation in girls
. Recent studies have also found elevated levels of synthetic growth hormones in feedlot wastes; these persistent chemicals eventually wind up in the waterways downstream of feedlots, where scientists have found fish exhibiting abnormal sex characteristics.
The F.D.A. is opening an inquiry into the problem, but for now, implanting hormones in beef cattle is legal and financially irresistible: an implant costs $1.50 and adds between 40 and 50 pounds to the weight of a steer at slaughter, for a return of at least $25.
***
The unnaturally rich diet of corn that has compromised [the cow's] health is fattening his flesh in a way that in turn may compromise the health of the humans who will eat him. The antibiotics he’s consuming with his corn were at that very moment selecting, in his gut and wherever else in the environment they wind up, for bacteria that could someday infect us and resist the drugs we depend on. We inhabit the same microbial ecosystem as the animals we eat, and whatever happens to it also happens to us.
I thought about the deep pile of manure that [the cows] and I were standing in. We don’t know much about the hormones in it — where they will end up or what they might do once they get there — but we do know something about the bacteria. One particularly lethal bug most probably resided in the manure beneath my feet. Escherichia coli 0157 is a relatively new strain of a common intestinal bacteria (it was first isolated in the 1980′s) that is common in feedlot cattle, more than half of whom carry it in their guts. Ingesting as few as 10 of these microbes can cause a fatal infection.
Most of the microbes that reside in the gut of a cow and find their way into our food get killed off by the acids in our stomachs, since they originally adapted to live in a neutral-pH environment. But the digestive tract of the modern feedlot cow is closer in acidity to our own, and in this new, manmade environment acid-resistant strains of E. coli have developed that can survive our stomach acids — and go on to kill us. By acidifying a cow’s gut with corn, we have broken down one of our food chain’s barriers to infection. Yet this process can be reversed: James Russell, a U.S.D.A. microbiologist, has discovered that switching a cow’s diet from corn to hay in the final days before slaughter reduces the population of E. coli 0157 in its manure by as much as 70 percent. Such a change, however, is considered wildly impractical by the cattle industry.
So much comes back to corn, this cheap feed that turns out in so many ways to be not cheap at all. While I stood in [the] pen, a dump truck pulled up alongside the feed bunk and released a golden stream of feed. The animals stepped up to the bunk for their lunch. The $1.60 a day I’m paying for three giant meals is a bargain only by the narrowest of calculations. It doesn’t take into account, for example, the cost to the public health of antibiotic resistance or food poisoning by E. coli or all the environmental costs associated with industrial corn.
For if you follow the corn from this bunk back to the fields where it grows, you will find an 80-million-acre monoculture that consumes more chemical herbicide and fertilizer than any other crop. Keep going and you can trace the nitrogen runoff from that crop all the way down the Mississippi into the Gulf of Mexico, where it has created (if that is the right word) a 12,000-square-mile ”dead zone.”
But you can go farther still, and follow the fertilizer needed to grow that corn all the way to the oil fields of the Persian Gulf. [The cow] started life as part of a food chain that derived all its energy from the sun; now that corn constitutes such an important link in his food chain, he is the product of an industrial system powered by fossil fuel. (And in turn, defended by the military — another uncounted cost of ”cheap” food.) I asked David Pimentel, a Cornell ecologist who specializes in agriculture and energy, if it might be possible to calculate precisely how much oil it will take to grow my steer to slaughter weight…. roughly 284 gallons of oil. We have succeeded in industrializing the beef calf, transforming what was once a solar-powered ruminant into the very last thing we need: another fossil-fuel machine.
***
Much of what happens next — the de-hiding of the animal, the tying off of its rectum before evisceration — is designed to keep the animal’s feces from coming into contact with its meat. This is by no means easy to do, not when the animals enter the kill floor smeared with manure and 390 of them are eviscerated every hour. (Partly for this reason, European plants operate at much slower line speeds.) But since that manure is apt to contain lethal pathogens like E. coli 0157, and since the process of grinding together hamburger from hundreds of different carcasses can easily spread those pathogens across millions of burgers, packing plants now spend millions on ”food safety” — which is to say, on the problem of manure in meat.
***
It’s accepted that the animals will enter the kill floor caked with feedlot manure that has been rendered lethal by the feedlot diet. Rather than try to alter that diet or keep the animals from living in their waste or slow the line speed — all changes regarded as impractical — the industry focuses on disinfecting the manure that will inevitably find its way into the meat. This is the purpose of
irradiation
(which the industry prefers to call ”cold pasteurization”). It is also the reason that carcasses pass through a hot steam cabinet and get sprayed with an
antimicrobial solution
before being hung in the cooler at the National Beef plant.
***
I discovered that grass-fed meat is more expensive than supermarket beef. Whatever else you can say about industrial beef, it is remarkably cheap, and any argument for changing the system runs smack into the industry’s populist arguments. Put the animals back on grass, it is said, and prices will soar; it takes too long to raise beef on grass, and there’s not enough grass to raise them on, since the Western range lands aren’t big enough to sustain America’s 100 million head of cattle. And besides, Americans have learned to love cornfed beef. Feedlot meat is also more consistent in both taste and supply and can be harvested 12 months a year. (Grass-fed cattle tend to be harvested in the fall, since they stop gaining weight over the winter, when the grasses go dormant.)
All of this is true. The economic logic behind the feedlot system is hard to refute. And yet so is the ecological logic behind a ruminant grazing on grass. Think what would happen if we restored a portion of the Corn Belt to the tall grass prairie it once was and grazed cattle on it. No more petrochemical fertilizer, no more herbicide, no more nitrogen runoff. Yes, beef would probably be more expensive than it is now, but would that necessarily be a bad thing? Eating beef every day might not be such a smart idea anyway — for our health, for the environment. And how cheap, really, is cheap feedlot beef? Not cheap at all, when you add in the invisible costs: of antibiotic resistance, environmental degradation, heart disease, E. coli poisoning, corn subsidies, imported oil and so on. All these are costs that grass-fed beef does not incur.
In addition to antibiotics and estrogen, industrial meat operators feed other chemicals to the animals shortly before slaughter … which end up in our bodies.
As Alternet
reported in 2010 that chemicals which can cause severe adverse health effects, and which have been banned in China and 159 other nations, are added to the feed of cattle, pigs and turkeys shortly before slaughter – and a
lot
of the chemicals are contained in the meat we eat:
The FDA approved a livestock drug banned in 160 nations and responsible for hyperactivity, muscle breakdown and 10 percent mortality in pigs, according to angry farmers who phoned the manufacturer.
The beta agonist ractopamine, a repartitioning agent that increases protein synthesis, was recruited for livestock use when researchers found the drug, used in asthma, made mice more muscular says
Beef
magazine.
But unlike the growth promoting antibiotics and hormones used in livestock which are withdrawn as the animal nears slaughter, ractopamine is
started as the animal nears slaughter
.
As much as
twenty percent
of Paylean, given to pigs for their last 28 days, Optaflexx, given to cattle their last 28 to 42 days and Tomax, given to turkeys their last 7 to 14 days, remains in consumer meat
says author and well known veterinarian Michael W. Fox.
Though
banned in Europe, Taiwan and China
–more than 1,700 people were “poisoned” from eating Paylean-fed pigs since 1998 says the Sichuan Pork Trade Chamber of Commerce– ractopamine is used in 45 percent of US pigs and 30 percent of ration-fed cattle says Elanco Animal Health which manufactures all three products.
How does a drug marked, “Not for use in humans. Individuals with cardiovascular disease should exercise special caution to avoid exposure. Use protective clothing, impervious gloves, protective eye wear, and a NIOSH-approved dust mask” become “safe” in human food? With no washout period?
***
In fact, in 2002, three years after Paylean’s approval,
the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine’s Office of Surveillance and Compliance accused Elanco of withholding information about “safety and effectiveness” and “adverse animal drug experiences”
upon which ractopamine was approved, in a 14-page warning letter.
“Our representatives requested a complete and accurate list of all your GLP [Good Laboratory Practices] studies involving Paylean® (Ractopamine hydrochloride), including their current status as well as the names of the respective study monitors. In response, your firm supplied to our representatives multiple lists which differed in the names of the studies and their status. In addition, your firm could not locate or identify documents pertaining to some of the studies. This situation was somewhat confusing and created unneeded delays for our representatives,” wrote Gloria J. Dunnavan, Director Division of Compliance.
Where was mention of the farmer phone calls to Elanco reporting,
“hyperactivity,” “dying animals,” “downer pigs” and “tying up” and “stress” syndromes, asks the FDA letter. Where was the log of phone calls that included farmers saying, “animals are down and shaking,” and “pig vomiting after eating feed with Paylean”?
But, not to worry. Despite ractopamine’s dangers and the falsified approval documents, the FDA approved ractopamine the following year for cattle–and last year for turkeys.
According to Temple Grandin, Professor of Animal Science at Colorado State University, the “indiscriminant use of Paylean (ractopamine) has contributed to an increase in downer non-ambulatory pigs,” and pigs that “are extremely difficult to move and drive.” In Holsteins, ractopamine is known for causing hoof problems, says Grandin and feedlot managers report the “outer shell of the hoof fell off” on a related beta agonist drug, zilpateral.
A[n] article in the 2003
Journal of Animal Science
confirms that “ractopamine does affect the behavior, heart rate and catecholamine profile of finishing pigs and making them more difficult to handle and potentially more susceptible to handling and transport stress.”
Nor can we overlook the effects of “adding these drugs to waterways or well water supplies–via contaminated animal feed and manure runoff– when this class of drugs is so important in treating children with asthma,” says David Wallinga, MD of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.
The FDA’s approval of a drug for food that requires impervious gloves and a mask just to handle is reminiscent of the bovine growth hormone debacle.
Like rBST, ractopamine increases profits despite greater livestock death and disability because a treated animal does the work of two in a macabre version of economies of scale.
Like rBST, food consumers are metabolic, neurological and carcinogen guinea pigs so that agribusiness can make a profit.
As can be seen from the discussion above, our grandparents would not recognize what we’re eating today as meat. (And – on top of that – there are all of the
meat additives.)
And yet the government is so protective of the current model of industrial farming that private citizens such as ranchers and meat packers are
prohibited
from testing for mad cow disease, and even investigating factory farming may get one
labeled as a terrorist, even though a paper in the American Society of Microbiology’s newsletter
mBio
shows that
overuse of antibiotics by factory farmers creates “superbugs”.
Healthier Alternatives
If you’re going to eat red meat, make it grass fed beef.
Cows fed grass don’t require massive amounts of antibiotics … the cows stay healthier because they’re eating the food they were designed for. The meat is much lower in saturated fats and higher in good Omega 3 fats (which makes
you and
your kids smarter). In addition, if they are fed grass, they are much less likely to get mad cow disease.
Grass fed cows also use much less oil – which goes into the industrial fertilizer, pesticides and other parts of growing corn and mixing industrial chemicals for cattle – and so are better for the environment (and reduce the “need” for foreign oil wars). Indeed, grass not only contributes less carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than corn, but may actually be a “carbon sink” for greenhouse gasses –
taking more out than they add.
Stores like Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods prominently market grass fed beef.
Ranching cooperatives are popping up. I predict they will grow in popularity, as people learn what’s in their meat.
Backyard chickens are also becoming very popular. You can get chickens and buy or
build a chicken coop for eggs and chicken meat.
Views: 636 Replies: 1
add '2-Qty' to cart for $6.98
Price shown in cart
Skin Deep
by emily hebert for ellethe fashion industry's top models catwalkers their complexion-saving tips.
Karlie Kloss
"i've just been using pond's cold cream—it's a heavy, rich, really saturated cream that i think my grandma probably used when she was my age, but you can't mess with the classics! it works."shop now: pond's cold cream, $9
Joan Smalls
"in the morning, i always make sure to wash my face with a salicylic acid cleanser and moisturize with a combination of lotion and estee lauder advanced night repair. i know it's supposed to be used at night but i like putting it on for daytime because it makes my skin look dewy and glowing!"shop now: estee lauder advanced night repair, $77.50
Hyoni Kang
"dermalogica's foam cleanser is awesome! it's gentle but removes all my makeup. i use it once and the makeup is gone."shop now: dermalogica clearing skin wash, $33
Karmen Pedaru
"in between shows during fashion week, i'll dab darphin eye cream on my lids. i carry it everywhere! the skin around the eyes is delicate and goes through a lot during fashion week, so i try to keep it moisturized."shop now: darphin wrinkle corrective eye cream, $75
Anja Rubik
"i use a gentle scrub every night. it unclogs all the pores. i use the clinique one—the 7 day scrub cream. massaging is especially important because it increases circulation."shop now: clinique 7 day scrub cream, $18.50on elle: 2011 genius awards – beauty's top stars share their tips
Lindsey Wixson
"i use rms beauty raw coconut cream to cleanse my skin and take off my makeup. i also use the skin care line by dr. alkaitis—he's based in california and his products were recommended to me by rose-marie swift, the founder of rms beauty."shop now: rms beauty raw coconut cream, $18, and dr. alkaitis organic skin care, from $23
Chanel Iman
"my favorite oil is rodin olio lusso. it's amazing and it just makes the body so beautiful and glowing. i use it on my face too—i use it everywhere! right after a bath, i rub it all over my body and it gets me into that zone of going to bed and sleeping well."shope now: rodin olio lusso, $95
Mirte Maas
"sometimes if i'm coming off a plane and i know i have to do a casting, i'll use yves saint laurent touche eclat concealer to cover any blue or darkness underneath my eyes. it also helps for pimples."shop now: yves saint laurent touche eclat, $40
Jessica Stam
"right now i'm using neutrogena's cleanser—i like it because it gets rid of my makeup and washes my face in one step!"shop now: liquid neutrogena facial cleansing formula, $8.79on elle: how to get balanced skin
Frida Gustavsson
"after taking my makeup off, i'll wash my face and use nuxe oil as a moisturizer—it's a very good oil because it's non-greasy and has a lot of a and e vitamins. it keeps my skin soft."shop now: nuxe oil, $29.50
Liu Wen
"during fashion week, i'm getting makeup on and off my face all day. it can be tough on my skin so i use a lot of moisturizer and masks to help rejuvenate it. i especially like masks because they're relaxing—i use the estee lauder re-nutriv one."shop now: estee lauder re-nutriv intensive lifting mask, $70
Aminata Niaria
"before i go to bed, i always use lancome makeup remover. i'm senegalese so i also eat a lot of fish—it's full of omega-3s, which are good for your skin."shop now: lancome bi-facil, $26
Ranya Mordanova
"when i'm not working, i only wear concealer—i wear makeup so much for shoots and shows, i like to be free of it! bobbi brown's concealer is great for hiding the bags under my eyes."shop now: bobby brown creamy concealer, $22on elle: botox, cosmetic fillers and the meaning of beauty
Hannah Holman
"in the morning, i use christine chin's cleanser. it's a soft exfoliator and great for during or after a shower when my pores are already open and warm. after washing my face, i splash cold water on it to close the pores and make any swelling go down." read more of hannah's tips here.shop now: christine chin aha exfoliating cleanser, $28
Jac
"i use a lot of products from origins' mushroom line. they work really well on my skin and they're organic, which i like. when i see that a product is “organic” i want it! there can be a lot of crap in products, so when i see that something's organic i trust it more."shop now: dr. andrew weil for origins, from $21
Alana Zimmer
"i drink a lot of water and get as much sleep as possible. i also use ling chan's skin care products—i use her mask once a week and get facials from her three or four times a year. she's great because she assesses my skin and tailors the facial to my skin's needs at that given moment."shop now: ling skincare, from $32
Natasha Poly
"i use all different things but right now i like sisley paris all-day all-year cream. i carry it around in my purse during fashion week—it's a really good moisturizer. at nighttime i use the sisley serum. it brings out the best in my skin!"shop now: sisley paris all-day all-year cream, $398, and sisley botanical night complex, $290
Instant Radiance
jay-z and beyonce, russell and katy… cocoa butter and foundation? makeup artists reveal the hot new couples: product duos that prove two is better than one.— elle"when i mix a touch of chanel illusion d'ombre gel shadow in fantasme with weleda skin food, it's magic," says makeup artist romy soleimani. the concoction is a highlighter perfect for tapping on cheekbones, brow bones and lids. soleimani prefers this over conventional illuminators. "the cream creates a sheer texture, and it's not makeupy," she says.
Lovely Lip Stain
for a just-bitten lip shade that's universally flattering, makeup artist hilda levierge pairs nars lip gloss in dolce vita with c.o. bigelow rose salve and applies with a lip brush. "the salve moisturizes and plumps lips and also cuts down on the shine from the gloss," levierge says. the result is a pretty—not sticky— pink lip.on elle: beauty secrets from hollywood's top makeup artists
Dark-Circle Blaster
too much champagne, not enough sleep? when makeup artist jeffrey paul needs to mask dark undereye circles, he reaches for ysl teint radiance foundation and kevyn aucoin's the sensual skin enhancer concealer, mixing a dab of each on the back of his hand and patting under the eyes. the bespoke formula gives full coverage and is brightening—not opaque or cakey—thanks to the light-diffusing foundation. "the combo is my secret to a flawless face," paul says.on elle: tips for a flawless complexion that really work
Foundation Fix
buh-bye, redness, pores, and uneven tone. fake an airbrushed complexion with makeup artist alexis brazel's "must-do": diorskin forever foundation mixed with stila illuminating tinted moisturizer. the alchemy of the tinted moisturizer's light luminescence with the long-wearing foundation creates the illusion of "perfected, poreless skin," says brazel, who uses this trick on set for tv commercials.on elle: top winter skin care products to maintain a healthy glow
Smoky Eye Secret
transform liner in a flash. "a dab of maybelline lash discovery in very black blended with bobbi brown long-wear gel eyeliner makes the liner instantly smudgeproof," says paul, who combines the two on the lid of the liner pot and applies with an ultrathin eyeliner brush. added bonus: "it lasts through tears," paul says. brides, take note.on elle: 10 easy ways to improve your daily beauty routine
5-Second Leg Makeover
"for sexy, shimmering legs, mix palmer's cocoa butter in the palm of your hand with a few drops of m.a.c face and body foundation two shades darker than your natural tone," levierge says. the pairing masks flaws and makes legs look long and lean without the orange streaks, telltale scent, and waiting time of self-tanner (but don't worry, the waterproof foundation won't transfer onto clothes). continue reading on elle.com
Retailers are seeing an unusual crime spree. Thieves are swiping bottles of laundry detergent, and one drug store chain has put bottles of Tide on "lock down." 
Momentum gathers for ballot initiative that hopes to force labelling of genetically-modified ingredients – and could prompt a nationwide change in the US
In a
column last month,
New York Times
food writer Mark Bittman wondered, "Why Aren't GMO Foods Labeled?" After laying out some of the basic arguments in favor of labeling — most obviously, the contradiction between the USDA finding that genetically modified foods aren't "materially different" from non-modified foods and yet its prohibition of including GMOs within the legal definition of organic — Bittman concluded that major food companies' unwillingness to label foods containing genetically modified organisms is "demeaning and undemocratic." An overwhelming majority of Americans say they want to know if the food they're buying contains GMOs. The food processors' resistance to providing that information, Bittman argued, violates the ideals of transparency that the free market is supposed to rest on.
It looks like Bittman might get his wish. A coalition of NGOs and family farmers is working to put a
proposition on California's November ballot that would require food companies that sell in the state to put labels on their products declaring whether they are "produced with genetic engineering." If approved by voters, the California proposition (which you can read
here) would have a national ripple effect, just as the state's air rules have influenced the cars that get made in Detroit. The sheer size of the California market likely would prevent most food companies from segmenting products sold in the Golden State from those sold elsewhere; food producers would probably have to put the labels on all their products sold nationwide.
For organic food advocates, GMO labeling has been a long sought goal. "This has been a dream of many of us in the anti-GMO movement for over a decade," says Ronnie Cummins, executive director of the
Organic Consumers Association. "We realized long ago that the federal government was not going to move on the issue. Passing a mandatory labeling law in California will have the impact of a national law, because California is the most important state in the union."
In 2002, citizens in Oregon put a measure on the ballot that would have required GMO labeling. Massive spending by major food companies and the grocery lobby trounced the proposition. Then, in 2004, voters in California's Mendocino County approved a measure banning the cultivation of genetically engineered crops there. Other California counties —Santa Cruz, Marin, and Trinity — soon followed. But in recent years there's been something of a lull in national activism against GMOs, which critics say threaten biodiversity, increase corporate control of the food system, and could pose health risks to animals and people. Most of the sustainable food activism these days focuses on building alternatives to the industrial food system. Just look at young people's enthusiasm for becoming farmers, the surge in artisanal foods, and the continued growth in the number of farmers markets and CSAs. Because the USDA's definition of organic explicitly prohibits GMOs, many ag-tivists figured they could focus on building a sustainable food system parallel to the dominant industrial one and not have to worry too much about GMOs.
Recent developments have reawakened organic farmers and their supporters to the threat posed by GMOs. In October, the FDA completed a review of a super-fast growing GMO salmon, a crucial step toward approving the fish for market. AquaBounty Technologies' "AquaAdvantage salmon" would be the world's first genetically engineered fish for human consumption. Also last fall, seed and chemical conglomerate Monsanto began selling to farmers a variety of
genetically modified sweet corn. The sweet corn, which should hit supermarkets this summer, is the first genetically modified vegetable eaten directly by people. (The huge amounts of GMO canola, corn, and soy grown in the US are either fed to animals or go into processed foods.)
Then, in January, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that his agency would allow the unrestricted cultivation of
GE alfalfa. Vilsack's decision marked a major defeat for companies like Whole Foods, Organic Valley, and
Stoneyfield Yogurt that had fought hard for a ban against GE alfalfa. Dairy producers and sellers are especially worried about GE alfalfa because of how easily alfalfa seeds cross-pollinate. If — or, more accurately,
when
— GE alfalfa cross breeds with organic alfalfa, it will make it difficult, if not impossible, for dairy farmers to find organic feed for their cows. The integrity of the entire organic milk sector is at risk. That's worrisome to retailers like Whole Foods, who know that organic milk often serves as a kind of "gateway drug for organics" as new parents look for organics to feed their kids.
These threats have combined to get the attention of wealthy progressive who are funding the effort to collect the 800,000 signatures needed to get the GMO labeling initiative on the California ballot. Prominent organic growers have also signed onto the effort. The California Right to Know campaign is co-chaired by Grant Lundberg of the organic rice growers and processors
Lundberg Family Farm. In a oped published recently in the
Sacramento Bee, Grant Lundberg put the case simply: "Would you want to know if the food you are buying, eating and feeding to your children has been genetically engineered?"
Lawmakers in other states have started to push legislation modeled on the California initiative. Legislators in
Connecticut and Vermont are considering bills that would require labeling of genetically engineering foods. A state senator in
Washington pushed a similar measure. In Hawaii — a popular spot for GM crop testing, because of its tropical climate — grassroots groups are pushing a disclosure law.
The GMO seed companies, the major food processors, and the grocery store chains are getting ready to fight back. A Sacramento-based lobbyist is preparing to launch a political committee — the
Coalition Against the Costly Food Labeling Proposition — to fight the measure. That's the exact same name the industry used to fight the Oregon measure 10 years ago.
Big Food is scared for good reason. The Grocery Manufacturers Associations says that about
75 percent of processed foods found at the supermarket contain GMOs. But, according to an
NPR/ThomponReuters poll taken in 2010, 90 percent of Americans say that food labels should say whether the product contains GMOs. (Can you think of anything else that Americans agree on in numbers like that? E
ven puppies aren't as popular.) Once consumers have additional information about food containing GMOs, they will likely start shifting their purchasing habits. The NPR poll showed that just four-in-ten people would feel OK eating genetically modified meat.
The situation in Europe offers a glimpse of how food markets would be affected. Under EU law, foods containing GMOs must be labeled. The amount of land planted in GM crops is a fraction of what it is in the US —
and shrinking.
If passed, the California proposition would be a massive blow to the ill-defined "natural food" sector. Unlike products that are organic certified, there is no official definition for "natural." The California law would change that and prevent companies from using the marketing tag "natural" on products containing GMOs.
"Once you have labeling like the EU and 22 other nations, consumers will be able to tell if it has GMO ingredients and they won't be able to be hoodwinked anymore by foods that claim to be natural, but aren't natural at all," Cummins says. "The $50 billion natural food sector will shrink and the $30 billion organic food sector will increase."
Major companies like Kellogg's that have made investments in "natural food" brands will have to either drop the "natural" label — and lose sales — or find a way to source non-GMO or organic grains and oils. In the long run, the amount of land planted in organic crops should grow.
"Consumers see the [GMO] labels, consumers complain to the grocery stores, the grocery stores complain to the food processors, and the food processors start asking the farmers to grow something different," Cummins says. "It's a chain reaction that we are sure is going to happen — and it all rides on California."
Terms & Conditions |
More Feeds
US Free Classifieds
Most Popular Online Classifieds in USA. No Sign up, No Email Required to Post.
Canada Free Ads
Free Online Classifieds in Canada.
UK Free Ads
United Kingdom Free Ads Website.
100% Free Ad Posting.Are mosquitoes driving you crazy in the evening? Here is a chance to drive those irritating blood sucking creatures that prevents you from going out for a walk in the evening, leaving your skin with rashes and itchiness after a needle like bite! The Skin Armour Deep Woods Outdoor Soap from Facedoctor has now emerged for your rescue. It can be easily applied and is effective, long lasting & safe for people of all ages. Made of sea buckthorn oil, it gives your skin care too. You need not be afraid of mosquitoes from now on.
Our products are available at Wal Mart, Lawtons Drugs, Ultra food & drug, Pharmasave, Sobeys, Rexall's stores and other fine pharmacies. Or Call us Toll Free 1-866-595-6497
View our products at http://tinyurl.com/2vf5w9s
 | Optimal HCG emulation complex is an advanced weapon against the obesity war. Specifically formulated to attack fat stores, Optimal HCG emulation diet drop customers have reported losing up to 1-2 lb's per day. Customers have also reported increased energy along with a suppressed appetite. If you've ever struggled with weight loss, you don't have to struggle any longer. With the Optimal HCG emulation complex control is now in your reach. Our price: $48.99 |
 | There have been generations of weight loss products that have come and gone, but believe this or not, HCG diet drops is here to stay for good. Just Potent HCG + Amino Acids is not just the regular HCG diet you see on Amazon or other online stores... Aside from the fact that you're buying genuine HCG that is doctor approved/recommended, you're also buying a potent formula that will ensure you lose weight; this is not conditional, you will lose 1 - 3 pounds daily using Just Potent HCG + Amino Acids. If you are wondering if it is healthy to lose 1 - 3 pounds per day, the answer to you question is a big YES. Just Potent HCG + Amino Acids has been carefully formulated to ensure that you lose weight, gain energy, regulate your hormones and blood sugar, build lean muscle, burn fat like a furnace, control your appetite, and lots of other good stuff your body needs to lose weight and stay healthy. The good thing with choosing Just Potent HCG + Amino Acids as your weight loss buddy is this: you do not need heavy exercise, EVER! We strongly are against heavy exercises when using Just Potent HCG + Amino Acids. The diet we recommend for you is good enough that you only need to do minimal walks, yoga, or some relaxing activity. Whether you plan to lose 5lbs, 10lbs, 15lbs, 20lbs or even more within the next month or 2, Just Potent HCG will make that happen. You just have to first believe that it is possible and that you can do it. See below for more information on what you can get from using Just Potent HCG + Amino Acids. You must order on time because price will be going up by $10. Ebook will be sent along with your order. It is very important that read the All You Need To Know About HCG Diet + Indepth FAQ when starting with Just Potent HCG + Amino Acids. It has lots of juicy information that will make your weight loss experience the best ever. Our price: $44.99 |
Investigators say Paul Costanzo, 52, is part of a growing trend across the country – that has left authorities with the dirty and daunting task of tracking the detergent
Authorities across the country are noticing a rising trend in thefts of Tide detergent.
A man in Minnesota is accused of attempting a clean sweep of $25,000 worth of Tide detergent over the span of 15 months,
according to a report on 7online.com.
Investigators say Paul Costanzo, 52, is part of a growing trend across the country – that has left authorities with the dirty and daunting task of tracking the detergent.
Priced anywhere from $10 to $20, the Tide detergent bottles are unique in that they have no serial numbers, making them virtually impossible to track.
On the black market, authorities say the detergent is resold. Investigators in Maryland have found it is being traded for drugs.
The spike in theft of Tide has sparked CVS stores to take precautions. A spokesman for the store said in some of its chains, they have attached security devices to Tide bottles to alert staff of potential thefts.
Update: Patents, eh? As many of you pointed out, it's less about your ringtone and more about the ringback : so when you're waiting for the other person to pick up, you'll be treated to advertising.
Google patent could replace the ringback tone with adverts (updated) originally appeared on
Engadget on Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:22:00 EDT. Please see our
terms for use of feeds.
Permalink |
USPTO
|
Email this |
Comments
For me,
L’Oreal Paris is a drugstore brand that just “gets it.” From
EverCreme hair creations, to Youth Code anti-aging potions, to Voluminous mascaras, you can find the brand’s products scattered all over my bathroom. (My husband even uses my Youth Code Foaming Gel Cleanser…
shhh
!)
Recently, I was sent samples of L’Oreal’s latest and greatest Spring launches. Here are a few that instantly entered my beauty product rotation:
INFALLIBLE 24 HOUR EYESHADOW ($7.95): “Long-lasting” seems to be a cosmetic catch phrase right now. 12 hour! 18 hour! Each new product promises to outlast the next.
Infallible 24 Hour Eyeshadow is a range of 12 highly pigmented colors that promises to last for a whopping…you guessed it…24 hours! Colors range from your basic browns and golds to bolder greens and purples.
I knew when I read its "crease resistant" and "fade resistant” claims that I had to pass it along to my 21 year old sister, Jamie. As a 30 year-old mom, my glamour days aren't quite over, but my nights are more take out and a movie than fancy dinners and dancing 'til dawn.
Related:
The Secret to Stay-Put Eye Makeup
Jamie has been on the hunt for a shadow that “sticks,” so this seemed like a match made in heaven. I gave her a couple of different colors and told her to go to town! After the very first day of using them, Jamie came to me with words like “amazing” and “wicked awesome.” (Yes, we’re from Boston.)
“I put it on in the morning and it was still perfect at night. The gold shadow I used is so bright. I love it! It makes your eyes pop,” she raved. Needless to say, Jamie plans on buying more colors ASAP.
As for me, the Golden Sage hue is one of my personal favorites. The consistency is somewhere between a powder and a cream, and it glides on effortlessly. I love using it wet and dry, and the little pot that it comes in has an Old Hollywood glamour vibe.
Another plus? Even though this shadow promises 24-hour wear, it washes off in a snap. No scrubbing until your skin feels like its about to peel off. Ladies, we have a winner!
MAGIC BY STUDIO SECRETS MAGIC SMOOTH SOUFFLE BLUSH ($12.95): If you’ve ever tried Studio Secrets Professional Magic Smooth Souffle Foundation, you know how light and airy it is. Magic by Studio Secrets Magic Smooth Souffle Blush is no different. Available in four colors, it looks practically whipped in the tiny jar.
Yes, cream blush can be scary, but I found this stuff to be basically foolproof. It’s almost as if it “melts” into your skin. All you need is a smidge to cast a dewy, angelic glow on your cheeks. (Seriously, people, a dab goes a long way!)
Related:
Age-Defying Makeup Tricks
You can easily build color intensity, and even use this “mousse” as a primer for your favorite powder blush. My only “con” is that I wish more colors were available!
COLOUR RICHE BALM ($7.95): Bright, bold lipstick is all the rage, but sometimes all a girl wants is a hint of tint. And that's why Colour Riche Balm has my heart! This luscious lip conditioner is creamy and hydrating, while depositing sheer color that never looks cakey! There are eight colors available, but Caring Coral is the one I’m going gaga for.
Related:
Favorite New Lipsticks, Glosses and Stains
L’Oreal promises 8 hours of continuous hydration (even once the tint fades), and I have to say that I’m a believer! You may think it sounds silly, but I love putting this stuff on before I climb into bed. I get an extra dose of glam before I shut my eyes, and in the morning my lips are soothed and smoothed.
*Disclaimer: The product(s) reviewed in this article was provided to GalTime by the public relations firm that represents the manufacturer. All opinions are those of the author.
More from GalTime:
Genetic Destiny: Will You Look Like Your Mom?
Lighten Up: Fast Fixes for Dark Under Eye Circles
The Sun Smart Girl's Guide to Bronzer
Spring Makeup Trends: BRIGHT and BEAUTIFUL
No comments:
Post a Comment