Author Archives: ncf01r

Is the new Whole Foods rating system creating an inferiority complex for zucchini?

by ncf01r Posted on October 15, 2014

Is the new Whole Foods rating system creating an inferiority complex for zucchini?

By

15 Oct 2014 6:37 PM

Share

Share

Is the new Whole Foods rating system creating an inferiority complex for zucchini?

×

On Wednesday, Whole Foods started issuing ratings for its fruit, veggies, and flowers to measure the quality of farming practices. The rating system is simple: Fresh food is divided up as “good,” “better,” and “best.” It’s like getting gold, red, or green stars from your kindergarten teacher! Except it’s Whole Foods, instead of Mrs. Carter, grading you — and it’s judging greenhouse gas emissions, ecosystem management, and farmworker treatment, instead of coloring book pages.

Here is some of what Whole Foods is measuring (click here for the full list):

[F]arming practices that evaluate, protect and improve soil health. Examples include composting, rotating crops and using the latest science to measure and enhance nutrients in the soil.

[F]arming practices that create better working conditions. Examples include reducing pesticide risks, providing protective equipment and participating in third-party auditing programs to promote safe conditions and fair compensation.

[F]arming practices that protect and conserve water. Examples include rainwater collection and drip irrigation.

[F]arming practices that protect native species. Examples include planting “bee-friendly” wildflowers, improving conservation areas and taking steps to protect beneficial insects from harmful chemicals.

Fruits, flowers, and vegetables that come from overseas also have to comply with the rating system — yes, Whole Foods imports produce from overseas — even when the country’s standards for pesticides and soil composition are different.

Retrieving the information to issue the labels is complicated, too, and some farmers have insinuated that the system may be taking things a teeny bit too far. Sellers have to undergo a thorough certification process, answering questions about the minutia of each farms’ practices. Reports the New York Times:

“For instance, they want to know about earthworms and how many I have in my soil,” said Mr. Lyman, whose family has grown apples, peaches, pears, and various berries on their farm in Middlefield, Conn., since 1741. “I thought, How do I count every earthworm? It’s going to take a while.”

So while farmers are counting worms in the dirt to scramble for the coveted “best” title, Whole Foods says that it’s just trying to be more honest. Or, here comes the buzzword, more transparent. Plus, the fancy organic food seller now has to compete with cheaper super-companies like Walmart, McDonald’s, General Mills, and Cargill, who are starting up similar transparency campaigns (*cough* marketing ploys) — like McDonald’s recent social media blitz — in order to appeal to curious consumers such as those meddling kids, millennials.

Whether the transparency campaign will make a difference for Whole Food’s sales is still up in the air, but farmers can rest assured that they will be certain to score, at the very least, “good.”

Find this article interesting?
Donate now to support our work.Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Source article:  

Is the new Whole Foods rating system creating an inferiority complex for zucchini?

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, organic, Scotts, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is the new Whole Foods rating system creating an inferiority complex for zucchini?

The Hobby Lobby Case Probably Doesn’t Depend Much on What the Law Says

by ncf01r Posted on March 25, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

So the Hobby Lobby case was heard today, the latest in a long string of challenges to Obamacare. (Next up: whether the law allows subsidies only for policies bought on state exchanges, not on the federal exchange.) In short, the question in this case is whether Obamacare’s requirement that insurance policies cover contraception is legal.

I haven’t written about it before because I’m frankly not sure what to say. As with so many other recent cases, the law seems pretty clear to me. There’s no precedent for corporations having rights of religious freedom in the first place, and that alone seems like enough to toss the case out. But even if they do, the plaintiffs have to show that the contraception requirement imposes a “substantial burden” on them. Their argument is that if they don’t comply, they’ll get hit by substantial penalties. But that’s ridiculous. The question is whether complying with the law is a substantial burden. In other words, does insurance coverage that includes contraception cost them more than insurance coverage without it? The evidence on this is fuzzy, but it seems to be fuzzy only on the question of whether there’s any cost at all. Even if there is, it appears to be small. There’s simply no serious evidence that the cost of complying with the law is large in financial terms, and it’s obviously not large in operational terms since Hobby Lobby literally has to do nothing except continue buying insurance from the same carrier they’ve always bought it from.1

So that’s where we stand. There’s no precedent in the past two centuries that gives corporations First Amendment religious freedom rights. And as near as I can tell, the contraception mandate imposes, at most, only a tiny burden on Hobby Lobby.

But none of that seems to matter. It doesn’t matter that I’m not a lawyer and might be wrong about all this. Others with the intellectual chops to know this stuff have made similar arguments in much more detail. And anyway, I thought the same thing about the original Obamacare case. It simply didn’t seem legally tenable. But it almost carried the day. A frail argument, invented a couple of years earlier and with exactly zero precedent behind it, came within a whisker of getting five votes on the Supreme Court.

This sure seems to be a similar case. The law doesn’t really matter. Four justices just don’t like the Obamacare mandate and will vote anywhere and at anytime to strike it down. Four justices will vote to uphold the mandate. Anthony Kennedy will provide the swing vote. It’s also possible, I suppose, that John Roberts will vote to uphold the mandate, simply on the principle that having upheld Obamacare once before on a slim technicality, he’s not going to relitigate it over and over on increasingly trivial details.

So….I don’t know. In cases like this, the legal arguments seem like little more than window dressing. Everyone knows the outcome they want, and they tailor their opinions to produce those outcomes. Maybe that’s too cynical. I guess we’ll find out next June.

1Oddly enough, I don’t really buy the contention that the burden is small because, after all, Hobby Lobby can simply choose not to provide health insurance at all. Technically, this might be a good argument, but it doesn’t really feel right to me. If the price of complying with the law is eliminating health insurance for Hobby Lobby’s entire employee base, that sure seems pretty substantial to me, even if the federal government isn’t directly coercing its choices one way or the other.

Continue reading here: 

The Hobby Lobby Case Probably Doesn’t Depend Much on What the Law Says

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Hobby Lobby Case Probably Doesn’t Depend Much on What the Law Says

Obama moves to block new coal plants abroad

by ncf01r Posted on October 30, 2013

Obama moves to block new coal plants abroad

By

gynti_46

The U.S. is set to virtually stamp out construction of new coal-fired power plants domestically, thanks to proposed climate regulations. And now it’s setting its sights internationally.

The Obama administration said Tuesday it plans to use its influence with international lending bodies like the World Bank to curtail financial support for new coal power plants overseas. From Reuters:

The U.S. Treasury said it would only support funding for coal plants in the world’s poorest countries if they have no other efficient or economical alternative for their energy needs.

For richer countries, it would only support coal plants that deploy carbon capture and sequestration, an advanced technology for reducing emissions that is not yet commercially viable. That essentially means the United States would limit coal funding to only the world’s poorest for now.

The announcement follows the president’s pledge in June that he would call for an “end to public financing for new coal plants overseas unless they deploy carbon-capture technologies, or there’s no other viable way for the poorest countries to generate electricity.”

The New York Times, however, raises questions about America’s ability to actually sway decisions about coal-plant construction abroad:

The United States does not have a veto over which projects in other countries get financed through organizations, and the number of coal plants built overseas with public money is small relative to the number that are likely to be built with private investment.

By leading a coalition of like-minded countries — including several European ones that have already announced similar intentions — officials said the administration would be able to influence the direction of power plant construction.

“We believe that if public financing points the way, it will then facilitate private investment,” [said Lael Brainard, the under secretary for international affairs at the Treasury Department]. …

Treasury officials said the United States would also seek to push private investors to favor energy technologies that are better for the environment.

A test of the new policy is expected next year. That’s when the World Bank, which recently announced it will finance coal power plants only in rare circumstances, is set to decide whether to support a 600-megawatt coal-fired plant in Kosovo.


Source
U.S. Says It Won’t Back New International Coal-Fired Power Plants, New York Times
U.S. lays out strict limits on coal funding abroad, Reuters

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Read More: 

Obama moves to block new coal plants abroad

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama moves to block new coal plants abroad

Hundreds of oil spills kept secret by North Dakota

by ncf01r Posted on October 28, 2013

Hundreds of oil spills kept secret by North Dakota

By

Shutterstock

Shhh … oil spills are unpopular.

North Dakota’s fracking frenzy is leaking like a sieve. And you haven’t heard about it because fracking companies, oil pipeline owners, and state officials have been keeping information about hundreds of oil spills secret for years.

After a huge spill of more than 20,000 barrels on a wheat farm was hushed up for 11 days, the Associated Press discovered the extent of the years-long cover-up:

Records obtained by the AP show that so far this year, North Dakota has recorded 139 pipeline leaks that spilled a total of 735 barrels of oil. In 2012, there were 153 pipeline leaks that spilled 495 barrels of oil, data show. A little more than half of the spills companies reported to North Dakota occurred “on-site,” where a well is connected to a pipeline, and most were fewer than 10 barrels. The remainder of the spills occurred along the state’s labyrinth of pipelines.

“The public really should know about these,” [said Don Morrison, director of the Dakota Resource Council, an environmental-minded landowner group with more than 700 members in North Dakota]. “If there is a spill, sometimes a landowner may not even know about it. And if they do, people think it’s an isolated incident that’s only happening to them.”

North Dakota also had 291 “incidents” this year that leaked a total of about 2,209 barrels of oil. Data show that all but 490 barrels were contained and cleaned up at the well site. In 2012, there were 168 spills reported that leaked 1,089 barrels of oil; all but 376 barrels were contained on site, data show. Only one incident — a crash involving an oil truck last year — was reported publicly.

Department of Mineral Resources director Lynn Helms — the state’s top oil regulator — said regulators worry about “over-reporting” spills. The goal, he said, is to find a balance to so that “the public is aware of what’s happening but not overwhelmed by little incidents.”

Stung by criticism, the state announced Friday that it’s preparing to launch a new website that will be used to post details of oil spills and cleanup efforts. And on Oct. 17, state officials took the unusual step of notifying the public about a seven-barrel oil spill.

So far, there are no reports of North Dakotans feeling overwhelmed.


Source
ND spills went unreported; state testing website, Associated Press

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

,

Politics

This article is from:  

Hundreds of oil spills kept secret by North Dakota

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hundreds of oil spills kept secret by North Dakota

Latest Conservative Gotcha: Obamacare Subsidizes Pregnant Women

by ncf01r Posted on October 23, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Opponents of abortion rights have seized on one activist’s “discovery” that the Affordable Care Act helps pregnant women pay for neonatal care to accuse the Obama administration of hypocrisy.

The argument has its roots in a questionnaire on Connecticut’s state health insurance exchange website. This questionnaire includes an optional question asking applicants whether they are pregnant. If an applicant hovers her mouse over the question, a tiny bit of text pops up explaining that “Unborn children are counted as members of a pregnant woman’s household, so this information helps determine if she is eligible for help with health care costs. Medicaid also has rules to help pregnant women.”

Abortion foes have cited this pop-up line of text—first noticed by Simcha Reuven, a member of the conservative group Family Institute of Connecticut Action—to argue that “counting unborn children” is inconsistent with a law that they claim uses government money to subsidize abortions. “It’s ironic that some exchanges are counting unborn children for certain purposes when the entire Obamacare law is structured to increase access to abortion,” Susan Muskett, legislative counsel for the National Right to Life Committee, told One News Now last week.

In reality, the Affordable Care Act does not subsidize abortions. (Its free contraception provision may even reduce abortions.) President Obama signed an executive order in 2010 prohibiting the Affordable Care Act from using tax dollars to pay for abortions. And the pop-up text on Connecticut’s health insurance exchange website is easily explained: Obamacare was drafted with heavy subsidies for pregnancy care in a bid to appease opponents of legal abortion. So under the law, a pregnant woman who intends to carry her pregnancy to term may qualify for substantial financial assistance for neonatal care. A pregnant woman who intends to get an abortion, won’t. To sort out women’s plans, state health care exchanges simply ask.

Originally posted here: 

Latest Conservative Gotcha: Obamacare Subsidizes Pregnant Women

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Latest Conservative Gotcha: Obamacare Subsidizes Pregnant Women

Watch: Behind the NRA’s Phony UN Conspiracy Theory

by ncf01r Posted on September 27, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The National Rifle Association went on the attack this week over a landmark international arms treaty signed by the United States, claiming it will jeopardize Americans’ right to bear arms and even lead to mass confiscation of their guns. Mother Jones senior editor Mark Follman spoke with MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell about how the influential gun lobby hypes misinformation to protect the $12 billion a year gun industry. Watch:

Read our full special report on gun laws and the rise of mass shootings in America.

Mark Follman is a senior editor at Mother Jones. Read more of his stories and follow him on Twitter.

Link – 

Watch: Behind the NRA’s Phony UN Conspiracy Theory

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, Landmark, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Watch: Behind the NRA’s Phony UN Conspiracy Theory

Quote of the Day: Control Over the Internet Is the "Struggle of Our Generation"

by ncf01r Posted on September 23, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

From Glenn Greenwald, in an interview with Noam Sheizaf of Haaretz:

The promise of the Internet was that it would liberate people and bolster democracy, but it has become a tool for suppression and control. In fact, it is one of the most powerful instruments of control ever invented. The most essential challenge we face today is related to the real effect of the Internet. Will it impart power to people and liberate them, or will it impart more strength to the centers of power and help them oversee, control and suppress the population? That is the struggle of our generation, and it has yet to be decided.

In the past, outside of police states, there were practical limits to surveillance simply because people communicated in so many different ways. Today, we’re moving toward a world in which virtually all communication is done via a single global digital network. This has obviously empowered individuals in a broad and complex set of ways, but as our lives become more and more dependent on the internet, it has also provided governments with a single point of contact for nearly ubiquitous surveillance. As Glenn says, it’s not clear yet which of these forces is more powerful. In China, I’d say the latter. In the United States, probably the former. So far.

View this article:

Quote of the Day: Control Over the Internet Is the "Struggle of Our Generation"

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Quote of the Day: Control Over the Internet Is the "Struggle of Our Generation"

WATCH: Ken Cuccinelli’s Response to His Pro-Choice Critics: What About Anthony Weiner?

by ncf01r Posted on August 27, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Monday, a group of pro-choice activists gathered in Charlottesville, Virginia, to protest state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s bid to be governor. The protestors warned that Cuccinelli, a hard-line conservative on social and economic issues, would greatly restrict women’s access to abortions and birth control, infringe on their privacy, and force women to seek illegal alternatives that could endanger their lives. “We need a government that takes care of what the government should be taking care of: the economy and roads and schools,” said Charlotte Brody, a registered nurse who participated in the protest. “And we need that government to let us make our own personal health decisions.”

When Charlottesville’s ABC 19 asked Cuccinelli’s campaign for comment, the campaign’s response was…strange. Team Cuccinelli said Democrats should denounce New York City mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner. What Weiner has to do with Virginia’s gubernatorial race or women’s rights in Virginia is unclear. The Cuccinelli campaign had nothing to say about the women’s rights protest in Charlottesville.

Team Cuccinelli’s response begins at the 40-second mark in the video. Chalk this up as one of the weirder responses by a major political campaign.

View this article – 

WATCH: Ken Cuccinelli’s Response to His Pro-Choice Critics: What About Anthony Weiner?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on WATCH: Ken Cuccinelli’s Response to His Pro-Choice Critics: What About Anthony Weiner?

"Relevance" Joins "Imminence" and "Is" in Pantheon of Meaningless Words

by ncf01r Posted on August 14, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Jeffrey Rosen says that the Obama administration’s white paper defending the NSA’s surveillance programs is “flimsy and weak”:

The White Paper, released on August 9, is surprisingly mostly in the lameness of its effort to justify what it calls “Bulk Collection of Telephony Metadata under Section 215 of the Patriot Act.” The core of the argument is an attempt to redefine the meaning of the word “relevance” beyond recognizing, just as the administration’s earlier, and equally flimsy, drone memos attempted to redefine the meaning of the word “imminence” in the context of responding to an imminent threat

….As the Electronic Privacy Information Center notes in a brief filed last week with the Supreme Court, both Congressional supporters and opponents of Section 215 explicitly interpreted the “relevance” language to limit bulk collection of data, not to permit it. On July 17, during a House judiciary committee hearing, Representative James Sensenbrenner, the author of section 215, said that Congress amended the law in 2006 to impose the relevance requirement in “an attempt to limit what the intelligence community could be able to get pursuant to Section 215.” And during the debate over the 2006 amendments, Sen. Ron Wyden and others stressed that the relevance standard would address “concerns about government ‘fishing expeditions.’”

There’s something that has never rung quite true to me about this. Congress knew all about the bulk collection of telephone records in 2006. It was big news. If they truly meant to rein it in, there was nothing stopping them from including clear language to that effect. So why didn’t they? Especially given that many (most? all?) of them knew perfectly well that the program was never halted?

Beyond that, I still don’t understand why NSA and the Obama administration are so resistant to reforming this program. After all, they don’t have to collect all the metadata. They could simply require the phone companies to keep it. Alternately, some other agency could collect it, and release it only if served with an individualized warrant. This would be inconvenient, but if NSA really does only 300 searches per year, as they claim, it wouldn’t be that inconvenient. Nor would it take too much time if the warrant procedures were set up efficiently. Either of these alternatives would reduce the fear that NSA can simply trawl through phone records whenever it wants, and would do so without seriously compromising its ability to conduct genuine investigations.

So why the reluctance to do something like this?

View original article:

"Relevance" Joins "Imminence" and "Is" in Pantheon of Meaningless Words

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on "Relevance" Joins "Imminence" and "Is" in Pantheon of Meaningless Words

97 out of 100 climate scientists agree: Humans are responsible for warming

by ncf01r Posted on May 16, 2013

97 out of 100 climate scientists agree: Humans are responsible for warming

By John Upton

Shutterstock

The Earth revolves around the sun. Also, it’s overheating because we’re burning fossil fuels.

Can you guess which of those two long-established facts just received an additional jolt of publicized near unanimity among scientists?

It was, of course, the latter. (The oil industry has no economic interest in attempting to debunk the former, and you can no longer be persecuted for claiming it.)

An international team of scientists analyzed the abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers published between 1991 and 2011 dealing with climate change and global warming. That’s right — we’re talking about 20 years of papers, many published long before Superstorm Sandy, last year’s epic Greenland melt, or Australia’s “angry summer.”

About two-thirds of the authors of those studies refrained from stating in their abstracts whether human activity was responsible for climate change. But in those papers where a position on the claim was staked out, 97.1 percent endorsed the consensus position that humans are, indeed, cooking the planet.

The scientists involved with the new study also asked the authors of the peer-reviewed papers for their personal reflections on the causes of global warming. A little more than one-third expressed no opinion. Of those who did share a view, 97.2 percent endorsed the consensus that humans are to blame. Out of the 1,189 authors who responded to the survey, just 39 rejected the idea that humans are causing global warming.

Those 39 scientists might be outliers, but, hey, at least they’re the ones who are going to get the phone calls for interviews on Fox News and with the Wall Street Journal. For “balance,” of course.

The results of the study were published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

The authors of the study noted that consensus among scientists regarding humanity’s role in global warming is higher than is the case for the rest of the population. The study authors dubbed this a “consensus gap.” Many Americans continue to express doubts about whether we are responsible for a warming trend, although those confused ranks have been declining during the past couple years faster than the soil moisture content on a Texas farm.

From the study:

Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on [anthropogenic global warming] is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research. …

Contributing to this ‘consensus gap’ are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. … A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen.

So next time some loud relative tells you we don’t know for sure that humans are causing the weather to change, you can tell them that 97 percent of climate scientists beg to differ. Of course, that still might not get you anywhere.

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

More here:  

97 out of 100 climate scientists agree: Humans are responsible for warming

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 97 out of 100 climate scientists agree: Humans are responsible for warming