Fish, the Environment and Health

In yesterday’s article, I discussed the environmental impact of eating meat, based on a report issued in 2006 by the U.N.

When you consider what the report says, it may make you decide that you prefer to focus on fish as your source of animal protein.

But there are ramifications for this also: both for the environment and for your health.

In fact, there are so many ramifications to eating fish that I will devote an entire series to this subject at another time.

I’m not saying that you shouldn’t eat fish, or any animal food at all. That’s your personal choice, but it’s best if you make your choice an informed and educated one.

If you’re not willing to consider becoming a vegetarian, you want to at least cut down on the amount of animal food you do eat, or at least do what Paul McCartney is advocating, of going meat-free on Mondays, or whichever day you want to designate as a meat-free day.

If you watch the above video, which is a trailer to a film called The End of the Line, you will understand what one of the environmental reasons is for considering your fish intake.

This documentary, produced in England, came out in June of this year. You can learn more about the organization that is behind the film by going to their website, http://endoftheline.com/

A 2008 United Nations reports that 80 percent of the world’s ocean fishing areas are now either fully fished (i.e. incapable of providing more) or overexploited.

This is also what The End of the Line is stating. But besides the overfishing and possible catastrophic results from it that The End of the Line discusses, there are also environmental and health issues.

There are many fish in the ocean that contain dangerous levels of mercury, PCB’s and pesticides, and the trend towards fish farms isn’t necessarily a panacea, as there are troubling environmental and health issues surrounding fish raised that way – from the corn feed, chemical feed and hormones that some farmed fish are given, to the pollutants that are in the waters at these factory fish farms.

And then there are questions as to whether the health claims of fish are overhyped, as a study that came out in March 2009 in the Canadian Medical Association Journal stated.

So what to do about eating fish? You can make your decision by choosing sources that are fished or farmed responsibly, and low in environmental contaminants.

According to the Environmental Defense Fund, you want to choose either wild fish from healthy, well-managed populations, or caught using fishing gear that does little harm to sea life and marine habitats; or choose farmed fish raised in systems that control pollution, the spread of disease, chemical use and escaped fish.

Most fish that the Environmental Defense Fund considers safe to eat are also low in environmental contaminants and can be safely eaten at least once per week.

The list of fish that make this list include: Arctic char, farmed oysters, sablefish (aka black cod), wild Alaskan salmon, sardines, farmed trout and West Coast albacore tuna, anchovies, catfish, soft shell clams, Pacific cod, Pacific halibut, farmed striped bass, tilapia, farmed white sturgeon, and squid.

Meat and the Environment

Bill Maher

“But when it comes to bad for the environment, nothing — literally — compares with eating meat. The business of raising animals for food causes about 40 percent more global warming than all cars, trucks, and planes combined. If you care about the planet, it’s actually better to eat a salad in a Hummer than a cheeseburger in a Prius.” – Bill Maher

In the last article, I discussed Paul McCartney’s campaign for Meat Free Mondays.

In the article, I said how Sir Paul wasn’t emphasizing not eating meat one day a week for health reasons, but for the negative impact that eating meat has on the environment.

In 2006, the United Nations reported that livestock accounts for 18 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. Some of meat’s contribution to climate change is intuitive. It’s more energy efficient to grow grain and feed it to people than it is to grow grain and turn it into feed that we give to calves until they become adults that we then slaughter to feed to people.

Some of the contribution is gross. “Manure lagoons,” for instance, is the oddly evocative name for the acres of animal excrement that sit in the sun steaming nitrous oxide into the atmosphere.

And some of it would make Bart Simpson chuckle. Cow gas – interestingly, it’s mainly burps, not farts – is a real player.

Here is what the U.N. had to say. This is the news release from the U.N.’s news release service announcing the report, dated Nov. 29, 2006:

Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation, and smarter production methods, including improved animal diets to reduce enteric fermentation and consequent methane emissions, are urgently needed, according to a new United Nations report released today.

“Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems,” senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official Henning Steinfeld said. “Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”

Cattle-rearing is also a major source of land and water degradation, according to the FAO report, Livestock’s Long Shadow–Environmental Issues and Options, of which Mr. Steinfeld is the senior author.

“The environmental costs per unit of livestock production must be cut by one half, just to avoid the level of damage worsening beyond its present level,” it warns.

When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9 per cent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 per cent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.

And it accounts for respectively 37 per cent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 per cent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.

With increased prosperity, people are consuming more meat and dairy products every year, the report notes. Global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tons in 1999/2001 to 465 million tons in 2050, while milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million tons.

The global livestock sector is growing faster than any other agricultural sub-sector. It provides livelihoods to about 1.3 billion people and contributes about 40 per cent to global agricultural output. For many poor farmers in developing countries livestock are also a source of renewable energy for draft and an essential source of organic fertilizer for their crops.

Livestock now use 30 per cent of the earth’s entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 per cent of the global arable land used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation, especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 per cent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.

At the same time herds cause wide-scale land degradation, with about 20 per cent of pastures considered degraded through overgrazing, compaction and erosion. This figure is even higher in the drylands where inappropriate policies and inadequate livestock management contribute to advancing desertification.

The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the earth’s increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other things to water pollution from animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used to spray feed crops.

Beyond improving animal diets, proposed remedies to the multiple problems include soil conservation methods together with controlled livestock exclusion from sensitive areas; setting up biogas plant initiatives to recycle manure; improving efficiency of irrigation systems; and introducing full-cost pricing for water together with taxes to discourage large-scale livestock concentration close to cities.

Sir Paul McCartney Says: “Go Meat Free on Mondays”

What the China Study Says About Eating Meat

I told you in yesterday’s article about several studies that showed the downside of eating meat, including a recent one concluded in the U.S. that studied 500,000 people.

Today I will tell you about the landmark study that sealed the deal for once and for all about the dangers of a diet top-heavy in animal foods.

This study was reported in the best-selling book, The China Study.

The China Study, published in 2005, was written by T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D., and his son, Thomas M. Campbell II, and is the definitive report about the detrimental effects of eating meat.

Dr. T. Colin Campbell is a professor of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University and one of the directors of the China Project, which was the study that “The China Study” reported on.

The China Project is a survey of death rates for twelve different kinds of cancer for more than 2,400 counties and 880 million (96%) of China’s citizens, conducted jointly by Cornell University, Oxford University, and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine over the course of twenty years.

The book examines the relationship between the consumption of animal foods and illnesses such as cancers of the breast, prostate, and large bowel, diabetes, coronary heart disease, obesity, autoimmune disease, osteoporosis, degenerative brain disease, and macular degeneration.

The authors conclude that diets high in protein, particularly animal protein (including casein in cow’s milk), are strongly linked to diseases such as heart disease, cancer and Type 2 diabetes.

The authors recommend that people eat a whole food, plant-based diet and avoid consuming beef, poultry and milk as a means to minimize and/or reverse the development of chronic disease.

In the book, Dr. Campbell stated that “several studies have now shown, in both experimental animals and in humans, that consuming animal-based protein increases blood cholesterol levels. Saturated fat and dietary cholesterol also raise blood cholesterol, although these nutrients are not as effective at doing this as is animal protein. In contrast, plant-based foods contain no cholesterol and, in various other ways, help to decrease the amount of cholesterol made by the body.”

He also stated that “these disease associations with blood cholesterol were remarkable, because blood cholesterol and animal-based food consumption both were so low by American standards. In rural China, animal protein intake (for the same individual) averages only 7.1 grams per day whereas Americans average 70 grams per day.”

He concludes by stating that “the findings from the China Study indicate that the lower the percentage of animal-based foods that are consumed, the greater the health benefits—even when that percentage declines from 10% to 0% of calories. So it’s not unreasonable to assume that the optimum percentage of animal-based products is zero, at least for anyone with a predisposition for a degenerative disease.”

The authors state that autoimmune diseases are more prevalent among people who consume a diet high in animal protein, particularly cow’s milk.

They also state that the consumption of animal protein, especially cow’s milk, result in higher concentrations of Calcium in the blood, which inhibits the process by which the body activates Vitamin D in the kidneys to a form that helps repress the development of autoimmune diseases.

Dr. Campbell then goes on to list various diseases that are linked to a diet high in animal protein. These include:

Autoimmune Diseases

Brain Diseases, including cognitive impairment, demential and Alzheimer’s.

Breast Cancer

Colorectal Cancer

Diabetes

Eye Diseases

Heart Disease

Kidney Stones

Metabolism and Incidence of Obesity

Osteoporosis

In concluding the book, Dr. Campbell stated that one of the biggest impediments to wholesale dietary changes in the U.S. “are powerful, influential, and enormously wealthy industries that stand to lose a vast amount of money if Americans start shifting to a plant-based diet.”

And so, there you have it. The most definitive study ever done on the profound detrimental effects of eating a diet that emphasizes animal food.

Why Red Meat isn’t Good For You

In the last 50 years in the U.S., red meat consumption has more than doubled. Where at one time, eating red was a luxury for most Americans, it is now the staple part of their diet.

I talked in yesterday’s introductory article to this series on meat eating that a diet that includes a high consumption of meat is not one that will allow you to be healthy or help you live a Low Density Lifestyle.

One of the largest studies ever conducted in the U.S. on the disastrous health effects of a diet high in red meat was published in the spring of 2009.

The study, appearing in the medical journal Annals of Internal Medicine, studied over 500,000 Americans over a decade long period.

The study found that men and women who consumed the most red and processed meat were likely to die sooner, especially from one of the two leading causes of death, heart disease and cancer, than people who consumed much smaller amounts of these foods.

The study was directed by the government agency, The National Cancer Institute, and involved 322,263 men and 223,390 women ages 50 to 71.

During the decade, 47,976 men and 23,276 women died, and the researchers kept track of the timing and reasons for each death. Red meat consumption ranged from a low of less than an ounce a day, on average, to a high of four ounces a day, and processed meat consumption ranged from at most once a week to an average of one and a half ounces a day.

The increase in mortality risk tied to the higher levels of meat consumption was described as “modest,” ranging from about 20 percent to nearly 40 percent. But the number of excess deaths that could be attributed to high meat consumption is quite large given the size of the American population.

Extrapolated to all Americans in the age group studied, the new findings suggest that over the course of a decade, the deaths of one million men and perhaps half a million women could be prevented just by eating less red and processed meats, according to estimates prepared by Dr. Barry Popkin, who wrote an editorial accompanying the report.

To prevent premature deaths related to red and processed meats, Dr. Popkin suggested in an interview that people should eat a hamburger only once or twice a week instead of every day, a small steak once a week instead of every other day, and a hot dog every month and a half instead of once a week.

In place of red meat, nonvegetarians might consider poultry and fish. In the study, the largest consumers of “white” meat from poultry and fish had a slight survival advantage. Likewise, those who ate the most fruits and vegetables also tended to live longer.

The results mirror those of several other studies in recent years that have linked a high-meat diet to life-threatening health problems. The earliest studies highlighted the connection between the saturated fats in red meats to higher blood levels of artery-damaging cholesterol and subsequent heart disease, which prompted many people to eat leaner meats and more skinless poultry and fish. Along with other dietary changes, like consuming less dairy fat, this resulted in a nationwide drop in average serum cholesterol levels and contributed to a reduction in coronary death rates.

Elevated blood pressure, another coronary risk factor, has also been shown to be associated with eating more red and processed meat, the researchers reported.

Poultry and fish contain less saturated fat than red meat, and fish contains omega-3 fatty acids that have been linked in several large studies to heart benefits. For example, men who consume two servings of fatty fish a week were found to have a 50 percent lower risk of cardiac deaths, and in another study of 84,688 women, those who ate fish and foods rich in omega-3 fatty acids at least once a week cut their coronary risk by more than 20 percent.

Choosing protein from sources other than meat has also been linked to lower rates of cancer. When meat is cooked, especially grilled or broiled at high temperatures, carcinogens can form on the surface of the meat. And processed meats like sausages, salami and bologna usually contain nitrosamines, although there are products now available that are free of these carcinogens.

Also, a diet high in red meat was linked to an increased risk of prostate cancer in a study of 35,534 men; the study also found that those who consumed at least three servings of fish a week had half the risk of advanced prostate cancer compared with men who rarely ate fish.

Another study, which randomly assigned more than 19,500 women to a low-fat diet, found after eight years a 40 percent reduced risk of ovarian cancer among them, when compared with 29,000 women who ate their regular diets.

Save Heat, Save Money: How to Cut Your Heating Bill, Save Energy, and Lower Your Costs

Winter may be over, and you’re probably not cranking the heat anymore, unless you live in Alaska, Antartica, Siberia, or some other tundra.

But regardless of it not being winter anymore, if you want to be a good Low Density Lifestyler, you want to think of how you impact the earth, and how much heat you use to keep your house warm in the winter.

High temperatures in your home lead to high utility bills — not to mention a high price paid by the earth to keep you warm.

And so, yesterday I told you about affordable electric cars that are on the horizon, and today I’m telling you about making your heating bill affordable, along with saving energy.

And as I’ve pointed out in this entire series about the environment – from the articles on the White House Organic Garden, sustainable foods, and other articles, living a Low Density Lifestyle is not just about your own health and wellness and healthy living, but the health and wellness of the entire planet, and for the entire planet to experience healthy living.

I’ll be back tomorrow with the last article in this series on the environment and living a Low Density Lifestyle.

Let others know about this article by posting it on Twitter! It’s easy – just click on the “tweet it” button below.

The 10 Greenest Cities in the U.S.

In honor of Earth Day, I’ve been writing a series on the environment and its relationship to a Low Density Lifestyle.  My point has been that living a Low Density Lifestyle is not just about your own personal health and wellness and ability to experience healthy living, but the health and wellness of the planet.

Because if a Low Density Lifestyle is about feeling lighter of body, mind and spirit, then it should also mean that you tread lighter on the earth.

I’ve been talking a lot about sustainable, local and organic foods, but now I want to shift the focus to green living, energy and the enviroment.

Today I want to tell you about the 10 greenest cities in the U.S., based on a compilation from the website TreeHugger and the magazine Popular Science. Here goes – the results for some of the cities might surprise you, and perhaps you will have a different point of view:

10. Boston

Boston doesn’t get a whole lot of green love from the environmental movement, but it should—it’s quietly made its way to the top of greenest city lists with good public transit, an eye on energy efficiency, mandated green building standards, and even a bike share on the way.

9. Asheville

Home to some of the greenest communities in the country, Asheville is a cool green town nestled in mountainous, western North Carolina. It’s not nearly the size of most of the other cities on this list, but it edges its way in out of sheer greenness—in addition to those celebrated eco communities, Asheville was named “most vegetarian friendly” small city by PETA, and is surrounded by beautiful nature on all sides.

8. Chicago

The Windy City has leaned pretty green in recent years—with good public transit, a tax on bottled water, an ambitious bike plan, and an even more ambitious plan to curb carbon emissions by 75%, the city is making good green progress.

7. New York City

The biggest city in the US is also a front runner for the greenest—with arguably the best public transit system in the nation, centralized apartment-based living, easy access to farmer’s markets and CSAs, and a walking-friendly urban layout, New York is green without really even trying to be. So even though people think grey, not green, when they picture the Big Apple, it is a green city.

6. Oakland, CA

The local transit authority has put on the road zero emission buses – all hydrogen powered. For that and other reasons, Oakland makes the list.

5. Austin

Over the last few years, Austin has emerged as one of the indisputable leading green cities in the US. The city has seen a veritable revolution in biodiesel, plug-in hybrid infrastructure, and solar and wind power. Great farmers’ markets, organic restaurants, and bike-friendly streets cement Austin’s reputation as a green metropolis.

4. Seattle

Seattle is yet another fast-rising green destination–the mayor has booted out bottled water and taxes plastic bags, has great plans for biking paths, a controversially named trolley for public transit and even a biodiesel gas station. Suffice to say, there’s a strong green vibe emanating from Seattle.

3. Eugene, OR

Much of the wet Pacific Northwest draws its energy from hydroelectric dams, but Eugene, a very green-friendly city, draws an additional 9 percent of its municipal electricity from wind farms. It also buys back excess power from residents who install solar panels.

2. San Francisco

The city’s mayor Gavin Newsom got TreeHugger’s seal of green approval as the best local politician in 2009’s Best of Green awards. So it’s no surprise that his city is one of the most green places in the country. San Francisco has ratified the Kyoto Protocol, has been advancing solar power initiatives, ditching the plastic bag, and getting ready to promote electric cars.

1. Portland

Oregon’s biggest city is widely recognized as the greenest city in the US, and the most bike-friendly city in the country.

The Sustainable Foods Movement is Gaining Momentum

The Mother of Slow Food

Sustainable, local foods has also been called “Slow Foods.” Now if you call eating that leads to health and wellness, along with healthy living, slow foods, then what do you call a lifestyle that leads to health and wellness and healthy living? Slow living, or as I’ve been promoting it, a Low Density Lifestyle.

Since I’ve been talking about sustainable, local and organic foods for the past week, discussing such things as the White House Organic Garden, and living the life of a Locavore, I thought I’d tell you how sustainable foods has become a movement, and is gaining enough momentum that it is making its way  into the mainstream.

After being largely ignored for years by Washington, advocates of organic and locally grown food have found a receptive ear in the White House, which has vowed to encourage a more nutritious and sustainable food supply.

The most vocal booster so far has been the first lady, Michelle Obama, who has emphasized the need for fresh, unprocessed, locally grown food and, as we all know, started work on a White House organic vegetable garden. More surprising are the pronouncements out of the Department of Agriculture, an agency with long and close ties to agribusiness.

In mid-February, Tom Vilsack, the new secretary of agriculture, took a jackhammer to a patch of pavement outside his headquarters to create his own organic “people’s garden.” Two weeks later, the Obama administration named Kathleen Merrigan, an assistant professor at Tufts University and a longtime champion of sustainable agriculture and healthy food, as Mr. Vilsack’s top deputy.

Sustainable-food activists are hoping that such actions are precursors to major changes in the way the federal government oversees the nation’s food supply and farms, changes that could significantly bolster demand for fresh, local and organic products. Already, they have offered plenty of ambitious ideas.

For instance, the celebrity chef Alice Waters recommends that the federal government triple its budget for school lunches to provide youngsters with healthier food. And the author Michael Pollan has called on President Obama to pursue a “reform of the entire food system” by focusing on a Pollan priority: diversified, regional food networks.

Many activists say they are packing their bags and heading to Washington. They are bringing along a copy of the soon-to-released documentary, “Food Inc.,” which includes attacks on the corn lobby and Monsanto, and intend to provide a private screening for Mr. Vilsack and Ms. Merrigan.

“We are so used to being outside the door,” says Walter Robb, co-president and chief operating officer of Whole Foods Market, the grocery chain that played a crucial role in making organic and natural food more mainstream. “We are in the door now.”

AT the heart of the sustainable-food movement is a belief that America has become efficient at producing cheap, abundant food that profits corporations and agribusiness, but is unhealthy and bad for the environment.

The federal government is culpable, the activists say, because it pays farmers billions in subsidies each year for growing grains and soybeans. A result is an abundance of corn and soybeans that provide cheap feed for livestock and inexpensive food ingredients like high-fructose corn syrup.

They argue that farm policy — and federal dollars — should instead encourage farmers to grow more diverse crops, reward conservation practices and promote local food networks that rely less on fossil fuels for such things as fertilizer and transportation.

Last year, mandatory spending on farm subsidies was $7.5 billion, compared with $15 million for programs for organic and local foods, according to the House Appropriations Committee.

But with more awareness of the obesity epidemic, particularly among children, and by concerns about food safety amid seemingly continual outbreaks of tainted supplies, sustainable-food activists and entrepreneurs have convinced more Americans to watch what they eat.

They have encouraged the growth of farmers’ markets and created such a demand for organic, natural and local products that they are now sold at many major grocers, including Wal-Mart.

“Increasingly, companies are looking to reduce the amount of additives,” says Ted Smyth, who retired earlier this year as senior vice president at H. J. Heinz, the food giant. “Consumers are looking for more authentic foods. This trend absolutely has percolated through into mainstream foods.”

And so, the seeds of change are upon us, giving us much to feel good about. Earth Day is upon us, and for a change, the Earth may reap the benefits of more and more people living a Low Density Lifestyle.

Let others know about this article by posting it on Twitter! It’s easy – just click on the “tweet it” button below.

Being a Locavore Means Becoming a Veggie Dealer

Ok, I bet you’re still singing and dancing from the video in yesterday’s article. Once you get a chance to sit down, I’m going to continue with the discussion on eating a sustainable and local diet, and carry on from the previous article on being a locavore.

In that previous article I explained what being a locavore was and how to be one in the wintertime.

This is, alas, the flip side of the locavore movement and the thing that holds most people back from putting into practice: how can you get your foods in the winter?

In other words, what if you don’t live in places where food grows all year round?

What are you to do when your neighborhood farmer’s market is only open from May or June until some time in October?  Or, if you grow your own food and your season doesn’t last all year?

The fact is, eating local during any other time but late Spring, Summer, and early Fall isn’t always easy; growing your own is challenging, and buying your own is indisputably expensive.

But now there is a way for local food lovers to hook up with other local food lovers, regardless of locations; it’s called VeggieTrader.com.

It’s a very easy, very community-friendly idea: grow too many tomatoes? Have too much lettuce coming up that you can’t use? Looking for Brussels Sprouts starters but can’t find any at your local nursery? Log onto VeggieTrader.com; tell it what you’re looking for or what you have too much of, scour the I WANT postings, and that’s it.

Whether you choose to sell, give away, or trade your produce is your business, and if you do wind up buying, odds are it will be far cheaper for you to procure your goods from a gardening neighbor than a high-end supermarket. Utter brilliance, and perfect for people who are devoted to eating as locally as possible, but who have to jump hurdle over hurdle in order to do it.

So now you have no excuse not to be a year-round locavore: VeggieTrader.com!

Also, would you like to know where there are farmer’s markets in your area?  What restaurants in your area serve locally grown food? What food stores sell it? And what farms in your area grow organically?

You can find all this out and more at eatwellguide.org. It will lead you to the promised land on your quest to be a locavore.

So there you have it. You can trade or buy veggies through VeggieTrader.com, or you can find purveyors of local and organic foods through eatwellguide.org.

And once you get into the swing of it and live the life of a locavore, you’ll really be living a Low Density Lifestyle.

Let others know about this article by posting it on Twitter! It’s easy – just click on the “tweet it” button below.

Are You a Locavore? And How Do You Do It in the Winter?

Be a Locavore All Year Round by Eating Locally Even in Winter

All this week I’ve been talking about food from an environmental perspective. I’ve been doing so because as I first pointed out, living a Low Density Lifestyle is not just about individual health and wellness and individual healthy living, but also about the health and wellness of the planet.

It makes sense that if you are to live a Low Density Lifestyle and feel light of body and mind, then you are going to tread lighter on the planet. And with Earth Day coming soon, what better time to discuss healthy living and our connection to the earth than now.

And so, I’ve told you about the White House Organic Garden and the garden plans, I told you how Monsanto was waging a PR battle against the White House Organic Garden, and then I posted an interview with Michael Pollen, who always has important things to say about eating locally and organically.

Ultimately, if you want to live a Low Density Lifestyle on the planet, then eating locally whenever possible is the best way to go, because then you’re lowering the economic and energy costs of getting the food to you.

Nowadays, if you are someone who likes to eat locally, you can call yourself a “Locavore.” A locavore is someone who eats food grown or produced locally or within a certain radius such as 50, 100, or 150 miles (240 km).

The locavore movement encourages consumers to buy from farmers’ markets or even to produce their own food, with the argument that fresh, local products are more nutritious and taste better. Locally grown food is an environmentally friendly means of obtaining food, since supermarkets that import their food use more fossil fuels and non-renewable resources.

The term “Locavore” was coined by Jessica Prentice from the San Francisco Bay Area on the occasion of World Environment Day 2005 to describe and promote the practice of eating a diet consisting of food harvested from within an area most commonly bound by a 100-mile (160 km) radius. “Localvore” is sometimes also used.

The New Oxford American Dictionary chose locavore as its word of the year 2007. The local foods movement is gaining momentum as people discover that the best-tasting and most sustainable choices are foods that are fresh, seasonal, and grown close to home.

Some locavores draw inspiration from the The 100-Mile Diet or from advocates of local eating like Barbara Kingsolver whose book Animal, Vegetable, Miracle chronicles her family’s attempts to eat locally. Others just follow their taste buds to farmers’ markets, community supported agriculture programs, and community gardens.

A study in the 2007 Dewey Health Review revealed that a Locavore diet (study included 100 individuals ages 18-55 eating local food grown within an 80-mile (130 km) radius) resulted in a 19% increase in sturdiness of bowel movement and an overall drop in sleep apnea and night terrors.

So becoming a locavore is a great way to ensure that you’re living a Low Density Lifestyle in relation to the planet.

One question many people have, if they are trying to be a locavore, is What Do I Do in the Winter? In many parts of the world, winter gets mighty cold and there is no local foods to eat.

Watch the video above and you will learn how to be a year-round locavore. And when you do you’ll really be living a Low Density Lifestyle and truly be experiencing healthy living.

Let others know about this article by posting it on Twitter! It’s easy – just click on the “tweet it” button below.

« Previous Page — Next Page »