Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


You Are What You Grow
April 23, 2007 9:09 AM   Subscribe

Obesity and the Farm Bill. Michael Pollan continues his series of articles on the state of the American food supply by looking at the connection between the obesity epidemic and the federal farm bill (NYT, reg. required, blah blah blah). Previously.
posted by dw (68 comments total) 12 users marked this as a favorite

 
Todd Lokking?

Sorry.

Thanks for the link. I <3 Michael Pollan.
posted by basicchannel at 9:21 AM on April 23, 2007


See, first you get carrots their own pit on the commodity exchange.....
posted by caddis at 9:23 AM on April 23, 2007


Interesting article.

So how can the supermarket possibly sell a pair of these synthetic cream-filled pseudocakes for less than a bunch of roots?

****

The reason the least healthful calories in the supermarket are the cheapest is that those are the ones the farm bill encourages farmers to grow.

posted by Fuzzy Monster at 9:23 AM on April 23, 2007


Which is why corn-based ethanol is not quite the joke some environmentalists make it out to be. Pushing the price of corn up has other repurcussions.
posted by DU at 9:39 AM on April 23, 2007


It's good to see someone taking a crack at this mostly ignored bill. I was thinking about this article at the grocery store yesterday as I made my routine trip down what my wife and I call the "aisle of broken hearts". It's that aisle where they keep the canned ready to eat foods and the bachelor chow. It's also the aisle where all the paunchy, lonely divorced dads are found. What a bummer.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 9:41 AM on April 23, 2007 [1 favorite]


What? No snide comment on how obesity is just a matter of eating too much, and we should keep the nanny government out of it? I must be early.
posted by QuietDesperation at 9:45 AM on April 23, 2007


Nobody's making that snide comment because it doesn't apply here, QD. In this case, the government isn't trying to ban unhealthy foods — it's actively subsidising them.
posted by nebulawindphone at 10:01 AM on April 23, 2007


It isn't the aisle of broken hearts, it's the corridor of broken wallets.
posted by Mblue at 10:04 AM on April 23, 2007


Thanks for the link.

[T]he nation’s agricultural policies operate at cross-purposes with its public-health objectives

How do we align them together?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:07 AM on April 23, 2007


Nobody's making that snide comment because it doesn't apply here...

Like that's ever stopped anyone before.
posted by DU at 10:07 AM on April 23, 2007


It's that aisle where they keep the canned ready to eat foods and the bachelor chow. It's also the aisle where all the paunchy, lonely divorced dads are found.

If the only people who ate these foods were paunchy broken-hearted bachelors and divorced dads, the food industry would be out of business PDQ.

Any grocery chain that specializes in massive quantities of cheap processed food is packed to the rafters not with depressed bachelors but with families -- from grandmoms and granddads to young couples pushing infants in strollers. And in these supermarkets, the processed food fills the entire store, not just one aisle.
posted by blucevalo at 10:16 AM on April 23, 2007


The one remaining bit of control this divorced (in a few more days) dad has over his life is whether he gets paunchy...I'm glad I'm not sure which aisle you're referring to and I don't mind cooking fresh stuff so I can control how much salt and high-fructose corn syrup I'm consuming.
posted by pax digita at 10:28 AM on April 23, 2007


Thanks for this link!

I decided several years ago to stop eating anything containing either corn syrup or partially hydrogenated fats. It seemed like a pretty simple list of things to avoid, but it can be incredibly tricky. Corn syrup is EVERYWHERE!
posted by The Light Fantastic at 10:31 AM on April 23, 2007


Metafilter is making me fat.
posted by srboisvert at 10:32 AM on April 23, 2007


Sitting and reading Metafilter is making me fat.
posted by Mblue at 10:39 AM on April 23, 2007


I'm surprised the article didn't also mention the fact that junk food has an outrageously long shelf life compared to fresh food. That also drives up prices at the market as well.

It's cheaper for a grocery store to stock junk, because it will still be saleable months, even years down the line while fresh food has to be thrown out if it doesn't get sold.
posted by yeloson at 10:49 AM on April 23, 2007


For a laugh, read the Alabama Farmers Federation's 5-point Defense of Farm Subsidies.

Maybe the NYT article is on to something.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 10:51 AM on April 23, 2007


Corn syrup, partially hydrogenated fats...All we need is some MSG to round things out.
posted by mullingitover at 10:53 AM on April 23, 2007


High Fructose Corn Syrup

I was shocked to find how many things this stuff is in. I refuse to consume it now. It is in every soda on the shelf as well as most yogurts, energy bars and fruity cookies.

I hope that very soon, companies will start marketing foods based on their use of sugar instead of HFCS.

Which might dovetail nicely with the expanded need for corn in the production of ethanol.
posted by mmrtnt at 10:59 AM on April 23, 2007


hoverboards don't work on water

Dr. Goodman strikes me as a Capital guy.
posted by Mblue at 10:59 AM on April 23, 2007


I like how Pollan ties apparently dull stuff to what goes on under our noses in local groceries, and then also to international trade and even immigration. Omnivore's Dilemma is a fascinating read. Good post!
posted by everichon at 11:21 AM on April 23, 2007


As far as I can tell the high-fructose corn syrup fear is just total paranoia. It contains just as much glucose as it does fructose, and sucrose (i.e. table sugar) breaks down to equal amounts of fructose and glucose in the stomach. Show how is getting those two chemicals from HCFS any different then getting them from eating regular sugar?

Yes, it's used in a lot of foods, but so what? That stuff is either going to be naturally sweetened by HCFS, sugar, or some other fructose/glucose combination. There's no evidence that HCFS really causes obesity as far as I know.

And anyway, if HCFS is bad for you, all fruit is bad for you as well, because it's sweetened by the same chemical: Fructose
posted by delmoi at 11:27 AM on April 23, 2007


There's no evidence that HCFS really causes obesity as far as I know.

Or I should say, that it causes more obesity then compared to regular sucrose. Obviously eating lots of any type of sugar will make you fat.
posted by delmoi at 11:28 AM on April 23, 2007


What? No snide comment on how obesity is just a matter of eating too much, and we should keep the nanny government out of it?

I'll bite. In the U.S., all food is comparatively very cheap (relative to income) and very widely available. In fact, food is cheaper and more widely available now/here than at any time/place in world history. Sure there are some folks who are too poor to buy good foods, and there are some places that good foods are unavailable. Of course there are too many of both in the U.S. That said, most Americans can afford to eat right and can find good food pretty easily. For heaven sake, the produce department at a local Safeway is bigger than the grocery stores I went to when I was a kid.

So, if you don't eat right in the U.S., you are probably choosing not to for whatever reason. The government isn't forcing you to eat Twinkies, and neither is the farm lobby. Just put that Twinkie down. (Of course, you may be addicted to Twinkies, but that's another issue...)
posted by MarshallPoe at 11:37 AM on April 23, 2007


[T]he nation’s agricultural policies operate at cross-purposes with its public-health objectives

This is what happens when you have a government that is more akin to a corporation than a social service.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:44 AM on April 23, 2007


As far as I can tell the high-fructose corn syrup fear is just total paranoia.
I agree. In Europe, most foods are still sweetened with sugar, and guess what, we face an obesity epidemic as well. I always cringe whenever I hear Americans talk about sugar as if it were almost a health food.
posted by davar at 11:46 AM on April 23, 2007


delmoi


HFCS isn't natural.
posted by Mblue at 11:51 AM on April 23, 2007


Drewnowski gave himself a hypothetical dollar to spend, using it to purchase as many calories as he possibly could.

At the risk of being snide, I question whether this is how people actually calculate their food budgets. In my experience, the health conscious and the foodies go for the outer aisles, the health indifferent and gourmands, the inner. Moreover, I know plenty of otherwise intelligent and well paid people who regulary eat stuff I wouldn't touch on a bet.

Of related interest is the US sugar lobby and the history of Alfonse Fanjul. Google him for a while and laugh or cry as suits
posted by IndigoJones at 11:54 AM on April 23, 2007


delmoi: I don't think it's necessarily the chemical composition of HFCS (e.g. sucrose, fructose and glucose), but the incredible concentration of these sugars. Coupled with the fact that it is so pervasive, it's delivering scores of unnecessary, empty calories to the consumers. I imagine it would take pounds upon pounds of fruit to equal the amount of sugar found in a 12-pack of Coke (not to mention the absence of any nutritional value in said softdrink, and the impact that may have on, say, metabolism).
posted by slogger at 11:58 AM on April 23, 2007


MarshallPoe: you use a lot of some/most in the assumptions supporting your argument.

Care to cite the statistics that have informed your belief regarding how many people in the USA can afford to eat right on a daily basis?
posted by batmonkey at 12:08 PM on April 23, 2007


delmoi's point, people, is that HFCS is no better and no worse than the empty calories you get from table sugar. The "incredible concentration" of sugar in HFCS is still less than the incredible concentration of sugar in cane sugar, which is just under 100%. In comparing HFCS to sucrose, sugar is sugar—it's empty calories either way.

Mblue, the fact that you can produce fructose from glucose doesn't mean that fructose isn't "natural". It is. Fructose is found in fruits. I should point out that lead and arsenic are also "natural", and benzene is not only natural, it's organic! But you won't find me consuming these if I can avoid it. Point being, "natural" is a lousy crutch to prop up your argument.
posted by Mister_A at 12:15 PM on April 23, 2007 [1 favorite]


high-fructose corn syrup fear is just total paranoia

From the first link - the one titled High

"So they repeated their studies with two groups of rats, one given high amounts of glucose and one given high amounts of fructose. The glucose group was unaffected but the fructose group had disastrous results. The male rats did not reach adulthood. They had anemia, high cholesterol and heart hypertrophy--that means that their hearts enlarged until they exploded. They also had delayed testicular development."

Maybe what really hurt the rats was paranoia. :)
posted by mmrtnt at 12:17 PM on April 23, 2007


For heaven sake, the produce department at a local Safeway is bigger than the grocery stores I went to when I was a kid.

But in a lot of low-income areas, the grocery stores are few in number and have a small selection of rather skeezy produce.
posted by Jeanne at 12:21 PM on April 23, 2007


When I see products such as Activia marketed as health foods despite the fructose sweetener, while I have to look more carefully than ever to find plain, unflavored whole-milk yogurt, I'll concede that the chemical composition of HFCS isn't the problem -- it's the pervasiveness thereof.
posted by pax digita at 12:22 PM on April 23, 2007


Oops. Missed a part from the same link:

"The medical profession thinks fructose is better for diabetics than sugar," says Dr. Field, "but every cell in the body can metabolize glucose. However, all fructose must be metabolized in the liver. The livers of the rats on the high fructose diet looked like the livers of alcoholics, plugged with fat and cirrhotic."
posted by mmrtnt at 12:22 PM on April 23, 2007


Batmonkey. No, just my impression having lived in 10 states, and sometimes without any real money to speak of. Never had a problem finding cheap milk, meat, produce. (I also lived in the Soviet Union and Russia, where that was a problem). I suppose we could get into median family income and carrot prices, but what's the point? We live in the land of plenty, it's just some of like the bad plenty instead of the good plenty.
posted by MarshallPoe at 12:37 PM on April 23, 2007


There's no evidence that HCFS really causes obesity as far as I know.

No, HCFs won't make you fat but they may cause crashes.
posted by caddis at 12:40 PM on April 23, 2007


The smorgasbord of incentives and disincentives built into the farm bill helps decide what happens on nearly half of the private land in America

Great googily moogily... this bill has the ability to ruin Mexico's farm economy, AND affect that many million acres, and we hear almost nothing about it. Ye gods, man.
posted by Mayor West at 12:44 PM on April 23, 2007


...it's just some of like the bad plenty instead of the good plenty

I like the Good and Plenty when I'm being bad.
posted by mmrtnt at 12:59 PM on April 23, 2007


while I have to look more carefully than ever to find plain, unflavored whole-milk yogurt

Hit one of my pet peeves right on the head there, pax. My local supermarket's out of the old-fashioned Balkan-style plain every other visit, but if I'd like a six-pack of single-serving Grover-berry yogurtastic milk-food, they appear to restock that hourly.

Anyway, I highly recommend anyone making arguments as to the relative neutrality of HFCS to read Pollan's book, The Omnivore's Dilemma. In addition to being a well-told story, its extensive investigation of the American corn economy and its extraordinary social and environmental costs is one of the most fascinating and damning things I've ever read about the business of agriculture.
posted by gompa at 1:02 PM on April 23, 2007


Frankly obesity is good for business. I don't think we really want a bunch of skinny Americans running around if it's going to cost our economy several billion dollars. What this bill actually does is exploit America's unique comparative advantages. It takes economic advantage of the simple, necessary truths that (1) Americans love to eat crap washed down with plenty of meat (2) we grow corn good (3) American farmers require massive subsidies. It's just plain dishonest to suggest that this economic good sense causes obesity like the government is forcing sugary treats down people's throats. This isn't France, dammit.
posted by nixerman at 1:27 PM on April 23, 2007


delmoi's point, people, is that HFCS is no better and no worse than the empty calories you get from table sugar.

And delmoi was quite honest in saying he didn't have any facts to support his opinion. Do you?
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:30 PM on April 23, 2007


I have an appalling lack of controlled clinical data to point to, George, which is not nearly as strong as a 4-year-old WaPo article and three links from kook sites, two of which are from the same kook site. Where are your data, George? I do not accept third-hand quotes from supposed FDA personnel posted by some earth mother.

More importantly, you're missing the point: too much sugar is bad for you. Running around hysterically pointing to some interesting findings from an inconclusive rat study as proof of the inherent evil of HFCS is counter-productive. We already know it is not healthy to consume too much sugar.
posted by Mister_A at 1:35 PM on April 23, 2007


[NOT EARTHMOTHERIST]
posted by Mister_A at 1:36 PM on April 23, 2007


The HFCS vs sugar debate seems like a red herring. After all, if the government dropped its corn subsidy for one on sugar beets, we'd still have the same basic problem, no? — lower prices for processed food than for fresh vegetables.

You can think what you like about corn syrup, but this article's conclusion doesn't depend on its being worse for you than sugar — just on its being worse than, say, spinach, which it certainly is.
posted by nebulawindphone at 1:39 PM on April 23, 2007


So, that'd be a "no", then.

Where are your data, George?

Data for what? I haven't taken a position. You have, vociferously, which is why I asked the question. Slamming the cites on various pretexts doesn't refute them, let alone provide support for your position. And expressions like "kook", "running around hysterically", etc. indicate that you're not dispassionate about the topic. So: no facts, lots of bias -- what point am I missing again?
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:50 PM on April 23, 2007


I am biased, George_Spiggott, against non-referenced second or third-hand "scientific" data being held up as proof of anything. Here is the best paper I have found yet on the topic (only been looking for 5 minutes, YMMV). An excerpt:
CONCLUSION: These short-term results suggest that, when fructose is consumed in the form of HFCS, the measured metabolic responses do not differ from Suc in lean women. Further research is required to examine appetite responses and to determine if these findings hold true for obese individuals, males, or longer periods.
This paper does not "prove" that HFCS is metabolically neutral v sucrose, but it is a hell of a lot more substantial than tired hyperbolic third-hand conspiracy theory from lousy sources. So no, I am not dispassionate about people reading something on some axe-grind web site and putting it out here as SCIENCE! and PROOF!
posted by Mister_A at 2:01 PM on April 23, 2007


Not to mention the difficulties inherent in proving a negative.
posted by Mister_A at 2:02 PM on April 23, 2007


You, delmoi and others do appear to be asserting a negative. If your point is that the link is not proven, that would be reasonable and the best research would not disagree with you. But you appear to have stated outright that there is no link, when in fact there is evidence suggesting one. What irritates me is when people confuse disparagement with refutation. It reminds me a lot of what you'd see on LGF on the subject of, say, global warming.

It seems perfectly possible to me that our current problems with early-onset diabetes and epidemic obesity would be found even if the sugars currrently overwhelming the processed food supply were based on good old sucrose. But I'd like to see more research either way. Certainly HFCS is not metabolized in the same way as either sucrose or glucose; this isn't even questioned. The fact that fructose does not stimulate insulin production, combined with its unprecedented presence in our food supply in huge amounts is a very compelling one; correlation isn't causation but it's an indispensible tool in looking for the culprit.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:13 PM on April 23, 2007


One interesting point from here:
Fructose does not cause insulin release from beta cells, as these lack fructokinase. One of the results of this is that fructose consumption does not dampen appetite. This may lead to increased caloric intake with obesity and the metabolic syndrome as a result.
So, elaborate hypotheses about metabolic pathways aside, one simple possibility may be that people simply don't reach satiety and keep guzzling the stuff. It's interesting that once upon a time -- deep in the bygone sucrose era -- you used to find Coke sold in 7oz bottles. Now it's sold in vastly larger servings. A 'Super Big Gulp' is 44 ounces for the love of christ. If your body never says "enough", seems like that might do it right there.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:41 PM on April 23, 2007


Mr_A

I stand... largely corrected (assuming Wikipedia is not a hysterical "kook" site)

And a bit embarrassed about not more thoroughly checking my links for things like dates and kookiness
posted by mmrtnt at 2:44 PM on April 23, 2007 [1 favorite]


The fact that fructose does not stimulate insulin production, combined with its unprecedented presence in our food supply in huge amounts is a very compelling one
Well, it would be, if HFCS actually contained much more fructose than sugar (sucrose). In fact, the HFCS that is used in soft drinks contains only 55% fructose. Table sugar is 50% fructose. The HFCS that is used in cookies etc. actually contains less fructose (42%) than sugar. People get confused by the name. HFCS is only high in fructose when you compare it to normal corn syrup, not when you compare it to sugar.

Here is the site of the industry. I know, they're biased, but so is everybody: hfcsfacts.com.
posted by davar at 2:46 PM on April 23, 2007


Even if there is fractionally more fructose in HFCS than sucrose (absolute amounts of consumed sugars notwithstanding), the elevation can lead to a self-reinforcing cycle.

A thin, insulin-sensitive, 13-year-old boy might consume a daily allotment of 2,000 kcal, and burn 2,000 kcal daily (or 50 kcal/kg fat-free mass) in order to remain weight-stable, with a stable leptin level. However, if that same 13-year-old became hyperinsulinemic and/or insulin resistant, perhaps as many as 250 kcal of the daily allotment would be shunted to storage in adipose tissue, promoting a persistent obligate weight gain. Due to the obligate energy storage, he now only has 1,750 kcal per day to burn. The hyperinsulinemia also results in a lower level of leptin signal transduction, conveying a CNS signal of energy insufficiency. The remaining calories available are lower than his energy expenditure; the CNS would sense starvation. Through decreased SNS tone, he would reduce his physical activity, resulting in decreased quality of life; and through increased vagal tone, he would increase caloric intake and insulin secretion, but now at a much higher level. Thus, the vicious cycle of gluttony, sloth, and obesity is promulgated.
posted by porpoise at 4:06 PM on April 23, 2007 [1 favorite]


This whole article is based on a false premise. It blames the farm bill for subsidizing production of corn and soy without realizing that the main farm payments (called direct payments) are paid regardless of what a farmer plants. All those acres of corn and soy in Iowa could be planted to carrots without reducing the farmers' direct payment income. It is true that in the past, the subsidy was linked to the crop, but that changed with the "Freedom to Farm" bill in 1996. The subsidy is now linked to the land, not to the crop.

Corn is a cheap food, not because of subsidies, but because it produces the most carbohydrate per acre in places with good rainfall. That is why corn and soy are the top two crops in a country like Brazil that does not have the same subsidy system.

Vegetables are expensive to grow everywhere while starch is cheap to grow. That is just an agronomic fact of life. I used to live in China, and the poor people there filled their bellies with starch, while the rich ate more meat and veggies. Ag policy had nothing to do with it.

I realize this is an opinion piece, but I would think that the NYT would try harder to get the basic facts straight.
posted by NoiseTrader at 4:28 PM on April 23, 2007


Metafilter: Thus, the vicious cycle of gluttony, sloth, and obesity is promulgated.
posted by synaesthetichaze at 5:11 PM on April 23, 2007


But seriously, I'm not convinced that HFCS is inherently awful for you; however, as pointed out above, it's nearly inescapable. It's in my pickles for christ's sake. And the quantity of it in some things is just ridiculous... for instance, a single can of Coke has 39 grams of sugar, mostly from HFCS. You know one of those little sugar packets they give you at a restaurant table? That's 1 gram. Put 39 of those fuckers in a glass and ask yourself if you would drink it.
posted by synaesthetichaze at 5:15 PM on April 23, 2007


re: HFCS being inescapable.
Any decent health food store or food co-op shouldn't carry anything w/ HFCS.
posted by brevator at 7:38 PM on April 23, 2007


Blaming anything or anyone but yourself for what you eat is, in almost every case, just silly. The poor eat what they can get. But you, if you're reading this, probably aren't poor.
posted by pracowity at 1:45 AM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]


In our home, we found that the first (perhaps most crucial) step in eating healthy was to kill our microwave.

Yeah, they're handy for popcorn, baked potatoes and quickly melting stuff. But, honestly, when we had a microwave, we ate an ever-increasing butt-load of all those pre-packaged, over-salted, processed pseudo-foods. All part of that "too busy to do something as unproductive as eat" lifestyle.

Now we actually cook. We shop more in the fresh produce section than anywhere else in the market. We actually have family meals.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:01 AM on April 24, 2007


when we had a microwave, we ate an ever-increasing butt-load of all those pre-packaged, over-salted, processed pseudo-foods.

Microwaves are also great for cooking vegetables with little or no fat, heating healthy soups, and preparing food in the dishes from which they will be consumed so as to reduce clean up. Wouldn't it have just been easier to not buy those pre-packaged, over-salted, processed pseudo-foods? My mom taught us this lesson as kids - if you don't buy the unhealthy foods you are unlikely to eat unhealthy foods. It's not like we didn't nag, beg and plead with her for that box of super sugar coated buzz bomb cereal. It's just that we usually lost. Her scheme did work something like your scheme with the microwave though. We had plenty of ingredients to make our own cookies and treats, but the effort level required inhibited quick and aimless snacking on junk food.
posted by caddis at 6:50 AM on April 24, 2007


caddis, you're on the money there. Increasing the amount of time needed to prepare (and even chew) your food is a sure-fire way to cut calories. If you're not really all that hungry, you won't be as tempted to eat if you have to do something to prepare your food, even if it's something as simple as peeling carrots.
posted by Mister_A at 10:15 AM on April 24, 2007


Metafilter: Put 39 of those fuckers in a glass and ask yourself if you would drink it.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:29 PM on April 24, 2007


Yet another effect of the corn subsidies may be to hasten the end of the world.

Albert Einstein quote: "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man."
[pdf] Corn farmers poisoning bees while killing a rootborer) via David Byrne's blog

From the pdf:
the insecticide Penncap-M became popular as a defense against
corn rootworm, the larval form
of a beetle that attacks the roots
of corn plants. Penncap-M, a
microencapsulated form of
methyl parathion, could have
been designed as the ultimate
bee-killing weapon: a highly toxic,
long-lived nerve poison enclosed
in tiny,pollen-size beads.Foraging
bees packed these pellets into
their pollen sacs along with the
real thing and carried them
home,devastating their colonies.
Corn is easily wind-pollinated,
so although bees gather corn
pollen, growers don’t need them.
They see Penncap-M as the
cheapest, most efficient answer
to their rootworm problem,and
its impact on bees has not convinced
them to give it up.
posted by acro at 7:02 PM on April 26, 2007


its impact on bees has not convinced them to give it up.

WTF corn farmers?!? They're madmen if they think we can survive well without bees.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:53 PM on April 26, 2007


Byrne speculates
"Anyway, though it was not mentioned in the tangerine article I asked myself if the two articles could be related — if GM agribusiness could be trying to eliminate bees.

Call me a conspiracy nut, but it sure sounds likely to me. They are the ones who would principally benefit — they have a motive and incentive.
posted by acro at 8:06 PM on April 26, 2007


...(The) article that said that growers of GM tangerines were furious with beekeepers for allowing their bees to wander into the GM-planted fields.

The explanation for their anger is simple. GM crops have been carefully and sometimes expensively modified to have certain desirable characteristics — seedless tangerines, in this case. Bees, as an important part of the chain of life, cross-pollinate plants by “accidentally” rubbing pollen from one flower onto another further away. This is not really an accident, for, as Einstein points out, life as we know it has come to depend on it happening. If this “accident” or “byproduct” ceases we are goners.
posted by acro at 8:12 PM on April 26, 2007


The way I figure it, we are doomed as a species. Between bees, climate change, mercury in the air, ocean fisheries collapse, and everything else, we're well and truly screwed. We have worked ourselves into an impossibly big corner.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:37 PM on April 26, 2007


Science holds key to greener future
...
But the US withdrew from the ABM treaty in 2002, calling it a "relic" from a previous age.
... the age with bees, fish, humans...
posted by acro at 10:40 AM on April 27, 2007


« Older Sgt. Alvin C. York was the most decorated individu...  |  Remember Mingering Mike?... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments