My roommate told me the other day, “You are a selective recycler.” My gut reaction was to be immediately offended by this comment. What do you mean I am selective! I have always considered myself to be such a friend to the environment. (I mean, come on, my favorite color is even green!) “Well, you choose to recycle when it is convenient, and you don’t always completely grasp what can and cannot be recycled.” Okay, I suppose she had a point.
I tend to assume that everything can be recycled, so, I throw it all in there. I place blame on my upbringing for this one. First of all, where I grew up, we didn’t have trash pick-up, rather we had to take the truck full of trash to the dump every week. This wasn’t your run-of-the-mill trash dump, it was a transfer station, so it was much more environmentally friendly where nearly anything could be recycled. In our pick-up truckload, we usually had one trashcan and the rest could be separated out and recycled. Consequently, I grew up with the mentality that anything could be recycled.
Furthermore, when I moved away to go to university I learned that while the school had recycle bins on campus, everything was actually combined and then re-separated. (Apparently, university students cannot be trusted to sort their own waste.) Sure enough, if you are treated like you’re an incompetent child, we all start to fall into that assumption. I stopped worrying about which bin my empty bottles fell, because hey, someone else would take care of it anyway.
That leads us to present day. I find myself falling back into the old habit of either trying to recycle everything or dumping it all in one place, with the assumption that it is sorted again. I am, of course, sadly mistaken, and my roommate is correct.
As I toss my milk caps into the recycling bin, I knew the next step for me was to fill in my knowledge gaps and actually learn about recycling laws in DC. After all, I know that I can’t be the only one who can’t recite the rules of recycling on command. After a quick Google search, I quickly learned that all commercial buildings (including residential apartments) are in fact required to recycle, and are subject to fines up to $1000 if they are note compliant. On the District’s government website all facts are listed out in a nice PDF document, with all required recycled items are clearly listed: all paper products, aluminum, steel, tin, brown, green and clear glass. But, get this, plastic food containers and bottles are recommended recycled product, but are still optional. This last point seems odd to me, as I feel that plastic bottles are some of the more common recycled products after paper products. It is also noted that all containers must be cleaned without waste: food, paint, or chemicals, etc before recycling. Yes, it specifically notes that pizza boxes are not recyclable due to the food residue.
Now that I have my facts straight, the next step here is to follow those guidelines. And, if I choose not to, well that’s where the fines come in—so perhaps the city will start enforcing those, and if people don’t start (looking at myself here!) following the rules, at least the city could make some cash off of our laziness and ignorance.
If you live in the DC area, check it out for yourself: http://dpw.dc.gov/DC/DPW/Services+on+Your+Block/Recycling.
31 March 2011
24 March 2011
A Glance at the Global Food Crisis's Impact
As I have watched the news lately and sifted through the Middle East turmoil and Japan’s tragedy, more articles and news stores have surfaced on the current and future food crisis. Worldwide we are looking toward a food shortage, with limited access, rising prices, and falling incomes as a result.
Staple crops have nearly doubled in cost due to diminishing harvests, including grains such as wheat, corn, and soy. Though the rice crop has managed to stay steady in both yield and cost, other "less essential" crops have also suffered, including vegetables, fruits, and coffee. In the United States, we have experienced a 4 percent increase in food prices, which is the highest jump in price in 36 years, according to the Associated Press.
Much of this failure is due to irregular weather caused by climate change: flooding in Australia, droughts in Russia and China, and even abnormal cold temperatures in the United States, according to the Washington Post. Beyond the effects of climate change, we can look toward the change in the product end use of the common crops. Many of these stable crops are used not only for human consumption, but also for livestock consumption with the demand for meat rises globally in both developed and developing country. Corn, for example, is more commonly used for energy consumption as well, in the form of bio-fuel or ethanol.
The effect of the rise in food prices, and gas prices for that matter, is beginning to be seen as catastrophic on some levels. In developing countries, the food shortage has pushed more than 44 million people to extreme poverty, living on less than $1.25 per day. Beyond that, many are linking the unrest in North Africa and the Middle East to the instability of food prices and uncertainty of food availability, according to the World Bank.
While the effects in the United States are not as extreme as seen on the other side of the globe, we can still feel the change from out home as well. The interconnected global markets prove to make more of a difference today, as we run into shortages of crops in not only on our own land, but on our international trading partners land too.
Interestingly, Americans on average spend less than 15 percent of their expendable income on food, while globally the average settles around 40 percent or 50 percent of the household income, according to the Associated Press. So while we will likely see an increase in food prices in our grocery stores, we also have more breathing room than others around the globe to manage our funds and continue to have the ability and luxury to choose where we spend our money. Though perhaps with the increase in food costs paired with the rising gas prices, the global crisis will have more of an impact on our wallets than expected.
If you're interested in reading more, check out some of these fantastic pieces:
“Gas, Food Prices Double Whammy For Rural Families.” 21 March 2011. The Associated Press. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13472683
Shneider, Howard. “Higher food prices may be here to stay.” 14 March 2011. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/higher-food-prices-may-be-here-to-stay/2011/03/10/AByYO3V_story.html
Shneider, Howard. “Food prices push millions into poverty.” 15 March 2011. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/food-prices-push-millions-into-poverty/2011/02/15/ABwHkoQ_story.html
“Wholesalers paying more for food, suggesting higher prices to come at the grocery store.” 16 March 2011. The Associated Press. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/wholesalers-paying-more-for-food-suggesting-higher-prices-to-come-at-the-grocery-store/2011/03/16/ABpLKcd_story.html
Parker, John. “The 9 billion-people question: A special report on feeding the world.” Feb 24th 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18200618
Staple crops have nearly doubled in cost due to diminishing harvests, including grains such as wheat, corn, and soy. Though the rice crop has managed to stay steady in both yield and cost, other "less essential" crops have also suffered, including vegetables, fruits, and coffee. In the United States, we have experienced a 4 percent increase in food prices, which is the highest jump in price in 36 years, according to the Associated Press.
Much of this failure is due to irregular weather caused by climate change: flooding in Australia, droughts in Russia and China, and even abnormal cold temperatures in the United States, according to the Washington Post. Beyond the effects of climate change, we can look toward the change in the product end use of the common crops. Many of these stable crops are used not only for human consumption, but also for livestock consumption with the demand for meat rises globally in both developed and developing country. Corn, for example, is more commonly used for energy consumption as well, in the form of bio-fuel or ethanol.
The effect of the rise in food prices, and gas prices for that matter, is beginning to be seen as catastrophic on some levels. In developing countries, the food shortage has pushed more than 44 million people to extreme poverty, living on less than $1.25 per day. Beyond that, many are linking the unrest in North Africa and the Middle East to the instability of food prices and uncertainty of food availability, according to the World Bank.
While the effects in the United States are not as extreme as seen on the other side of the globe, we can still feel the change from out home as well. The interconnected global markets prove to make more of a difference today, as we run into shortages of crops in not only on our own land, but on our international trading partners land too.
Interestingly, Americans on average spend less than 15 percent of their expendable income on food, while globally the average settles around 40 percent or 50 percent of the household income, according to the Associated Press. So while we will likely see an increase in food prices in our grocery stores, we also have more breathing room than others around the globe to manage our funds and continue to have the ability and luxury to choose where we spend our money. Though perhaps with the increase in food costs paired with the rising gas prices, the global crisis will have more of an impact on our wallets than expected.
If you're interested in reading more, check out some of these fantastic pieces:
“Gas, Food Prices Double Whammy For Rural Families.” 21 March 2011. The Associated Press. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13472683
Shneider, Howard. “Higher food prices may be here to stay.” 14 March 2011. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/higher-food-prices-may-be-here-to-stay/2011/03/10/AByYO3V_story.html
Shneider, Howard. “Food prices push millions into poverty.” 15 March 2011. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/food-prices-push-millions-into-poverty/2011/02/15/ABwHkoQ_story.html
“Wholesalers paying more for food, suggesting higher prices to come at the grocery store.” 16 March 2011. The Associated Press. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/wholesalers-paying-more-for-food-suggesting-higher-prices-to-come-at-the-grocery-store/2011/03/16/ABpLKcd_story.html
Parker, John. “The 9 billion-people question: A special report on feeding the world.” Feb 24th 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18200618
17 March 2011
The Futility of Calories Counting
I have never been very good at calories. I never cared to learn to be honest, as I thought it would be a lot better for my potential OCD tendencies not to know. What does 1,000 calories mean to the average consumer anyway? Do we look at calories as a calculation of energy or as just a number? Every morning I hear one of NPR’s sponsors advocating for calorie labels on the front of drink bottles, which got me thinking.
My first thought is: “It’s already on there and we all know where to look to find it, so why do we need it twice? Are we really that lazy? Or dumb?” My second thought: “Wait a minute! What’s so bad about calories anyway?”
Our culture continues to obsess over calories and the counts are everywhere—packaging, restaurant menus, even fast food restaurants. I am 100 percent on-board with the consumer’s right to know, but I can’t help but wonder: do we know what that number even means?
A calorie is a measure of energy, or: “a quantity of food capable of producing such an amount of energy,” according to Dictionary.com We learn this in Junior High science class, but for some reason that connection doesn’t always seem to stick with us when we look at the calorie count displayed on a large burrito. The term “calories,” has become nearly a dirty word. It doesn’t have to be the case, in other countries, Mexico for example; nutrition labels say energy (“Energia”), rather than a calorie count. For me, (as an American) it sounds less offensive and frightening, not to mention offers a truer definition of what that number actually means.
When it comes to food, drinks, and calorie labels, we have exceptions. We fight to have calories on certain things, fast food joints, for instance. However, there are other foods that we are quite happy not knowing that calorie count. For example, did you know that there are no labels on alcohol bottles? Check it out – wine, hard alcohol, and a lot of beer (unless advertised as “only 90 calories”) do not have nutrition labels with a calorie count. In fact, they are not required to carry nutrition facts, only a warning label of the immediate affects of alcohol, but not the long term health affects of consuming various amounts of unknown elements. Recently, there has been more talk of changing this, but for the time being it seems that we would rather not know. Ignorance is bliss, as Plato’s cave (or the Matrix!) has taught us. We only spend the time caring and fighting for the certain things: matters that will benefit us, such as knowing the calories count at restaurants, or that we can use a scapegoat for our problems – the fight against high calorie foods to fight the high obesity levels. But I find it funny that we tend to shy away from matters that could take away something we like, or shine a negative light on a common and enjoyable habit – putting a calorie count on a happy hour is something that no one seems to want.
That calorie number is important, certainly, though just as with any study, the results should be both quantitative and qualitative. Simply going with one number is not going to offer the whole story behind the product, hence why the nutrition labels display not only the calorie count, but also the vitamin percentages, and ingredient list, among other thing. My concern with the fight to put a spotlight on only the calorie count, we will lose focus on the important nutritional value of some foods. Once we balk at a single number, we will be less likely to consider any other redeeming quality. Understanding the calorie count needs to be looked at as a whole. The entire nutrition label is important.
Sources and Further Reading:
Locke, Michelle. “Alcohol industry struggles with nutrition labels.” Courier-Journal. 23 Feb 2011. http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20110224/FEATURES03/302240022/Alcohol-industry-struggles-nutrition-labels
“How to Understand and Use the Nutrition Facts Label.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
http://www.fda.gov/food/labelingnutrition/consumerinformation/ucm078889.htm
Burros, Marion. “Nutrition Labels Proposed for Alcohol.” 07 Aug 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/dining/01label.html
My first thought is: “It’s already on there and we all know where to look to find it, so why do we need it twice? Are we really that lazy? Or dumb?” My second thought: “Wait a minute! What’s so bad about calories anyway?”
Our culture continues to obsess over calories and the counts are everywhere—packaging, restaurant menus, even fast food restaurants. I am 100 percent on-board with the consumer’s right to know, but I can’t help but wonder: do we know what that number even means?
A calorie is a measure of energy, or: “a quantity of food capable of producing such an amount of energy,” according to Dictionary.com We learn this in Junior High science class, but for some reason that connection doesn’t always seem to stick with us when we look at the calorie count displayed on a large burrito. The term “calories,” has become nearly a dirty word. It doesn’t have to be the case, in other countries, Mexico for example; nutrition labels say energy (“Energia”), rather than a calorie count. For me, (as an American) it sounds less offensive and frightening, not to mention offers a truer definition of what that number actually means.
When it comes to food, drinks, and calorie labels, we have exceptions. We fight to have calories on certain things, fast food joints, for instance. However, there are other foods that we are quite happy not knowing that calorie count. For example, did you know that there are no labels on alcohol bottles? Check it out – wine, hard alcohol, and a lot of beer (unless advertised as “only 90 calories”) do not have nutrition labels with a calorie count. In fact, they are not required to carry nutrition facts, only a warning label of the immediate affects of alcohol, but not the long term health affects of consuming various amounts of unknown elements. Recently, there has been more talk of changing this, but for the time being it seems that we would rather not know. Ignorance is bliss, as Plato’s cave (or the Matrix!) has taught us. We only spend the time caring and fighting for the certain things: matters that will benefit us, such as knowing the calories count at restaurants, or that we can use a scapegoat for our problems – the fight against high calorie foods to fight the high obesity levels. But I find it funny that we tend to shy away from matters that could take away something we like, or shine a negative light on a common and enjoyable habit – putting a calorie count on a happy hour is something that no one seems to want.
That calorie number is important, certainly, though just as with any study, the results should be both quantitative and qualitative. Simply going with one number is not going to offer the whole story behind the product, hence why the nutrition labels display not only the calorie count, but also the vitamin percentages, and ingredient list, among other thing. My concern with the fight to put a spotlight on only the calorie count, we will lose focus on the important nutritional value of some foods. Once we balk at a single number, we will be less likely to consider any other redeeming quality. Understanding the calorie count needs to be looked at as a whole. The entire nutrition label is important.
Sources and Further Reading:
Locke, Michelle. “Alcohol industry struggles with nutrition labels.” Courier-Journal. 23 Feb 2011. http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20110224/FEATURES03/302240022/Alcohol-industry-struggles-nutrition-labels
“How to Understand and Use the Nutrition Facts Label.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
http://www.fda.gov/food/labelingnutrition/consumerinformation/ucm078889.htm
Burros, Marion. “Nutrition Labels Proposed for Alcohol.” 07 Aug 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/dining/01label.html
01 March 2011
Theatre Review of SpeakeasyDC's Latest Production: The Family that No One Talks About
“That show was unlike anything I have ever seen,” my friend said with a smile as we walked out of Mixed, Blended, Shaken, & Stirred: Stories about Today’s American Family, a part of Washington DC’s INTERSECTIONS festival at the Atlas Performing Arts Center on H St NE. It was true—Storytelling is something unique. It is not exactly a play because there is no acting, nor is it a SLAM poetry night, or even an open-mic night because it is rehearsed; I suppose it could be considered a monologue, however it is all truth.
The focus of Friday night’s show was family, but not as much family as a whole as I had expected walking in. Rather, the stories danced around the edges of the concept of family and the impact a family has on one’s life. The stories covered an individual’s personal experience and through that, brought light to their true meaning of family. The show featured the talents of Christopher Love, Jennifer Luu, Mike Kane, David Ferris, Chuck Harmston, and Vijai Nathan. Each took their turn on stage not to act, but to share, open up, and allow for the viewers to relate to their experience and themselves.
The stories touched on many and various aspects of the current American family, including the struggle of a gay man’s attempt to donate sperm to a lesbian couple; the affects of a religious conversion to Mormonism in a Buddhist Vietnamese family; the effort to ensure a normal family life for one’s children after growing up with a heroin addicted father; the challenges of a cross-cultural marriage into an Indian family as a metro-American man; the drama of growing up in a family of 11 children, 6 of of whom were adopted; and the pressures for a young women to find a husband and have children in today’s society.
One by one each storyteller came up to the microphone, stood on the empty stage, and shared a piece of their past. Even in the high-impact environment we are used to experiencing, where actions often speak louder than words, it was refreshing to leave that atmosphere and simply listen to the words, without distraction and without judgment. The emotional reactions of the audience did not feel forced but rather were gently pushed along through the hour-long showcase. The momentum of the stories flowed well as feelings moved with ease from sadness, shock, relief, joy, love, and laughter.
While the stories reached what seemed like every emotion, they came equipped with some hilarious anecdotes (for a sneak preview): such as Love’s description of his donated “illicit gay sperm-sicle,” to Ferris’s bold statement to is Indian father-in-law, “You can’t hide the metro-sexual inside!” and ending with Nathan’s comparison of prehistoric caveman to the modern day dating scene; “How drunk does a caveman have to be to bang a chimp?”
For an entertaining, unique, and special experience, there are two more opportunities to see this SpeakeasyDC production, this Friday and Saturday, March 4 and 5. I guarantee that you will relate in some way to each story with compassion, laughter, perhaps even tears, and you will definitely walk away with something to talk about.
The focus of Friday night’s show was family, but not as much family as a whole as I had expected walking in. Rather, the stories danced around the edges of the concept of family and the impact a family has on one’s life. The stories covered an individual’s personal experience and through that, brought light to their true meaning of family. The show featured the talents of Christopher Love, Jennifer Luu, Mike Kane, David Ferris, Chuck Harmston, and Vijai Nathan. Each took their turn on stage not to act, but to share, open up, and allow for the viewers to relate to their experience and themselves.
The stories touched on many and various aspects of the current American family, including the struggle of a gay man’s attempt to donate sperm to a lesbian couple; the affects of a religious conversion to Mormonism in a Buddhist Vietnamese family; the effort to ensure a normal family life for one’s children after growing up with a heroin addicted father; the challenges of a cross-cultural marriage into an Indian family as a metro-American man; the drama of growing up in a family of 11 children, 6 of of whom were adopted; and the pressures for a young women to find a husband and have children in today’s society.
One by one each storyteller came up to the microphone, stood on the empty stage, and shared a piece of their past. Even in the high-impact environment we are used to experiencing, where actions often speak louder than words, it was refreshing to leave that atmosphere and simply listen to the words, without distraction and without judgment. The emotional reactions of the audience did not feel forced but rather were gently pushed along through the hour-long showcase. The momentum of the stories flowed well as feelings moved with ease from sadness, shock, relief, joy, love, and laughter.
While the stories reached what seemed like every emotion, they came equipped with some hilarious anecdotes (for a sneak preview): such as Love’s description of his donated “illicit gay sperm-sicle,” to Ferris’s bold statement to is Indian father-in-law, “You can’t hide the metro-sexual inside!” and ending with Nathan’s comparison of prehistoric caveman to the modern day dating scene; “How drunk does a caveman have to be to bang a chimp?”
For an entertaining, unique, and special experience, there are two more opportunities to see this SpeakeasyDC production, this Friday and Saturday, March 4 and 5. I guarantee that you will relate in some way to each story with compassion, laughter, perhaps even tears, and you will definitely walk away with something to talk about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)