| Tuesday, May 31, 2005 |  |
| WATCHING NEW LOVE AS IT SEARS THE BRAIN | 4 comments |
| 31 May 2005 @ 18:12 WATCHING NEW LOVE AS IT SEARS THE BRAIN By Benedict Carey New York Times May 31, 2005 New love can look for all the world like mental illness, a blend of mania, dementia and obsession that cuts people off from friends and family and prompts out-of-character behavior - compulsive phone calling, serenades, yelling from rooftops - that could almost be mistaken for psychosis. Now for the first time, neuroscientists have produced brain scan images of this fevered activity, before it settles into the wine and roses phase of romance or the joint holiday card routines of long-term commitment. In an analysis of the images appearing today in The Journal of Neurophysiology, researchers in New York and New Jersey argue that romantic love is a biological urge distinct from sexual arousal. It is closer in its neural profile to drives like hunger, thirst or drug craving, the researchers assert, than to emotional states like excitement or affection. As a relationship deepens, the brain scans suggest, the neural activity associated with romantic love alters slightly, and in some cases primes areas deep in the primitive brain that are involved in long-term attachment. The research helps explain why love produces such disparate emotions, from euphoria to anger to anxiety, and why it seems to become even more intense when it is withdrawn. In a separate, continuing experiment, the researchers are analyzing brain images from people who have been rejected by their lovers. "When you're in the throes of this romantic love it's overwhelming, you're out of control, you're irrational, you're going to the gym at 6 a.m. every day - why? Because she's there," said Dr. Helen Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers University and the co-author of the analysis. "And when rejected, some people contemplate stalking, homicide, suicide. This drive for romantic love can be stronger than the will to live." Brain imaging technology cannot read people's minds, experts caution, and a phenomenon as many sided and socially influenced as love transcends simple computer graphics, like those produced by the technique used in the study, called functional M.R.I. Still, said Dr. Hans Breiter, director of the Motivation and Emotion Neuroscience Collaboration at Massachusetts General Hospital, "I distrust about 95 percent of the M.R.I. literature and I would give this study an 'A'; it really moves the ball in terms of understanding infatuation love." He added: "The findings fit nicely with a large, growing body of literature describing a generalized reward and aversion system in the brain, and put this intellectual construct of love directly onto the same axis as homeostatic rewards such as food, warmth, craving for drugs." In the study, Dr. Fisher, Dr. Lucy Brown of Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx and Dr. Arthur Aron, a psychologist at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, led a team that analyzed about 2,500 brain images from 17 college students who were in the first weeks or months of new love. The students looked at a picture of their beloved while an M.R.I. machine scanned their brains. The researchers then compared the images with others taken while the students looked at picture of an acquaintance. Functional M.R.I. technology detects increases or decreases of blood flow in the brain, which reflect changes in neural activity. In the study, a computer-generated map of particularly active areas showed hot spots deep in the brain, below conscious awareness, in areas called the caudate nucleus and the ventral tegmental area, which communicate with each other as part of a circuit. Click to read More > |
| Memorial Day Thoughts: Will America Survive? | 0 comments |
 31 May 2005 @ 17:38Memorial Day Thoughts: Will America Survive? From: THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER May 31, 2005, Issue #407 Monitoring Corporate Agribusiness From a Public Interest Perspective EDITOR\PUBLISHER; A.V. Krebs WILL AMERICA SURVIVE? RELEARNING LESSONS ABOUT LAW, POLITICS AND ECONOMICS DR. ROBERT TAYLOR, ORGANIZATION OF COMPETITIVE MARKETS FELLOW: We are living in troubling social and economic times. Corporate capitaism and Ayn Rand "caricature" capitalism are rapidly replacing Adam Smith's "market" capitalism based on true competition between many. Massive consolidation and integration of global business translates into an imbalance of economic power. We cannot wish away the fact that economic power translates into raw political power, even in so-called democracies. Consolidation of the news business --- the power of the press --- further entrenches power of a few. An imbalance of economic and political power often results in undesirable consequences for "the people," a lesson that has been learned the hard way several times in our history Thomas Jefferson, observing corporate challenges to the infant American Democracy stated, "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." 1812. Frederic Bastiat, a French economist and Statesman, commenting on the socialization of France, stated: "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." The Law, 1846 Bastiat's comments about socialism apply equally well to the current corporate takeover of democracy. President Abraham Lincoln, looking ahead during a difficult time in America said, "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." 1864 Lincoln's economic prophecy was partially realized as a few corporations came to dominate the American economy; fortunately "Trust Busting" and enactment and enforcement of antitrust laws kept the Republic from being destroyed during the early 1900s. In 1921 --- the same year the Packers and Stockyard Act was implemented --- Frank Knight, who is now widely regarded as the Father of the Chicago School of Economics, made the common sense observation that the "well being" of society depends on maintaining a balance of economic efficiency, economic power and economic freedom. The so-called Chicago School of Thought --- basically economic imperialism --- emerged from some of Knight's students who obviously did not learn all of the master's lessons. Knight also stated that the single-minded pursuit of economic efficiency would be at the expense of maintaining a balance of economic power and at a loss in economic freedom. Few would doubt that domestic and global economic policy has been dominated by the single-minded pursuit of economic efficiency in the past few decades. Many of us feel that this mindset has resulted in an imbalance of power and a loss in economic freedom, to the long-run detriment of America. Through political and advertising power gained from economic power, a few corporate executives are becoming the social planners for the masses. Knight also comments indirectly on how the corporate game affects "people," "There is also a certain ethical repugnance attached to having the livelihood of the masses of the people made a pawn in such a sport, however fascinating the sport may be to its leaders." The Ethics of Competition, 1923. Stephen John Nash, interpreting Frank Knight said, "On a more practical level, policies which are aimed at increasing efficiency --- for example relaxation of antitrust law when a large imbalance of economic power exists --- will allow those with economic power to further augment their own power. This will drive the imbalance of economic power further away from its optimal position, reducing economic freedom as well." Nash, 1998 Anyone who doubts a loss in economic freedom from consolidation and integration of agriculture should talk to a contract poultry producer --- except that they are afraid to talk. As a practical matter, entry into poultry production is by invitation only, which means that economic freedom is restricted. Contract poultry growers loss of economic freedom comes from an imbalance of economic power --- the grower's only decision is to accept or reject new contract terms offered by the integrator. Rejecting new contract terms often means bankruptcy. So the grower often has little choice but to accept whatever the integrator offers. Even the "chosen ones"--- captive cattle feeders --- often have no say about terms of captive supply agreements. Even the giant agribusiness firm ConAgra --- with $15 billion in annual sales --- is now complaining about being on the short end of the stick, "The company's retail customers, such as supermarkets and warehouse clubs, have consolidated in recent years and consolidation is expected to continue. These consolidations have produced large, sophisticated customers with increased buying power who are more capable of resisting price increases and operating with reduced inventories. "These customers may also in the future use more of their shelf space, currently used for company products, for their private label products. If the larger size of these customers results in additional negotiating strength or less shelf space for company products, the company's profitability could decline." Source: ConAgra SEC 10-K dated October 5, 2004 ConAgra is acknowledging to the SEC a problem with buyer power and a form of captive supply (shelf space). Hmmm! Isn't this precisely the problem independent livestock producers have with packers? A common sense premise of economics is that a balance of economic power between buyers and sellers is required for markets to be to be "fair" when judged by the true competitive market norm. The need for balancing power is just as true in a market for contracts as it is true for cash markets. And balancing power is a requirement up and down a vertical chain, as well as horizontally. Bill Moyers, press secretary to President Johnson and PBS commentator, succinctly stated our present situation in America, "We are moving toward an oligarchic society where a relatively small handful of the rich decide, with their money, who will run, who will win, and how they will govern. The defenders of the present system will fight hard to hold on to their privilege, and they write the rules. Nothing short of an aroused public can change things, nothing less than democracy is at stake. 2004 In a recent book aptly titled Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists, Rajan and Zingales concluded, ÒÉ the nexus between economic and political power is of special concern in two situations. If a few incumbents (the rich and/or corporate executives) have much of the economic power, they can rely on their own political clout to achieve business ends and may feel little need to establish transparent rules that make markets accessible to all. More dangerous still than this benign neglect of the market is if the incumbents are incompetent at business, for they may then actively attempt to suppress the competitive market so as to preserve their own positions. 2004 Rajan and Zingales echo a warning that OCM members have repeatedly sounded, " . . .the public should be made more aware of how much it benefits from the market and what the costs of seemingly innocuous anticompetitive policies are, so that the public is less willing to remain passively on the sidelines." Looking back on concerns expressed by Jefferson, Lincoln, Bastiat, Moyers and others, it is, as Yogi Berra would say, "de-ja vu" all over again". Society doesn't seem to know where it is going, or recognize very real threats to the foundation of the American political and economic system. Engaging the public is the challenge for OCM and others who have the common sense and moral concerns to recognize that democracy is threatened. As Bill Moyers said, "Nothing short of an aroused public can change things, nothing less than democracy is at stake." Will Lincoln's Republic be destroyed or squandered? Will American survive the challenge that few seem to recognize? It's time for the people --- common people --- to retake control of their future. [ May, 2005 Newsletter ] |
| Agricultural College in Ontario Switching to All Organic Training for Students | 0 comments |
| 31 May 2005 @ 17:32 Agricultural College in Ontario Switching to All Organic Training for Students By TOM VAN DUSEN, Ottawa Sun ALFRED -- Ontario's only French-language agricultural college may finally have been granted its educational raison d'etre. For most of its 24-years, Alfred College has relied on the language difference for validation. Now innovative programming is about to carve it a distinctive niche in the province and beyond. Under the guidance of its managing authority, Guelph University, Alfred is in the process of becoming the first agricultural education centre in North America devoted to organic research. It's part of the small college's determination to offer courses relevant to a cross-section of society, says Alfred director Gilbert Heroux. "We want to establish the college as an important player in preparing tomorrow's specialists, be it in organic agriculture, environmental management or food safety," Heroux said. The director emphasized programs are being added without a reduction in emphasis on conventional farming, which remains a mainstay in the region. The job of transferring Alfred's 40 head of Holsteins and its 250 acres of feed crops from conventional to organic management has gone to Charles Goubau, an Alfred staffer since the college's creation. Goubau will be assisted by barn manager Louis Brunet, a retired conventional farmer. Francois Labelle, an organic producer, is in charge of acquiring certification, while Dr. Simon Lachance will oversee research projects. An advisory committee composed of Alfred staff, Kemptville College reps, the production sector and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food is helping with the transition. On the financial side, some $40,000 from OMAF and about $74,500 from federal agency FedNor is facilitating the shift. "I love a challenge," Goubau said. The implementation date for the change is September, although the full transition will take about two years. INCREASING DEMAND "There are a few centres in Europe specializing in organic ... but not yet in Canada or the U.S.," said Goubau. Organic milk isn't about the cows themselves, it's about the feed and medication that go into them. Right now, subjects are Holsteins but other breeds could eventually be added, Goubau said. A conventional farmer on his own time, Goubau expects to learn new practices to apply to his operation. He noted the increasing demand for organic food products in Ontario makes the shift a timely one: "Right now, Ontario has to bring in organic milk from Quebec to meet the demand." Echoing Heroux, Goubau and Brunet said it's important for students to realize they'll still get traditional schooling in agriculture from the college since many of the management techniques used in both the organic and conventional streams overlap. "For example, all farmers are already trying to use less antibiotics," Goubau said. "So, antibiotic-free treatment isn't a huge stretch for the conventional types." |
| Women Are the Driving Force for the $15 Billion Organic Market | 1 comment |
 31 May 2005 @ 17:31Women Are the Driving Force for the $15 Billion Organic Market Britt Mackenzie is making an effort to be healthy. The 29-year-old Bridgeport woman tries to buy organic foods when she can, particularly fruits and vegetables. She and her husband, whom she said is "really into this," don't have a grand reason for including organic items in their diets. Their reasoning is simple, she said. "It doesn't have as many chemicals," Mackenzie said. "It's just better for you." She isn't the only one making the switch to more natural foods. Sales of organic products reached $12.7 billion in 2004, and have shown a steady growth rate of 20 percent per year over the past dozen years, according to the Organic Trade Association, a 1,600-member trade organization based in Massachusetts. Organic products also are becoming a more common sight, not just in specialty shops like Nature's Way, but also in large chain supermarkets, such as Shaw's. The OTA defines "organic" foods using the guidelines of the Organic Foods Production Act, established by the United States Department of Agriculture. In general, the act defines organic foods as those produced largely without chemicals, such as pesticides and hormones. The OTA doesn't keep track of what percentage of organic sales are to female customers, but spokeswoman Holly Givens guesses it's a large number. In general, women do the shopping for their families, so if anybody's bringing home pesticide-free veggies and hormone-free milk products, it's the women, Givens said. "We know that women have significant influence over what comes into their homes," she said. Women also tend to be health conscious, Givens said, and it's usually some sort of health event < be it an allergy, an illness or even the birth of a child < that leads people to turn to organic produce. However, area nutritionists are torn over the health benefits of eating organic. Nimesh Bhargava, chief clinical nutrition manager at St. Vincent's Medical Center in Bridgeport said that, purely by not including pesticides, organic produce is healthier than its chemically enhanced counterparts. There's also been some evidence to suggest that foods not treated with chemicals contain more nutrients, Bhargava said, although, he adds, "we need more information to support those claims." Linda Drake, director of the University of Connecticut's nutrition education program, doesn't believe that there's definitive evidence that organic produce is more nutritious. "There's a lot of conflicting research," she said. "Some resources say that organic foods, particularly vegetables, have more nutrients." However, Drake said, other resources indicate that the benefits of organic foods are minimal. Still, she said, the lack of pesticides understandably makes organic foods appealing to consumers, particularly families. Though Drake said conventionally raised produce generally follows FDA guidelines, and isn't usually harmful, "some people don't want any chemicals used on their foods." Yet, both those in the organic food industry and those who buy organic food say health is the main reason women buy natural products. For Dolores Gray, owner and founder of Nature's Way, health issues led her to do more than shop for natural foods. Gray started the store more than 30 years ago because her children had a variety of health problems. She went to conferences, learned about nutrition, and opened the store, which now sells a variety of natural products, including foods. In addition to its produce, the store carries a variety of other organic items, including organic hot dogs. Gray and other staff at the store agreed that all of Nature's Way's departments are equally popular among female customers. Nature's Way Vitamin Manager Mary Legg said that roughly 75 percent of the store's customers are women, who shop at the store for many of the same reasons that Gray opened it. "Food is family," Legg said. "A lot of the time, women come in here with children with allergies [and buy organic foods for them]." Officials at other area natural foods stores agreed that women likely are the driving force behind the organic food boom, and that children are probably the reason why. Like Nature's Way, Mrs. Green's, a natural food store in Fairfield has a largely female clientele. Manager J.D. Smith estimates that 85 to 90 percent of the store's customers are women. The store carries a variety of organic products, including fruits and vegetables and dairy. "The number one reason [women shop organic] is the children," Smith said. "People are going to take care of their children before they take care of themselves." The clientele at the Westport branch of Wild Oats Natural Marketplace, a chain store that features a wide selection of organic products, is also overwhelmingly female, said Tess Abalos, the Westport store's community marketing coordinator. She said that not only does family figure largely in female customers' decision to go organic, it also was her main motivation for eating healthier. "My personal entree into organic shopping came with produce and dairy," said Abalos, who has a 10-year-old daughter. "I [especially] didn't want her to have traditional dairy that may have been injected with hormones." Joanne Orenstein, 46, of Trumbull, gives similar reasons for her decision to shop organic. The mother of three, ranging in age from nine to 15, belongs to a food co-op that features a lot of organic foods, and shops for organic items at the specialty supermarket Trader Joe's on occasion. Orenstein said she shops organic partly because she doesn't like the idea of her family eating foods packed with chemicals. "I think everything is so toxic," she said. "I don't want to eat pesticides, or meats shot up with hormones. I don't want my children to be ingesting that." Mackenzie and the other women interviewed at Nature's Way last week weren't shopping for children, but they had their reasons for going organic. Take Gloria Meyers, 64, of Monroe. A few years ago, she was diagnosed with osteoporosis, which she took as a sign to change the way she ate. "It was like a wake-up call to think about nutritional supplements and healthy foods," she said. Since then, Meyers has made a number of lifestyle changes, and one of them is purchasing organic produce. She's been shopping organic for four years now and, in addition to other modifications, such as taking nutritional supplements, feels this new habit has improved her health. "I seem to have much more energy," Meyers said. Kandy Ray, of Milford, shops organic for herself and her husband, who is slowly getting used to the idea. Ray has been on a strictly organic diet for the past six months, and ate some natural foods before that. She said she made the switch "because of all the garbage they put in [non-organic] food." She likes eating foods without so many harmful chemicals, she said, and she can taste and feel the difference. "It's better," Ray said. "It tastes better. You feel better physically. [The fruits and vegetables] don't look perfect, but they taste great." More > |