Remember Chevy Chase’s escapades with a ladder and those strings of outdoor lights in Christmas Vacation? Apparently many Americans would have been happy to help him kick that plastic Santa to death.

A new survey commissioned by GE of 1,050 Americans found that dealing with those tangled, twisty lights appears to be one of the Christmas season’s biggest hassles.

Of the people who plan to decorate with lights (870), a majority (56 percent) cited untangling last year’s lights as the season’s “biggest hassle”.  Others noted that stringing lights on the house or in the yard (47 percent) and stringing lights on the tree (39 percent) as the season’s biggest non-joyous headache.

And the bah-humbug didn’t end there. Others said they didn’t much care for hanging ornaments and decorations (23 percent) or getting the tree to stand up in the stand (19 percent).

Spiked eggnog anyone?

Moving on to less edgy topics, the survey by Goodmind Market Research found that 24 percent of the respondents planned on decorating with LED lights this season. This led GE Consumer & Industrial, engineer of the survey, to conclude that a pre-lit LED Christmas tree could be the “hit of the season.”

Perhaps that would be about the perfect combination of convenience and energy-savings for economically stressed, celebration-weary Americans.

And surprise! A GE licensee, Santa’s Best Craft Ltd., happens to sell pre–lit trees with low voltage, cool burning GE brand Energy Smart® LED holiday light sets that use about 80 percent less energy than traditional holiday lighting. (Available in scads of stores across the country.)

Of course, the verdict’s still out on whether artificial really is greener than using a live tree that’s been chopped down at a tree farm. Some worry that all those plastic trees end up in landfills. At the same time, others (except for Christmas tree farmers) say those cut trees are a big carbon waste. This perennial argument would be an excellent debate topic for while you’re untwisting those strings of lights.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Comedians have joked about how Christians oddly commemorate their savior with a symbol connected to his death, a crucifix. (Of course to Christians, this is the symbol of the resurrection).

Strawberry Tree (Photo: Friends of the Urban Forest)

Now let’s consider the coming holiday, Christmas. It’s a wonderful time of year, joyous, giving, sharing — when lots of people also run out to kill trees or buy those that have already met the axe.

Behold, the magnificent evergreen, symbol of everlasting life, sliced down in the prime of life so we can slap some glass balls on it, enshrine it in lights and send it to the mulcher when it turns crispy.

Here’s a requisite ritual of the approaching celebration (and not just for Christians, either, we all know there are plenty of other non-believers who haul trees into their homes because they share the spirit of the thing, if not the theology) that requires a certain degree of destruction.

Or does it?

In San Francisco, the city government has partnered with Friends of the Urban Forest, to offer residents a living tree at a reasonable price ($95) for the holiday season. The trees are, if not native, then adapted for the area and will be planted alongside city streets afterward.

San Francisco residents can pick out their 6 to 8-foot tall magnolia, strawberry tree, Tristania or New Zealand Christmas Tree at City Hall Plaza on Dec. 5-6. (See the website for details.)

Later, Friends of the Urban Forest will plant the potted trees along public walkways, adding to the city’s forest, and recognizing that many urban dwellers simply wouldn’t have a spot to plant it themselves.

Perhaps it’s time to quit using so many trees for Christmas and start cultivating them instead? It could be a celebration of new life. Very 21st Century.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

If you haven’t seen it, please take a look at our story about America Recycles Day. Find out just how much energy we can save by recycling, a no-brainer if ever there was one.

Last year, a Harris poll found that 91 percent of Americans reported that they recycled. But that figure seemed really high, given the low recycling rates in some cities, like Houston, Dallas, Detroit and Indianapolis. Those were some of the slackers revealed in a study of municipal recycling in 2008 that showed major US cities varied wildly in the amount of recyclables they collected, from San Francisco’s near 70 percent to Houston’s under 3 percent.

Plastie bottle spewing

Given that, and other signs of a lack of  effort in this area that we see around us, we suspect that this 91 percent self-reported recycling figure was a wee bit inflated. People tend to put their best face forward when asked about such things point blank; in fact, they might even lie about it.

So we’ll charitably conclude that most Americans are recycling something — but probably not everything they could. True, they’re not getting the help they need from some cities.  But in many places, people can strip down their trash by separating out their papers, and  glass and aluminum and plastic containers for recycling.

Thanks to private enterprise, like Recycle Bank’s program which is moving in to fill recycling gaps, some smaller towns and cities are moving ahead of large US cities that seem asleep on this issue.

Cities not only need to get on board,  parks and recreation departments, and schools and businesses can do more. Is your city offering to collect organic waste and recycle it into compost? Some are, and they’re generating cash on the side by selling that compost, but most likely the answer to that question is no. What about those parks departments? Do you see two or three different collection bins when you’re out walking the dog or meeting for tennis? We didn’t when we recently saw this mess (see photo) at a large suburban park that shall not be named.

Is your school collecting plastic bottles for recycling? Are local businesses selling their vegetable oil for biofuel use? No and no? Become an advocate.

Americans consume a huge volume of resources. Recycling is the least we can do.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

One thing you can say about the politics of climate change — people are getting hotter about it.

As we approach the Copenhagen world conference (Dec. 6 – 18), those close to the negotiating progress are becoming more frustrated with the plodding pace of official change.

This week in Barcelona, where negotiators met for pre-talks, activists and leaders of African nations demonstrated to try to win more concessions from industrial nations.

Student activists staged a sit-in at the doors to the conference to press for greater reductions in greenhouse gas targets, beyond even the 30 percent reduction by 2020 proposed by the European Union. What this portends for the US, which hasn’t yet put numbers on the table, is anyone’s guess.

The African group pleaded for wealthier nations to commit more money to helping poor countries fight global warming. Their disgust was evident; their vulnerabilities well known: Africa stands to suffer drought, increased water shortages and increased disease if global warming is left unchecked.

“There is no progress whatsoever being made in these negotiations, there is no need to continue like this,” said Gambian chief delegate Pa Ousman Jarju, at a news conference after African leaders walked out in protest, shutting down several planned meetings.

While emotions flared in Barcelona, the US also felt the heat. In Boston, students announced they’ll continue sleeping out on Boston Common to press the state government to commit to running Massachusetts on 100 percent clean energy by 2020.

In DC, people were protesting too, but it was like stepping into a time warp, with several lawmakers fuming over whether we need to take any action on climate change — a debate many would say was settled in the early 1990s.

A handful of Republican senators chose to boycott Senate committee hearings on the Kerry-Boxer climate action and jobs security bill. But instead of boycotting for a change to the status quo, the usual course of boycotts, this one was about maintaining the status quo (or maybe that’s a quid-pro-quo, considering all the oil and coal money greasing this debate).

These senators see no need for action, or at least significant action or expenditures, on this problem.

Tragic. No, earth shattering.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

If you’re the lead foot in your family — or if you’re just annoyed by the lead-footed driver in your family — you’ll enjoy this video about saving gas. It’s cute, and makes a good point.

This little ditty won the video contest sponsored by the Drive Smarter Challenge, a campaign by the Alliance to Save Energy, with support from many other energy-focused groups. It’s timely, as we prepare to hit the roads for the holidays.

Notice in the piece that how you drive can be a big factor when it comes to maximizing your gas mileage.

(For more about the Challenge, see our story.)

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Here’s a movie you never thought they’d make.

Coming to the big, or maybe small,  screen near you, a film…about…laundry!

With a short opening feature on watching paint dry.

My laundry

OK, so that’s mean and I’m kidding, but not about the movie.  Drying for Freedom is really in the works, but it’s not  just about your laundry — though it is about your laundry. The movie delves into an issue that’s been popping up all over this green planet, and that is: What will we be allowed to do in the name of conservation or “going green.”

Will we be able to, perish the thought, dry our laundry on the line like our forebears?  (The ones that wore clothes anyway.) This would involve saving electricity and putting it all “out there” for the world to see, which is a valid response to the climate crisis, according to the film’s makers, who have posted a statement about why they feel strongly about this issue.

One might also ask: Will we be able to go pesticide free and let dandelions bloom in our lawn, along with the native wild flowers? Could we go turf free? Can we plant a giant, shimmering solar panel on our roof and not expect a posse at our door? Can we violate our home owners’ association’s mandates to roof with brown or gray asphalt shingles — or could we put up a reflective metal roof to cool our house? Would the glare so tick off the neighbors that we’d be green pariahs?

Drying the laundry, and its ilk, was never so filled with portent.

So I’m planning on seeing this film about our green freedoms, Drying for Freedom, as soon as it’s ready. The film is being made on a shoestring (or should that be laundry line?).

For now you can see a preview at their website.

(For more see our last laundry posting.)

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

So often politicians obscure their message with caveats, euphemisms and wonky references to elaborately named legislation.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) took the conversation a different direction yesterday when speaking to student activists assembled for an online teleconference Tuesday night sponsored by Consequence09.org.

He appealed for clarity on cap-and-trade, suggesting that “cap-and-trade” is needless jargon, a “crazy name that everyone hates”  and has acquired too much baggage.

We need to heave  the insider-speak, he said, and call cap-and-trade what it really is: “Pollution reduction.”

This point has been made before. But perhaps if it were made by leaders like Kerry, and more often, it could get a foothold.

It is not obfuscation or over-simplification or a smarmy political move to say that what cap-and-trade manifestos are all about is controlling carbon emissions, that is, reducing pollution.

Sure, the devils in the details. By whatever name you call it, the new plan will zing polluters and reward those who do better. There will still be a lot of questions that need answering under the new “pollution reduction” program: How a big a price will polluters pay? Which greenhouse gases will be included? How long will companies have to get their act together before penalties are in full force? How big of a reward will the clean energy mavericks receive? How long will the rewards endure? These are critical details.

But in terms of winning people over, honestly, to the concept, and crawling out of the conversational tar pit where this whole cap-and-trade debate seems to have become mired, Kerry’s idea sounds like a good syntactical move. We need to focus on the core of what we want to accomplish, and most Americans, polls show, want a cleaner, more secure future — one that includes pollution reduction.

In fact, the latest poll out, one by CNN, reported just this week that 6 in 10 Americans support “cap-and-trade legislation” (though other polls have shown that far less than a majority understand cap-and-trade).

If Congress follows that same pattern, Americans could have a climate action bill — or energy security bill, but let’s not discuss those labels right now — later this year.

Kerry and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) are sponsoring the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act which has been characterized as a strong bill aimed at curbing climate change and helping America achieve energy independence. But many Republicans have reservations.

Kerry urged those listening to the teleconference to reach out to their senators now, especially those Republicans and fence-sitting Democrats, to let them know they want a clean energy, climate change bill with real, um, pollution reduction targets.

“All of you can have a huge impact on how this works,” he said. “If people in the grassroots will gin up the emails and gin up the phone calls…to calm political fears that they (undecided politicians) are somehow stepping out and cutting across the currents.”

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

I hate confessing to these long-ago memories. But I remember marching against apartheid. It was a time when we students knew what the term meant (though much of the world was still comfortably oblivious) and were convinced that this problem in South Africa had to be fixed.

Then we marched for divestiture, which was necessary to de-fund the unjust system.

(Photo: John Fadler)

When I saw Desmond Tutu writing on behalf of 350.org’s International Day of Climate Action, I got a little chill. Here is a man who’s seen it all; seen what it takes to bring change. He’s seen people persecuted, killed and jailed, and he remembers the ripplings of awareness as the world awoke to the problems in South Africa, and realized that we’d all be better off, or conversely we’d all be morally corrupt, if changes weren’t made.

Are there lessons that we can apply to today, with regard to climate change? Tutu thinks so. In an editorial running in USA Today,  he notes that as the movement to fight climate change goes global, people from Kenya to China to the United States will realize a common goal and they will become united in their efforts.

That unity, writes the Nobel laureate, can force worldwide change.

A big step toward forging a unified movement is taking place this Saturday with hundreds of actions in some 170 countries calling for recognition that the world needs to rollback carbon in the atmosphere to 350 ppm. By focusing the world on this one number — considered a safe level for carbon emissions — the movement, organized by 350.org, hopes to make several nuanced points on this International Day of Climate Action:

• Leaders must act with greater urgency and take strong action at the upcoming Copenhagen Conference to reduce carbon emissions.
• The public at large, and in many varied places, wants climate change addressed.
• Old benchmarks, like the 450 ppm that scientists once ventured might be a “safe” level of carbon pollution, obviously won’t work, given how Earth is responding at lesser levels.
• That aiming low on climate change, acting too slowly or with feeble measures, would be a vote for devastation.

(Chart: 350.org)

It’s a lot to invest in a number, but 350.org organizers, including founder and well-known activist Bill McKibben, believe that the public needs a rallying cry.

Tutu is a big supporter. “Groups will gather in the world’s most iconic places – from Table Mountain in Cape Town to the tops of Himalayan peaks,” he writes. “Across the planet, churches will ring their bells 350 times that day… People in almost all the nations of the earth are involved – it’s the same kind of coalition that helped make the word “apartheid” known around the world.”

Divestiture, in this case of climate change, will be complex, hard-fought and nearly impossible to imagine. A world that operates on clean energy and sustainable principles will require taking a huge U-turn on so many roads, simultaneously.

But first, let’s get the word out.

(Want to participate in International Climate Action Day? Search for actions near you at 350.org.)

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

We had a chocolate attack at a store the other day, so we schlepped over to the cookie aisle seeking something sweet and crunchy.

Palm oil products (Image: PalmOilAction.org.)

We started checking labels for palm oil. About six brands and 10 varieties later, I reached for Belgian chocolate-covered biscuits. Bingo! They were made with all the stuff that cookies used to be made with, like sugar, milk, cocoa and butter. Bless Belgium and its culture of fine chocolate. No palm oil. Of course, these delicacies were imported, giving my green, inner ethical self some pangs. Chocolate won. I bought them and justified it as special treat (in celebration of Monday) and further rationalized that by weight it wouldn’t have been so difficult to ship them over here to the U.S.

Sadly, this mental turmoil that clutters up my food shopping these days (have I mentioned that the family members ridicule and shun me?) is pretty typical. There are so many labels to watch for and prioritize: Fair Trade, non-GMO, organic, local. There’s excessive packaging to watch out for, and growth hormones and hidden sugar (like Aspartame, a true faux in my book). Despite what Kermit says, it ain’t easy.

Now, along with my list of recycled paper products and non-threatened sea food, I apparently need one listing foods with palm oil, or palmate etc. This cheap fat is responsible for thousands of acres of destroyed rainforests, which is contributing to global warming through forest burning and the displacement of native habitat in Southeast Asia. (We’ve written a bit about this before.)

The Rainforest Action Network (RAN) is running a comprehensive campaign to try to stop the destruction, which is a major contributor to greenhouse gases and threatens the survival of orangutans. And, indeed, they’ve published a list. It’s called the Dirty 19, and enumerates the companies with the most products containing palm oil.

For those who want to get active in saving the orangutan and the rain forests, they’ve set up an impish stickering campaign in which grassroots activists slap  warning stickers on products that list palm oil as an ingredient. The network reports that most people won’t get in much trouble if they pursue this, but advises them to sticker at a store they don’t frequent in case they run into an unhappy store manager.

The “legality” of stickering, RAN reports, depends on where you sticker a product and how easy the label is to peel off. “We’ve been advised by our lawyers that it’s no big deal,” the RAN website notes.

RAN hopes their efforts to shine a light on the problem will help persuade Cargill, ADM and Bunge to end the destruction of the rainforests in Malaysia, Indonesia and elsewhere.

Want to know more about the true price of your oreo habit? See this info page on the RAN website.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

In honor of blog action day, so designated by the group Change.org with partners like Greenpeace and 350.org, I found myself explaining the 350 number to my kids on the way to school. As it happens, the teenager already knew about this benchmark, thanks to AP science classes and the vast online world. The younger one didn’t. But she got it right away.

It’s not a hard concept.

Once we thought that the threshold for too much carbon pollution in the air should be set 450 ppm. That would be the upper limit for carbon dioxide in the air, the point at which things could turn ugly. Keep carbon dioxide below 450 and we’d avert the sort of greenhouse gas warming that would strip Earth of the polar ice caps, flood coastlines and islands around the globe, kill off forests, drive legions of animals into extinction, intensify droughts and generally stir up Kansas in ways Dorothy never imagined.

But today many groups and scientists are saying that the 450 threshold is too lax (see this 2008 report by one group of scientists.). Why? Because we’re already living in a world where the polar ice caps are melting and the coastlines are creeping upward.

The destruction we thought was down the road, off in the hazy future, is already happening. And we’re only at 390 ppm. What happens at 450 ppm? Do we want to find out?

“Things are happening much faster than we expected, 350 is the unfortunate threshold. Unfortunate because we’re already past it,” said environmentalist and 350.org founder Bill McKibben in a news conference this week.

McKibben likened the situation to the guy who sees his doctor and is told that his cholesterol is high, so he should watch it, versus the guy who turns up at the doctor’s office already in the danger zone and needs intervention.

“We’re already having heart attacks,” he said, referring to global signs of climate change. “We have to accelerate the transition off fossil fuel much faster than we thought. We have to act quickly so the forests and oceans can scrub the carbon from the atmosphere.”

“That’s why we’ve mounted this campaign, 350.org.”

Like I said, it’s not hard to understand.

The difficult question is, will it be achievable?

McKibben, who’s devoted his writing and scholarly career to environmental action, sees hopeful signs. He cited growing public awareness and the openness of the  Obama Administration to make changes, as well as receptiveness to the message around the globe. He mentioned the Maldives, which stands to disappear underwater, where the national leaders are holding a scuba-cabinet meeting to highlight their plight.

The missing element, McKibben believes, is a strong push from the public at large that could help Congress, businesses and other leaders justify making the hard decisions required to curb global warming. And, he noted,  it would be nice if that push made itself evident sometime before the Copenhagen Conference in December where global leaders will set goals for greenhouse gas emissions.

The public needs to clamor for the changes it wants and needs, or face having to accept policies that don’t go far enough and won’t solve the problem, he said.

Since falling short is not an option for the members of 350.org, the group has organized a International Day of Climate Action set for Oct. 24. Thousands of rallies in at least 170 nations across both Latin and South America, Africa and Europe and even in Iraq and Afghanistan are planned. There will be about 1,000 events just in the US (you can sign up or find one near you at the website).

All of these demonstrations will be making the point that we need to roll back the blanket of pollution that’s turning Earth into a toxic greenhouse.

So save the date. And remember the number.

“It’s not action we need,” McKibben said. “It’s action enough to make a difference.”

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

I woke up at 5 a.m. on Sunday. Not sure why. The house was quiet and a soundless rain fell outside. I intended to snuggle back into bed for two more hours after checking on the old dog — assuming it was she-who-needs-to-go-out-at-exceedingly-early-hours who woke me.

I decided to check on the teenagers too. And there in the in the “media room” or Texas basement or whatever you call that room over the garage, was a nightmare of electricity consumption. The room was ablaze in light. The TV was blaring (could it be another Law & Order rerun?). The DVR glowed. The 14-year-old asleep on the couch as only someone his age could be. He was sent to his room — where a light also had been conveniently left on.

He couldn’t understand why I was upset, just as I never fully understood the vehemence with which my parents, children of the Depression, saved leftover bits of food in plastic baggies.

Putting on my child psychology hat, I know that it is not the 14-year-old electronic-wonder’s job to sweat these things. He is partaking of the world and building self-identity. He is not mentally oriented to turning things off. He’s more about turning them on. To him, leaving a computer in sleep mode is a good idea, because it’s ready when he returns. When he listens to music on the iPhone, it doesn’t occur to him that there’s a coal plant required for the recharge process.

Unfortunately, a lot of Americans are operating at this level. We really don’t want to think  too hard about rolling back our energy consumption. It’s difficult to figure out (how do I ride my bike to work when I work 25 miles away?)  and it’s sobering — I need to spend my savings on a new energy efficient furnace?

We’re a nation that feels entitled to many treats, spas, vacations, computers, TVs, big cars and the biggest houses. These aren’t bad things, intrinsically, but we’re being asked to rethink them, make our lives more sustainable, cultivate and tend our local gardens, so to speak. There’s work involved here, and yes, self-sacrifice.

Our parents or grandparents who lived through the 1930s learned about conservation when they got a new pair of socks or shoes, or some other supremely practical gift, for their birthday; when they wore a sibling’s hand-me-down dress to the school dance or ate a turkey dinner with all the dressings just once a year, because times were tough.

We need to learn a similar lesson. We know that oil is finite and we must find ways to move away from the polluting gasoline engine. We know that burning coal to make electricity is destroying our atmosphere. We know that fresh water is finite and we can deduce that there will be hard times ahead if we don’t address these issues.

Fortunately, we have many resources at our disposal. Technology is on the brink of creating affordable fuels from sustainable algae. We can still afford to loft giant solar panels in the desert. We can afford the 1-3 percent up-charge in our electricity bill to incorporate green energy over the next decade.

But can we act; can we learn to conserve; can we make bold forward-thinking decisions without feeling the deprivation?

That will require using the executive thinking that we adults are fully endowed with once we graduate from adolescence. Our incentive is to make a better place for those 14-year-olds who will inherit the world. What do we want to leave them?

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

We make cows sick. Then we eat them. And they make us sick.

That’s the very short version of the industrialized beef program we’re living with right now. Has a certain terrible symmetry doesn’t it? And by abridging the story, I don’t mean to make light of the situation, only to highlight the obvious stupidity of it.

By now, if you’ve seen the movie Food, Inc., or read or viewed any of a dozen reports (here’s just one) on the problems of mass-produced beef, you know what I’m talking about. We’ve taken a grass-eating animal and, in the interest of quickly fattening it for slaughter, turned it into a grain-fed animal that is packed it into feedlots. And in so doing, we have produced beef that’s fatter than ever, full of antibiotics, pesticides and growth hormones — and created an E. coli factory.

Let’s focus on the immediate safety hazard.

A cow’s digestion system naturally contains E. coli, but it is becoming more virulent under this accelerated growth plan.

Send this beef into an industrial system that’s churning out millions of pounds of hamburger 24/7 and you’re stacking the odds toward contamination.

The hides of cattle held in Concentrated Agricultural Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are often smeared with feces that carry bacteria. They’re literally walking around with a potential pathogen that must be power-washed off before slaughter. Another point of vulnerability occurs when their intestines are separated, and sometimes severed, on fast-moving conveyor belts, spilling bacteria.

Picture a factory where profits run roughshod over safety and labor concerns…or just re-read Upton Sinclair’s century-old The Jungle.

Modern meat manufacturers would say that’s an unfair characterization because sanitation methods today are much improved.

Still, the meat engine has become an octopus under globalization, and pressures to meet certain price points have produced a system that skirts scrutiny.

The New York Times this week detailed the story of how a single hamburger sickened one woman and left her paralyzed. Records showed that the burger was made from a mash of beef that came from slaughterhouses in Nebraska, Texas, Uruguay and a South Dakota company that processes fat trimmings and treats them with ammonia to kill bacteria.

How is that even possible? And where’s the efficiency in producing a hamburger made from so many distant parts? Apparently, it is common practice in the beef industry to buy scraps of beef and fat trimmings from various sources to trim the cost of making hamburger.

The NYT piece by Michael Moss, entitled E. Coli Path Shows Flaws in Beef Inspection, exposes how the monolithic industry churns out hamburger under ineffective or absent oversight. The contaminated burger was sold with the label “American Chef’s Selection Angus Beef Patties” and yet, deriving the meat from premium Angus cattle seemed to be a small and possibly non-existent part of the process.

The report uncovered other frightening practices, showing that in some instances beef manufacturers evade hamburger grinding facilities that test for E coli for fear of triggering an expensive recall. It quotes one safety expert who doesn’t mince words: “Ground beef is not a completely safe product.”

This piece is straightforward and its warning clear: Consumer, beware of what you’re eating.

There are alternatives that are greener, cleaner and less resource-intensive:

• Eat solid cuts of beef from grass-fed cattle that are raised locally. This should improve your odds of avoiding an E coli illness.  It will definitely lower the carbon imprint of the product. Buy from a rancher or a butcher who can tell you about the beef you’re buying. Consider the higher price part of the “insurance” cost of eating more safely.
• Try grass-fed buffalo. It’s even higher in Omega oils than grass-fed beef and leaner. But stick to solid cuts.

• Replace a few meat-based meals with stir fry dishes or recipes based on legumes. It won’t hurt your health and by eating lower on the food chain, you’ll be reducing your carbon imprint. Visit Meatless Monday to learn more and find recipes.

Yes, other foods can be contaminated with E. coli bacteria, or salmonella and other contaminants. But hamburger tops the list.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media