What the Climate Accord Means at Home

By Susan Lutz

With the agreement of a landmark accord reached between 196 nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and commit to truly working towards change, the planet has a chance to survive. We have a shot at making it.

Something happened when I heard the news of the accord. I didn’t rush to look up all the details of the agreement. Instead of wondering about the facts, I felt a sense of peace. It was as if what we do on the local level and in our homes really does matter. When nations all over the globe decided to finally get to work on these issues, get our priorities straightened out, and look the problem in the eye, it made the daily tasks I do in my home actually feel like they make a difference.

If the nations had fought to no avail, looked the other way, or ignored the problem, and gone home without an agreement, I think all of us would have felt a little differently. Perhaps in a subtle way, we might have stopped working so hard. We might have lost hope. It is hard to fight such a large battle without the unity of nations and without leadership at the highest levels.

Now, I can look again at my habits that help curb waste, lower greenhouse gases, and bring stability and life into our existence. Sorting out trash and recycling, and using that glass bottle over and over again, doesn’t seem like wasted effort. Taking the bus or carpooling feels like a good choice. Buying less stuff finally feels like it adds up to a real solution.

With acknowledgement at the highest levels, we can now look optimistically towards our future. It’s time to look into new ways to lower my impact on the planet. None of this change is easy, but we’ve spent too much time taking the easy way out. There’s something we can do every day to change things for the better.

Now that the big players are part of the game, we have a chance at winning.

We’re Melting

By Susan Lutz

Forests are dying. Polar bears starving, ice caps shrinking. The list grows. We’ve spent a lifetime stomping on the planet and now world leaders gather in the hopes of finding a solution before we hit the tipping point. Can we pull back? Can we save ourselves?

I read positive stories: a community garden in Haiti becomes a center of growth and revitalization; the price of solar power is dropping fast and becoming an extremely viable alternative energy source; climate adapted strategies are manifesting and working to stabilize wildlife. Around towns, I see trees being planted, youth conversing about important issues. This is great. And there are many more examples of success and ideas which are moving us forward.

Yet, I read bad news, too: the UK starts to cut millions of dollars from its renewable resources; the threat of disease increases due to insects gaining the ability to live longer and travel farther; the sea level is rising; and of course, we’ve all seen the pictures of the polar bears starving. Some days, it’s hard to read the news. Some days it does seem like we’re just going to tip over and sink.

I recently heard a lecture on the cause and effect of our actions and the impact our choices have on climate change. The most interesting, and most powerful, I thought, was this: What are we willing to give up? In this country, the majority of cars during rush hour consist of single drivers. Bottled water and soda fill our vending machines, and we don’t give a second thought to the short pleasure we get versus the amount of toxins in each bottle. We like our stuff. We like our creams, cars, deals online, new phones, and processed, over-packaged foods.

The summit on climate change brings together world leaders. The model of coming together to talk; understanding our differences; taking note of those suffering the most; and, moving forward with dialogue. Regardless of how difficult the task is, it is one we must implement from the highest of offices to the grass-roots level.

We wait too long to act. We wait to change gun laws until terror steps into our cafes (if even then). We wait to ban trophy hunting and poaching and watch as species become threatened and face habitat loss and even become extinct. We’re slowly melting under the take-the-money-and-run philosophy of getting what we need, now, and forgetting how it will hurt us in the future.

When my son picked up an acorn the other day, he thought it was the grandest of discoveries. I held it up and told him it was amazing. We carried it with us as if it were a piece of gold. Our food supply, our land, our water – they truly are gold. We must realize this now, or we will watch as the world melts and slowly slips away.

Science and Slaughter: Are Dissections A Waste?

Do educational institutions face a dilemma in the way animal anatomy is taught in school?

By Michael Kohlberg

Do educational institutions face a dilemma in the way animal anatomy is taught in school? Should animal dissections and vivisections be conducted in Science classes at all? LaGuardia Community College, a CUNY school, says no to cat cadavers, instead replacing them with clay models of humans. It seems, that the areas of debate, lie in 3 main ethical questions which I will describe in this article.

The first is the question of respecting animal rights as they relate to dissections and vivisections. Then comes the question, is animal experimentation necessary for understanding anatomy? In other words, do students learn best by dissecting? Are alternatives like virtual dissections comparable or even superior learning tools? Finally, I will briefly explore broad Sustainability Issues that dissections pose to Society.

America has acknowledged the value in respecting basic animal rights as shown by the Animal Welfare Act, a Federal Act passed by Congress in 1966. In general, this reflects the idea that our Society has adopted some moral standard for respecting the rights of animals. The United States Department of Agriculture puts it best, calling the Animal Welfare Act a “minimum, accepted, standard” of animal treatment “in research, exhibition, and transport”. However, many educated animal lovers believe that this minimum standard is set too low and that not enough is done to enforce existing federal laws.

In Biology classrooms, the animal rights argument is clear. Many of us have pets and therefore very personal and emotional connections with dogs, cats, and maybe even frogs, snakes, or mice. Performing dissections and vivisections on these types of animals can pose moral dilemmas for students taking part. Studies show that many students feel a moral dilemma when taking part in animal dissections. One study, by Arnold Arluke and Frederic Hafferty, interviewed 40 Pre-Medical students about how they felt before, during, and after using a dog as a test subject in the lab. They found that prior to the experiment, there was “widespread uneasiness” regarding moral implications, but during and after, students were able to “neutralize the moral dirty-work”.

This study not only suggests that many feel innately compassionate towards animals, but it suggests that humans have the capacity to subdue that compassion and “learn” desensitization. This raises the question, what do dissections really teach students?Along with anatomy, are our educational institutions teaching humans a lack of compassion for animals? Are we prepared to change our way of thinking about animal dissections if the answer to the previous question is true?

That leads us to our next question. Do today’s students actually learn better by dissecting, or do they learn better by using technology they are familiar with already, such as the computer? Do virtual dissections and vivisections compare as as educational tools? Many students and teachers say yes and site other benefits as well. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is an animal rights organization that among other things, provides practical knowledge in dissection or vivisection alternatives. Their website has a page with resources dedicated to just this subject. According to the document “Cutting Out Dissections”, studies have shown that computer-based teaching methods saved academic and nonacademic staff time … were considered to be less expensive and an effective and enjoyable mode of student learning [and] … contributed to a significant reduction in animal use” (PETA 2013).

Also, teachers in the United States have been advocating for few dissections. Ten years ago, the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) amended its official position statement to acknowledge the educational effectiveness of non-animal teaching methods and to support teachers’ decisions to use them as complete replacements for animal dissection (NSTA 2005).

Another example of how effective non-animal anatomy learning can be is the example of LaGuardia Community College. The Cuny Newswire reported that “LaGuardia is one of the first community colleges in the nation where its students will be learning the muscles of the human body not by dissecting cat specimens but by applying clay muscles to a [human] skeletal mannequin.”

“Studying human muscles is one of the hardest and most difficult areas,” said Professor Carol Haspel, “so we are always trying to find ways, mechanisms and pedagogical techniques that assist our students in learning the basics that they need to know. The clay models are a key factor in helping them.” (LaGuardia Community College 2011)

Animal dissections may actually pose a barrier to students’ learning. As researchers find out that more and more students are morally against dissections, the issue becomes worrying for education itself. One study done by Theodora Capaldo on the psychological effects of reluctant, obligated dissection participants indicates that “cognitive abilities may become impaired, resulting in less learning”. The study concludes that their findings, “present a compelling argument for the 100% replacement of the harmful use of animals in education.” (Capaldo 2004)

To shift gears, let’s examine some of the Economic Sustainability issues. In order to asses whether the school would be better off, the costs of dissections must logically be compared to the costs of alternatives, which could vary depending on the type and manner in which they are implemented.

Since animal specimens are expensive for many Biology Departments, we might ask the question will a school that bans dissections and vivisections all together be better off financially? To make sense of this question let’s use a real life example. One specimen retailer, Bio Corporation, sells a class set of 15 cat corpses for $373. Theoretically, if you have 20 lab classes per semester at a University and replace specimens each semester, the cost would be $7,460 per semester on cats alone. That number does not even include any auxiliary equipment, like proper protection, tools, et cetera.

PETA’s informational pamphlet entitled, “ Animal Dissection and Interactive Anatomy Software” factors in many of the auxiliary costs which they total at an additional $759 per five year period accounting for 30 students. In the event that a school keeps their cat specimens for 5 years, PETA calculates a grand total of $3906.05 for a class of 30 students. In the same article, PETA compares the costs of virtual cat dissection, which amounts to $800 per 5 year period of 30 students. Obviously, a university like Brooklyn College has a much higher dissecting student body than 30, so the costs would be significantly higher.

From the data found, it seems that the long run economic viability of switching from perpetual spending, (in our hypothetical example that is $7,460/ Semester) to more fixed spending like dissection software or clay molds, would be a cunning financial move for the Brooklyn College school board to consider.

In Conclusion, the economic costs associated with animal dissections that most students and faculty members might not be aware of are high. Furthermore, the documented psychological stress that many students undergo while performing obligational dissections has led psychological researchers to believe that the practice of dissections and vivisections does not promote learning(Capaldo 2004). Students and teachers have repeatedly advocated for bans on dissections and vivisections since 2005. And basic marginal benefit analysis of switching to dissection alternatives has suggested that the change would be more than cost effective.

Would it not, in theory at least, be more practical, for all, to ban dissections all together?

People Changing our World and Our Consciousness for Global Change

By Susan Lutz

The link between a peaceful, thriving, global existence connects always, without exception, to the seeds of our consciousness when we make choices. At the onset, we sip a cup of coffee, knowing it’s fair trade or organic, or we turn our cup and look in the other direction. We drink bottled water and toss the empty into the recycle bin, content in the fact that we’ve done something good by recycling. Is that good enough? We’re beginning to recognize that consumerism has the potential to change lives, not destroy it. Here’s a few people to watch as we see a shift in consciousness from taking and consuming for ourselves, with little thought of how it affects only our short-term needs, to understanding every sip, every thought, that moves us forward in balance or tips the scales out of our favor.

Professor Angus Deaton – On October 12, 2015, he was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced that the Scottish born economist earned the prize for “his analysis of consumption, poverty, and welfare.” Deaton’s work has focused on how our individual, family choices figure into the bigger picture of economics. When we choose individually, we impact the bigger picture. We increase poverty, climate change, and health by not understanding that our decisions help or hurt farmers and production. Professor Dean is optimist about our future, yet he notes that we’ve got a lot of work left to do.

Pope Francis I – With a voice perhaps long too quiet in the world of religion, Pope Francis is using his time in leadership to open dialogue and question the status quo. At an international Climate Change Conference, he said we should govern our ideas about the planet by “principles of a fair and integral ecology” – putting people as one of the integral factors of our decision-making practices and global choices. Earlier this year, Pope Francis issued a papal encyclical on the environment. The document, Laudato Si, subtitled, “On Care for Our Common Home,” appoints each individual on this planet as responsible for the health of our climate, our home. The Pope, consistent with current global warming theories on climate change, warns that we are accelerating the warming of the Earth’s surface, thus putting in jeopardy all living things, and the planet.

Christina Figueres – In July of 2010, she took the position of Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Poised to lead the next conference at the end of November 2015, Figueres sees no option in failure. The daughter of a former president of Costa Rica, she grew up watching how revolution founded a government that laid down its weapons and chose peace as it’s rule. With no army to fund, Costa Rica started establishing a strong middle class and a democracy, an anomaly for a tumultuous region burdened with high rates of poverty, corruption, and war. Figueres’s task entails getting countries that don’t agree on much to find another way to power our planet. With many men leading the way, it will most likely be women that take the helm and eventually get the job done.

The Four Worst Things You Can Put in Your Mouth

By Susan Lutz

PunchingJudy-Artificial Sweetener — Artificial Sweetener by PunchingJudy via Flickr

Here’s a surprising list of the things I think should stay out of our mouths. It began with just three, but I had to add a fourth most people wouldn’t even imagine on the list. The mouth is a magical, marvelous contraption. We sing. We speak. We eat and ingest delicious, sweet, bitter, salty, and surprising treats. It’s time to look a little closer at how we use this wonderful instrument and what we put in it that impacts our health.

There’s just no way to make a case for all that sugar we put in our mouths. The sweet taste is undeniably addictive. Once our taste buds get a hold of these little crystals, we get hooked like, well, a drug. A quick internet search opens a wealth of papers, videos, articles, and studies on the negative impact of sugar. One lecture on sugar by Robert Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics Endocrinology, struck a chord with audiences. Now viewed almost six million times, he speaks to the “evils” of too much of a good thing, sugar, and not enough of what we need, fiber. Sugar messes with insulin and has been found to cause cancer. The alkaline chart shows us that sugar is highly acidic, and this creates a much bigger issue as it is found in so much of our food. It’s worth exploring. I’ve watched loved ones kick cigarettes, but not sugar. Even Gandhi struggled with this one. When I eliminate sugar, I feel better, and I don’t crave sweet things. Then I fail. And then I try again. It’s never too late to quit.

Artificial Sweeteners. I really want these to be good for us. Considering all the problems sugar presents, it would be nice to be able to have sweets that don’t crush our health. However, artificial sweeteners don’t seem to be the answer. No longer a side view of the all-natural-organic world, conventional medicine recognizes the dangers of artificial sweeteners. Diet soda is making headlines as a contributor to weight gain, not a means to slim down. These sweeteners taste bad when I put them in my mouth. I taste chemicals. There are alternatives, though most things sweet tend to stress the body’s inner eco-balance. I’ve used stevia for a long time. Maple syrup adds taste for kids. I know some people that love using agave. Nothing’s perfect, but this one’s easier than sugar to eliminate.

High Fructose Corn Syrup. Wow. It’s amazing this stuff’s still on the market, but the reach of corporations into our food shelves is long and wide. Many packages now print large messages exclaiming the joy of not having high fructose corn syrup in their products. Consider it the evil cousin of sugar. Read about some of the information concerning health issues of ingesting this, and you’ll be better off for it.

I thought I’d stop at #3, but as I watched a child (mine) put his fingers in his mouth, I was reminded of how awful the habit is. Our nails harbor a shipload of bacteria, nestled and ready to launch once we offer them the warm, wet opening of our mouth. If the nail rips, we can pick up bacteria in the skin. We contract warts due to HPV infections. And, it’s not just the mouth. Touching the face with our hands allows bacteria to find entryways into our system. Most of us do it without thinking. It’s easy to see how we could get wildly obsessive about germs. Doorknobs, cell phones, railings, and just about everything we touch probably, under the right conditions, transfers bacteria. Instead of worrying and hiding in the house, it’s easier to work on breaking the habit of touching our face and mouth (and don’t forget the ears). And wash those hands! Plain soap will do. No need to wash them every five minutes. Wash after bathroom use, before eating, and maybe after riding the mass transit or shopping. By keeping those active hands and fingers away from our mouth, we keep the spread of disease down for others and ourselves.

The choice we make with our food directly impacts our health and quality of life. Eating smart and being conscious of our health habits enables us to think clearer, act with compassion and intelligence, and reduce illness. Connecting sugar and sweeteners to a big picture seems perhaps weird, but every choice connects us to a better version of ourselves, thus allowing us to help the planet and others, not hurt it.

The Pollination Grant: Funding Visions of Change

By Susan Lutz

Small grants. Big visions. The Pollination Grant offers $1000 grants every day to those who desire to change the level in a big way. From lighting schools to shining hope on marginalized populations, winners of The Pollination Grant believe in big change through hard work and a solid vision at the ground level. Anyone, worldwide, can apply.

I know the impact a small grant can have on work. I was awarded The Pollination Grant in the fall of 2014 for my film, The Coffee Dance: Seeds of Empowerment, a documentary looking at the lives of women and children in dire poverty and how they find a way to rise above and give back to others.

Over the last year, I have watched amazing people receive these grants and have seen how this small change really does make a difference. The Pollination Grant originated from the ideals of Ari Nessel. In 1997, Nessel changed the way he thought about life, about how we treat each other and the planet. His dream became a vision to help others help others. He believed small change could make a big difference, planting seeds of consciousness through education, community involvement, and service to others. His idea lit up a corner of the world, and soon The Pollination Grant was on CBS Sunday Morning.

Applying for the grant takes serious planning and organization. Though not difficult, the online application requires a clear vision with obtainable goals in mind. Reading about the grant and the guidelines is important. For example, the grant does not allow any expenditure for food made from animals. Most costs must also be recycled materials and/or eco-friendly.

The grants fund projects such as art therapy for veterans, speech therapy for children in Afghanistan, and teaching empowerment through agriculture for women in Cameroon. What’s amazing is not only the vast amount of grants awarded but also that there are so many people and organizations out there truly trying to make a difference. The Pollination Grant joins the consciousness of care and community through it’s giving.

To learn more about The Pollination Grant, you can visit its website. There you’ll find photos and stories about how you can support and join in changing the world.

How to Go Alkaline and Live to Tell About It

By Susan Lutz

New theories are always popping up to propose better methods for managing our bodies. We’ve watched the diet cycle blow in with the newest scientific data only to blow out again. Diets create a problem the minute they start because they are a one time solution. Changing the way we eat is the bottom line of changing health.

The “alkaline diet”, as it’s commonly known, lures a lot of people into the idea that having high pH levels will eradicate disease and sickness and improve overall health. Stars picked up on this way of eating and it’s been all over the media. As with any diet or change in eating habits, I’ve found that failure comes around just as I probably make strides.

I learned about maintaining a higher pH level from an acupuncturist when treating health issues for one of my children. This was way before it became trendy. I implemented as much green eating as I could, and there were definitely results. I took green seriously. Eating agendas look great in the beginning: new, colorful, and full of spark and promise. However, it gets tough when the sugar cravings kick in. With kids it’s even tougher.

Undertaking a strict alkaline way of living probably won’t work for kids unless you have a lot time to spend at home chopping and blending and creating cute food that contain all of the necessary green foods. The alkaline approach does make sense, but ultimately it’s stressful to keep up. So I’ve found some tricks to keep up the green, despite my off days.

Here are a few things I do to keep our green going:

Juicing – fresh vegetables in the morning. Very light on the fruits and almost all veggies starts the day with a green blast. My kids look forward to it.
Lemons – a great way to alkalize the body and help out during the day. I can drink it straight; my kids get Stevia.
Chlorophyll – yes, that chlorophyll. They’ve bottled it. It’s touted to have many benefits such as controlling hunger, easing Candida, and keeping the body’s pH balance in line. It comes in so many forms; choose tablets, liquid, and even mint-flavored.
Blue-green algae – touted as a super food. Some are wild for this food. It’s chock full of green, even protein. Again- choose pills or powders.
Seaweed – Many to choose from and most are very high in alkaline such as wakame or dulse. I slip them into smoothies and salads.
Sea salt – water can be enhanced super quickly into a higher alkaline drink by adding a bit of sea salt. Makes the water taste better, too. (And kids don’t even notice it!)

Even those who regularly utilize alkaline/acidic information debate over which foods are alkaline and by how much. Some say to stay away from most fruit while others disagree. Most agree on the foods rated highest, such as cucumbers and meat. The idea is to maintain about a 7.5 level for optimum health. Health opinions differ, stating that our body keeps track of its own pH level. It’s easy to get a box of pH strips to test your current level. Those that argue for the alkaline diet say that if we don’t give our bodies enough green, our body takes it from other places. Proponents of the alkaline way of living recommend eating 70-80% alkaline.

As with any diet, many are for it and many are not. I do not see the alkaline way of living as a “diet” but rather as a way of living. If I were able to maintain the strictest aspects of the diet, I’d be thrilled. But I live in the real world; I get hungry, have a limited budget, and only so much time. Eating green, in almost all diets, seems to be the key to good health. Choosing more organic, fresh, and less-cooked foods can only help your health. It gives you a chance to live longer with a greater quality of life. Implementing these practices over time and deeply changing how we eat as a community will benefit a green world on the inside and the out.

You Have No Idea What’s Living Inside Your Body

By Susan Lutz

We think we know what’s in our body. The tissue, the bones, the blood, but what else hides beneath the epidermal? Most likely, if you exist on this planet, your body holds more than a few toxins. Even if we eat organically and live mindfully in a place where the water is good and the air is fresh, toxic chemicals sneak into our systems somewhere along the way.

There are a number of interesting videos that quickly explain the extent of these toxins in our blood. In longer format, Bill Moyers reports on the subject in a two-hour documentary called Trade Secrets, which investigates the impact of toxic chemicals on the public’s health. In the documentary, Mr. Moyers subjects himself to a blood test. The results show that out of 150 industrial chemicals, Moyers tests positive for 84. Included in that list are PCBs, dioxins, and pesticides such as malathion and DDT. Most of these chemicals didn’t exist 50 or 60 years ago. And their presence in the human body is difficult even for researchers to explain. A short excerpt of this segment talks about the results and what they mean to the human body.

Over a decade later, a Swedish family undergoes testing. They decide to participate in an experiment to see how eating a conventional diet has affected their chemical make-up. The testing revealed that their urine samples contained substantial amounts of insecticides, fungicides, and plant growth regulators in their systems. Then the family cleaned out their shelves and replaced their food with only organic. They were tested again after two weeks. The results were stunning−almost all the pesticides disappeared. The study was conducted by The Swedish Environmental Research Institute.

Both groups and researchers brought up an important point: What is the effect of all of these chemicals acting together? No one really knows. We’re guinea pigs in a corporate experiment of making things for a profit, quickly and with very little accountability to what it’s doing to our bodies, our society, and the environment. I’ve got a mouth full of mercury. Though I’ve had most of it removed, there’s still metal bored into my jawbones from old root canals. What it’s doing to me, I have no idea.

We don’t have to walk through the puffs of toxic smoke to get the chemicals into our system. They linger. Bite into a bright, shiny apple, and it seems perfect. But the chemicals are there, lurking at the cellular level, waiting to change yours. Awareness also changes us at a deep level if we let the information in. With care, we can begin to inform others and teach our children that there’s another way, the right way, to feed ourselves and care for our planet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB6fUqmyKC8

Consumerism Can Change the World, For the Better

By Susan Lutz

In Reno, Nevada, what was worn and old is finding a way to live again. Patagonia sells what we don’t want and fixes what we already have.

Watching the world buy and buy and buy, including myself, I wonder where it stops. Do we need six jackets; five fleece pullovers? I struggle with what to buy every time I go to the grocery store. I cringe at the site of a box store selling cheap goods, but find myself inside them when I promised myself I wouldn’t go in. How do we get out of the lure of buying stuff we don’t need? How do we buy, better?

Patagonia is a company I’ve always admired, watched. In 2012, The Wall Street Journal did a piece naming Patagonia’s Founder, Yvon Chouinard, “America’s Most Unlikely Business Guru.” The company makes profits. He wrote a book called, “The Responsible Company: What We’ve Learned in the Last 40 Years” that lists ways for companies to make money without harming society and shifting to paradigms to become responsible business in our time.

The company has been posting ads to not buy their jacket. A ploy? Sales have gone up. People are buying Patagonia. Are they just buying into a sleek advertising campaign? The company says it doesn’t want you to buy jackets if you’re fine with the one you’ve got. They want to repair clothing you’ve bought from Patagonia and make it last. How does a company not sell new things and make money?

In an interview with Inc.com magazine, Chouinard explained that he really wants people to think twice about buying anything, “Do you really need it, or do you just want it?…I know it sounds crazy, but every time I have made a decision that is best for the planet, I have made money.”

Buying stuff we don’t need is a problem most of us suffer from. I buy shirts I probably don’t need and can’t wait to chuck in my old phone for a new one. Selling something to someone that they don’t need, well, that sounds like what consumerism is all about, what business is based on. But isn’t that the problem? We buy more than we need; we short circuit and get quick energy when instead we could have put off that quick fix for the more sustainable energy, for more long-term satisfactions in life: more quality time with our families, writing that novel we’ve always wanted to, or going for a hike up the trail when we feel the calling.

Patagonia takes their repair shops on the road. They’ll sew ripped pants and revitalize a worn out zipper on a jacket. One employee said in a PBS New Hour Interview, “I’m going to tell you the truth, OK? When I first started here, I was excited. I’m going, ooh, Patagonia, man, they got good stuff. I bet they got a good employee discount. But after I went on the Worn Wear tour, I have changed my way of thinking. I’m only going to buy what I need.”

Of course, if you’re a first time buyer to a Patagonia product, the company wants your business. They provide jobs and that’s how the economy survives. The model of consciousness is what makes the difference. Capitalism might be a fine way to do business if the environment is the first to benefit in the profit column. There’s enough for everyone if we treat the planet, the customers, and employees with dignity and respect.

The Lion. The Darkness. And Following Suit.

By Susan Lutz

We watch the news in shock. We watch the news in horror. We watch the news, and then go back to our business. We see the terrible things done to others in the name of religion, rights, or self-interest. But we have to go back to work. We have to feed the kids when they come home from school. We shake our heads. We forget. But those stories live on. We must learn to forgive, yet never forget. Here’s a follow up to a few stories we’ve seen that haven’t yet gone away.

The Lion.

Weeks after the beloved lion, Cecil, was killed by a dentist from Minnesota and poachers he hired, the headlines give way to bigger stories. But the story lives on. Zimbabwe wrestles with the intense issue of hunting their animals. Some claim the bounty helps conservation, others demand laws are changed. The president of Zimbabwe made a statement that the he blames “vandals” for killing Cecil, and also called for his people to take responsibility for the protection of their national treasures and resources.

Conservationists say they knew Cecil the Lion would most likely die at the hands of a hunter. The line between safety and potential death is literally often a line such as a railroad track or long stretch of line with no fencing. The issue of poaching, animals, money, safety, human rights, and animal rights are a hard mix to settle through in a country with so many living in poverty, so little resources.

Teams of people work to keep poachers on the right side of the track, monitoring and helping understaffed patrol officers find, catch, and prevent poaching. One group of women in South Africa head out at night and take huge risks to monitor and alert officials to potential poachers, all for about $250 a night. Their story was reported by PBS:

“They use a vehicle at night because it is far too dangerous to come out on foot. But there are still threats…. Poachers are usually heavily armed. All of the women admit it wasn’t easy in the beginning….”

The issue lives on for those fighting for animal rights. In St. Paul, Minnesota, a mural will be made from people standing in an outline of Cecil the Lion to keep the awareness heightened about the issue. The organizer, an artist, Kevin Foley:

“We want to harness the energy of this shameful incident for something good…for increased awareness, for meaningful action and involvement, and to preserve and protect this world’s declining wildlife.”

It’s going to be harder to get those trophies back to American soil. Delta Airlines joined other airlines in the transport of the dead animals.

The accused hunter, Walter Palmer is back in the news as recent photos of him also taking, illegally, a black bear from Wisconsin in 2006.

The Dark.

The Dark Act will move on as law if we let it. The bill passed the house, and will slip through the Senate if we don’t act to remove the darkness. The Cornucopia Institute reports that The Dark Act will prevent information about our food from getting onto the labels and leave us with unwanted food on our tables.

And Following Suit.

I walk away from the news, often shaking my head and wondering what in the heck can I do? I have to run to the grocery store, clean the bathroom, and walk the dog. The action I take every day in those errands, in my conversations, in my consciousness does keep the issue alive.

Contacting a Senator is easy. I’ve done it. They are accessible. They’ve also responded and gotten back to me. We love social media, so let’s use it to LIKE ideas that propagate peace, kindness, and solutions, not hate.

We can’t compare the lives of lions to the lives of people. It’s like saying we love people more than we love the earth or sharks or food or the stars in the sky. All of everything matters. We can’t have people without the earth to walk on. Without sharks, the oceans will die. We have to suit up every day; turn every conversation around to find the good instead of whining about what irks us.

How Killing a Lion Destroys Our Planet

By Susan Lutz

Tracking a lion for 40 hours must have been exciting. Far from home, stalking the king of beasts in the wilds of Africa, feeling the thrill of not only the hunt, but the exotic power of ruling over animals, taking, leaving the rest to rot must have been exciting. This desire to take, this desire to own, this desire to control is the consciousness that is killing our planet.

A Minnesota dentist and the men he paid to take him hunting in Zimbabwe are now being sought for questioning. This from CNN:

“All persons implicated in this case are due to appear in court facing poaching charges,” it said.

Officials said they believed Palmer had paid between $50,000 and $55,000 for the hunt to kill the lion.

We see what we want. We take what we want, often without regard for the effects our choices have on the environment. Killing a lion for thrill is taking for oneself and oneself alone, leaving no regard for life, animal or human. This mentality doesn’t stop with the animal kingdom.

We take by ignoring ramifications. When we purchase products that are made in sweatshops, we mistreat human beings. When we find out there’s a hole in the ozone layer, we claim we didn’t know our choices made a difference.

We take by consuming. We drink water in plastic bottles and toss them after one use; smug in our belief that recycling will take care of it. We pop a K-cup in the machine for a cup of coffee and drink 8 ounces of convenience, leaving behind billions of plastic cups to choke the planet.

We take by selling out. We ignore when politicians pass laws that make it OK to put toxins in our food.

We take by waiting for someone else to do it. For years, activists have tried to ban trophy hunting. We wait for the tragic to motivate us to change.

I searched hard on how to not judge this dentist from Minnesota. I’m from Minnesota. We’re not saints, but there’s this belief that we hold ourselves up to standards. My family hunts. I’ve been surrounded by the climate of hunting since birth, the camouflage, the orange vests, the guns, and the deer hanging from the garage in the cold of the fall. I’ve stood on the sidelines while this ritual, tradition, and sport took place. The hunters I know would be as devastated by this story as I am.

It’s hard to understand that in the entire time this dentist was planning his trip, it never occurred to him it might be wrong. He spent thousands of dollars, traveled thousands of miles, and then tracked the animals for 40 hours. He and his guides skinned the animal and beheaded it. Wasn’t there just one second, one moment, a fleeting thought that perhaps this is wrong? Even if not legally, morally?

I lived in a foreign country. I understand the lure of another country. Seeing the tropics, or the jungle, or the rainforest, or an animal in its habitat is exciting. It truly is interesting, educational, and enlightening to see and experience another land and culture. Tourism helps many countries. It’s critical to many economies. Yet, there are those who go take, forget, and ignore the ramifications of their actions. We’ve watched tourists climb mountains and take pictures naked for the sake of an interesting shot to put on social media. In Central America and other countries, many tourists travel for cheap sex, including with children. This is the mentality of take. Take for me – I don’t care about the rest.

I feel a deep sadness for the final hours of this regal animal, walking to his slow death in pain, suffering. I feel sadness for the country that lost a true, breathing, wonderful part of their culture. I feel sadness for the cubs left behind, the destruction and disorder inflicted by man on their pride. I even feel sadness for this dentist. In the time he spent hunting this animal down for sport, he lost time, time he can never take back. He does have a chance to change things. In the hours to come, in the actions he takes, he has the opportunity to give back instead of taking and find a way to make amends.

We’re meant to take. The cycle of life is giving and receiving. Yet, we must understand that we have a responsibility to act with care in how we take and be sure in all we receive, we are giving back.

DARK Act Passes Congress: Act Now to Defeat It

By Susan Lutz

The Right-Not-To-Know gained ground in congress in another attempt to keep information hidden and corporate operations thriving. If you want to know what’s in your food, take the time now to contact your Senator to repeal the DARK Act.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the upcoming vote in the House:

The bill, dubbed The Dark Act: Deny Americans the Right to Know, #stopDARKact, is spun by supporters to look as though it is legislation supporting transparency, but according to a recent House Agriculture Committee on Biotech Labeling Laws with Just Label It chairman, Gary Hishberg, it’s an anti-labeling push to keep the consumer out of the labeling process. A proposed amendment, mandating GMO labeling is being backed by anti GMO groups.

Humor helps break down topics. Laughter relieves tension and lets the commentary get to the truth. To better understand the issues, here is a clip from Bill Maher who “labeled” the issue perfectly and asked if we wanted a legislation that was “the freedom from information act?”

The Organic Consumers Association is encouraging citizens to truly understand what is happening:

Now that the DARK Act has been approved by the House, we’ll have to stop it in the Senate. We have to move fast—because Monsanto is desperate to pass a bill that preempts mandatory GMO labeling laws at the state and federal levels, before Vermont’s GMO labeling law takes effect next year.

This legislation hides the ultimate goal of furthering interests of a larger, corporate interest. When meat is in clear, pretty cellophane packages and the only thing you see on the label is the price, it’ll be too late to ask: Where did the beef come from? And what’s in it?

Take action now. Contact your Senators. Share. Let others know.

#‎LabelGMOs #‎GMO #‎Food #‎Ag #‎RightToKnow