Chris,Extra food is not an issue. The purpose of farming is providing safe, nutrient dense food. Any other purpose is contrary to those goals.When agribusiness seeks profits over all else, we end up with pesticide overuse, animal abuse and a nation of sick people.Government involvement should have one goal, ensure safety and accountability.Our governments goal is simple: Industrial Agriculture promotion (back to money).Understand this, if nothing else, animals are not raised properly, food is lab produced unsafely and seed crops are altered biologically to the detriment of us all. This will be the first generation to die before their parents (we are NOT living longer than ever). Lack of government control, oversight and concern are to blame.There is only one way to produce food, that is as close to the way nature intended it to be. The more we move away from that method, the less nutritious it will be (which is the whole point, since we really eat to provide fuel and repair components to the body).

Our current longevity is largely overstated. Sure we're living a little longer than we were 100 years ago, but not nearly as long as most would have us believe. The main reason for the drastic average increase in longevity over the past 100 years is a dramatic decrease in infant and child mortality.http://www.healthsentinel.com/graphs.php?id=41&event=graphs_print_list_item

And according to this data:http://www.lifecourse.com/research/leaders/longevity.html

Longevity has barely changed at all in the past 300 years.
When measuring how long a healthy adult should expect to live, it's most important to weed out factors they've already made it through, such as childhood dangers. That being said, it certainly appears that we're barely living any longer than past generations, if at all.

Mark R (and Natasha): To suggest that pesticides are a causing major health problems means we might expect to see life expectancies going down. If they stay the same, this might make us think that pesticides etc are not affecting our health and longevity all that much. And if life expectancies go up?

Mark, from your first link: "if we measure once a person had reached 20 years of age the increase in extra years is 15.6 years." And since 1950, the increase 6.3 years. Both are good achievements - and this is just in the USA, known for its unhealthy eating habits.

From your second link. "It should be noted that this limited sample does not accurately represent the population of America, but these values are presented for interest."

Craig: I didn't notice the "Reply to thread" link, and I replied to you in the main comment thread, below.

Chris, I hope you've read Michael Pollen's book, "The Omnivore's Dilemma".  Whether we are healthier because of "the green revolution" is a matter of great debate.  He outlines quite clearly how unhealthy we and our animal friends are  as a result of the glut in corn production and the deconstruction of food by the industry to sell more of it.  It's very enlightening and more than a little scary.

J. Henderson: I've read a few chapters of it (while at a friend's house) and I've heard Pollen speak in Sydney. He's a journalist, not a scientist, and while he writes well and has some very interesting things to say, I also have some reservations.

"He outlines quite clearly how unhealthy we and our animal friends are  as a result of the glut in corn production and the deconstruction of food by the industry to sell more of it." Indeed he does. I mentioned subsidized agriculture in my first comment, and agree this is a bad thing; so is the deconstruction of food, if you mean turning it into an industrial product and taking the natural flavors and nutrients out.

None of this addresses the fact that in terms of longevity we're healthier than ever - in spite of eating way too much processed food (especially Americans).

Please lead us to the research that says we are healthier than ever before in terms of longevity.

I will also question whether "longevity" equals "healthy" at this point.  If we are filled with medications so we can live longer while managing disease I don't think we can say we are healthy.  What we should be striving for is preventing disease.  But our system here is much more concerned with making money.  The holistic view is only for freaks I suppose.  The mainstream take on health is eat what you want and take medications to cover up the damage.  Doctors are taught how to fix, not how to prevent.  And large food manufacturers are always seeking more efficient and cost-effective ways to sell their products with little or no regard for the affect on people's health.  And drug companies are there to clean up the mess.  Everyone makes a bundle but we are left with a national health crisis.

Jill: Please lead us to the research that says we are healthier than ever before in terms of longevity.

http://www.gapminder.org/ is probably the best place to start - they have amazing presentation of statistics. There's a TED talk where GapMinder graphs are presented as well. Sorry I can't be more specific for now, I need to get back to work.

I will also question whether "longevity" equals "healthy" at this point.  If we are filled with medications so we can live longer while managing disease I don't think we can say we are healthy.  What we should be striving for is preventing disease.

Some truth to that. There are certainly some negative trends, though I think these are more in eating habits than in agriculture (with the exception of subsidized corn). I don't want to undervalue medicines though - I'd probably be dead if it weren't for antibiotics (typhoid is no fun).

I don't think anyone's addressed my original point, that looking at the big picture (health statistics) there's no evidence that we're getting unhealthier due to pesticides - or if they do have a negative effect, it's swamped by the positive changes that have occurred.

Sure, we might have more cancer now - but we're just living long enough that that becomes a greater risk, rather than dying of a throat infection at 20 or TB at 40.

Eating processed crap does have a clearer negative effect, but even there, positive changes including medical treatment appear to have held the bad effects in check.

I don't think anyone is undervaluing medicine, the problem is that they are overvaluing them.  Way overused.  I agree antibiotics are valuable when necessary.  However, between their excessive use in treatment of the common cold and flu and the obscene amount in commercial dairy and meat products, our systems are overloaded with them.  This results in a loss of efficacy.

I think there is a fundamental difference in what you call health here.  I don't think that "holding bad effects in check" is actually being healthy.  It may keep our longevity up but we cannot qualify ourselves as being healthy.  The system as it is now is not sustainable.  Take infertility for one, it is a major problem now because of the pitifully poor American diet. 

I'm not sure if I agree that pesticides alone are to blame for our poor health.  I think it is a combination of many things.  Pesticides are one problem but lack of movement, fresh air and sunshine, toxic and heavy metal overload in our bodies (from pesticides and many other environmental elements), over-medicating, vaccinations, over-consumption in general, over-consumption of rancid vegetable oils, factory-farmed fats, sugar and highly processed foods, and under-consumption of fat and basic nutrients, and inability to absorb basic nutrients are some major issues that need to be addressed.

I say, get yourself and the kids outside, run around and have fun and support those local farmers who are practicing conscientious and sustainable agriculture.  Not using synthetic pesticides is a key to sustainable agriculture because it allows for the eco-system to operate in a holistic manner.

Chris, in the first link I posted, you can clearly see that as the starting age of comparison increased, the ending age did not rise nearly as much. People in their 20s and 30s were not dying of old age. They were dying of accidents and diseases.
As you noted, these are numbers for the US. Construction worker death is so rare now that it makes the news when there's an accident on the job. Are vehicles are far safer than ever before. We have, in general, safer suroundings. Let's also not forget how much more sanitary we are. We have health codes and emergency plans designed to prevent the spread of disease.
The idea that poinson is tiny doses won't harm you is spread all over the internet. I don't buy it. Poison is poison. Just because it won't harm you if you take a tiny amount once does not automatically mean that a constant supply of that same tiny amount meal after meal, day after day. The half life of some herbicides and pesticides can result in there being toxic doses of those poisons because of the body's inability to eliminate it quickly. Keep in mind that those half-life measurements you can find are based on a healthy body's ability to eliminate the poison. Who knows what it would be for someone with a compromised system.
The point of the article is that continuous use of herbicides and pesticides is not sustainable. It's wreaking havoc on the environment and our health. I believe it.

Chris, the world already produces ample calories to feed people and organics (though this post isn't actually about them) can already match the productivity of fossil fueled agriculture. In the developing world, organic agriculture often significantly outperforms conventional agriculture. Look it up; even the UN admits as much when they aren't hawking GMOs for the US.

Mark: "The idea that poinson is tiny doses won't harm you is spread all over the internet."

Actually that's really interesting. There's evidence from the lab that tiny amounts of toxins are actually good for cells, that they strengthen cells. I don't know the full implications, and it would wrong to build an argument on it as it's just "this study I heard about once" - but it's as plausible or more plausible than the opposite argument.

Plants are naturally full of poisons, to stop them getting eaten up by animals. We've just evolved alongside the plants, os in this evolutionary arms race, we taste those poisons, e.g. tannins, and they're actually what give plants their flavor, and even a lot of their nutritional value.

I suspect it is bad for our health if huge amounts of pesticides are used on our food, right up till harvest. But in a modern, well regulated society, I don't know of any evidence that the amounts used are actually doing harm. (I've heard that California is especially good for making sure pesticide use is minimal.) And as noted earlier, they enable more food to be grown, and more people to eat fruit and vegetables.

Natasha: Ive heard this, and if the same or better results can be achieved with organic ag, that's great. As noted, I think the big changes coming in ag are potentially changes at the level of harnessing the ecosystem, especially the soil microflora.

There's a lot involved in making all this work, though, on a global and individual level. Making sure the needed knowledge is accessible to all seems to me like the key task here, and that's one of the reasons I'm excited about Appropedia as a platform for sharing sustainable agriculture info.

Chris, I'm not trying to accuse you of anything... but I want to say that what really bothers me about your comments is that they are exactly the same as those from someone I know to have been working for a manufacturer of the chemicals in question I've debated online in the past.
Your comment that plants have natural poinsons is a bit misleading for 2 reasons. 1) The natural poisons in question can not automatically be equated to a man-made poison and 2) The poisons in question would, in most cases, be in the non-edible part of the plant. It has long been believed that fruits and vegetables are naturally designed to be eaten, and is actually what the plant "wants" since the seeds are not digestable by most animals, will be carried away by the animal that ate them, be deposited on the ground far away from the parent plant and surrounded by manuer when the digestion process is done. Talk about your perfect conditions for new plant growth.
Now, the same can't be said for most legumes like soy and peanuts, but there's some concern that these items shouldn't even be considered food to begin with. That's a whole different topic I don't really care to get in to.
As for the idea that modern chemicals allow higher crop yield, that's really only true with the modern farming method devoid of crop and animal rotation. When done properly, each area of land is used to grow a different crop each year, or rotated with animals which help to replinish the soil with nutrients and beneficial bacteria. Not only does that type of farming increase production, it also increases nutrient content in the end product AND gives the plants the ability to develop their own natural defenses against insects.
The time for single crop corporate-owned farms is coming to an end. I've been involved in the move toward sustainable agriculture for many years now and have been thrilled to see more and more people educate themselve to the pitfalls of the current model.

Mark: "what really bothers me about your comments is that they are exactly the same as those from someone I know to have been working for a manufacturer of the chemicals in question I've debated online in the past."

I can see why that would disturb you, but I don't think it's actually relevant. I may be right, I may be wrong - whether my arguments are the same as this other person doesn't make them right or wrong.

Btw, I'm trying to be factual and rational here, but I may come across in the same way as someone I encountered online, who I thought at the time was very arrogant. We later met, and became good friends. (He's borderline Aspergers, ferociously intelligent, and I learnt a lot from him, including from his way of asking questions and detecting logical errors... but maybe my style of debate, with people of completely different viewpoints, comes across in a similar way. I assure you there's no malice on my part.)

"1) The natural poisons in question can not automatically be equated to a man-made poison and"

Agreed - I'm not automatically equating them, and did mention the possibility that they are much more toxic.

"2) The poisons in question would, in most cases, be in the non-edible part of the plant."

I'm thinking of compounds that exist in most parts of the plant, including leaves the skin of fruits. Compounds such as tannins, that I first heard of described by Pritikin as a toxin, and which are now considered positive for the health. I think anything bitter is meant to discourage eating, and bitter foods are sometimes healthy.

As for eating parts that aren't meant by the plant to be eaten - that's the "arms race" that goes on in the biological world. Plants and animals keep building stronger defences, and the animals that eat them keep getting better at overcoming those defences - sometimes to the point that one creature, like a poisonous newt or pufferfish, contains a crazy level of toxicity.

"The time for single crop corporate-owned farms is coming to an end."

Don't underestimate them - they ain't dead yet.

I don't believe corporations are bad by nature (they vary) but I'd certainly like to see a less corporatized food supply. Specifically, I'd like to have a better and more varied diet than the one that can be conveniently supplied by a modern industrial process.

We can see that happen if we keep our eyes on our goals, and think about what's achievable. (Seeing the end of the corporation doesn't strike me as achievable or necessary, though an enormous shakeup and putting them in their place is more feasible.) Planting garden and helping people start doing that are good ways to help. (Do a search for lazy gardening wiki and you'll find a page you can contribute to.)

OK Chris. It appears as though we may not be as different as I originally thought. I can't tell you how refreshing it is to debate someone without getting emotionally involved in the debate. Thanks for that.

I believe I hear you saying that we should be able to come to a point where we can use technology and the advances in agriculture achieved over the past 100 to 200 years and combine that with traditional, non-chemical farming to achieve something much greater than any of the current systems. If that's what you're saying, I whole heartedly agree.

Thanks for an informative and pleasant exchange of ideas.

Mark.

Mark, glad we've got to this point! Yes, much we agree on, and you sum up my position pretty well. It's good to get beyond the entrenched positions and highlighting of differences.

I never took your comments as uncivil, but I find back-and-forth formats (emails and blog comments) often conducive to argument, as well as being ephemeral. (They could probably be better with some better communication techniques; to make them less ephemeral, open licenses would enable the words to to be reused and developed.) Wikis, however, are conducive to sythesis and analysis, and create something useful for the longer term, which is why I put most of my efforts into them.

The point we probably disagree on most strongly is on pesticides - but you may have assumed I was more pro-pesticide than I am. I do think they've probably helped increase yields a lot, and that the benefits of that have probably outweigh the costs enormously.

That doesn't mean their use, and the way they've been used, has been ideal. The best use of them would be in a carefully weighed approach, like Integrated Pest Management. And it's likely that we'll find better ways, and use methods that have less and less negative impacts, on health and environment.

Thanks to you also.

Lets all start with some facts on drugs from those big companies. The doctors pushing these drugs to help our ailments are doing nothing more than suppressing one thing to make youthink your better. "Drug" by definition is not a cure for anything! So why would anyone that made it through grade school education or higher would want to be an advocate for "DRUGS". You are what you eat right and you are only as healthy as the  food, exercise, education, environment and love you bring into your life. Look at the world wide statistics guns don't kill doctors do. Look at how many people die in doctors care versus a bullet. I love that we have plenty of easy access to information at our fingertips these days but we need to filter that same information by checking the foundation and the backers behind the curtains. First question ALWAYS who is going to profit off this information? Thanks for your concern and effort to make the world a better place, without speaking out be it good or bad we are just slaves on the land.

The "Green Revolution" is where we outsourced cancers to the 3rd world. I just heard a report from a farm community in China that was revolutionized. It included a ride on their "Cancer train". A completely packed train picking up farmers to go to a big regional cancer center.

Few of the farmers would admit that they had cancer at the beginning of the 8 hour trip but that changed as their sickness became apparent.
Most bragged that they now produced 3 times the amount that they used to but at a very high cost... They pay the cost, I get the benefit.

Steven - I don't know the specifics, but it makes sense that in some places, with some chemicals overused and/or used without proper instruction, horrible things like this can happen.

My argument is that on the big scale, this is not the case, and the "Green Revolution" cannot be blamed for every act of misuse or misinformation. It's a cautionary tale though. Expecting the Green Revolution (or any other revolution) to solve everything with no penalty for misuse - this is a grave error, and people suffer.

I read the comment about Fluoride and how on the website it says it does not prevent tooth decay.  Well years ago I went off using toothpaste with fluoride due to reading similar articles, and then after never having a cavity in my  life, I must have gotten about 15 or 20 of them.  I wasn't even seeing a dentist regularly, and before I switched to the toothpaste with no fluoride I had no problems at all.  After I'd had to spend $14k on dental treatment for all those cavities I switched back to a toothpaste with fluoride.  Since then I've had no cavities.  So I don't know where you get your information from but fluoride certainly does affect keeping one's teeth healthy. I guess if fluoride lasts forever, so do my healthy teeth as long as I use the toothpaste that includes it.

        It is true that fluoride applied topically, as in tooth paste, has some what of a protective affect. In drinking water the affect is virtually zero. There are better ways of protecting teeth than either. A nutritious diet coupled with vitamin D supplements is a major step in that direction. I currently do not even use any tooth paste, but rely on hydrogen peroxide once a day. I have not had any cavities since doing this. On rare occasions I start to get a tooth abscess, perhaps from bacteria slipping in past fillings of my youth. Luckily on each of the 2 or 3 occasions, raw cashew nuts solved the problem (see  http://charles_w.tripod.com/tooth.html ). But for sure do not allow small children use fluoridated tooth paste. It will make them ruinously sick if they eat the whole tube's contents.

       This site decries poor farming practices. Food is extremely important, so well they should. However, that is not where the main action is. What difference does it make if a farmer comes up with some ingenious scheme that reduces essential nutrients 20% in his beets, say, if he then sells them to a sugar processing plant where they proceed to remove 100% of the nutrients? Even if he puts poison in other food he grows, it will be insignificant compared that disaster.

I have not dug my data out of my files for this yet, but  there are scientists in Canada who have studied the effects of ingested flouride and find that its efficacy in controlling tooth decay (when ingested) is minimal compared to the damage it does to bones, especially the hips.

I'm not interested in a conversation about fluoride right now, but I will tell you that I'd appreciate it if you kept your comments, particularly tedious lists of citations, to a more reasonable length. You're tempting my delete button like nobody's business.

The fertilizer and advanced irrigation are more responsible for that. It turns out that if you give plants plenty of water and unlimited essential nutrients, they grow like anything. Surprise!

Might as well pat ourselves on the back for culturing bacteria on agar.

But not only are those fossil water and fertilizer inputs in danger of declining precipitously, the pests always develop resistance to pesticides such that they have to be used in ever greater amounts. It's a big boon to the chemical companies, but there's still a high rate of crop loss, even if it generally falls below potato blight level.

Also, pesticides have been linked to all kinds of cancers, neurological disorders, birth defects, even high cholesterol. They accumulate in the food chain so that we keep getting dosed with them over and over again, and so they can interact with all the other nasty things in our bodies.

Indeed, the only thing that seems to decrease an adult's body burden of certain very toxic pesticide and industrial chemical residues is breastfeeding - that's right, you can only get rid of many toxic, fat soluble poisons in your body if you're a woman who wants to breastfeed your child. And that's pretty revolting.

Please take your ignorant triumphalism over the death and damage of the chemical industry's victims elsewhere.

I think the debate here has been interesting to watch (not sure what the fluoride conversation is about, but ok).  I do find, Natasha, you repeated flippant dismissal of the opinions of others who do not agree with you rather disappointing. 

If your position is strong you don't need to resort to petty name-calling or dismissive language.  There are some very well-educated practitioners commenting on the threads here, and I think we all lose out if you try to deny their opinions any validity.

Although I think your short biography is entertaining, can you enlighten everyone more fully as to what education, work-experience, and expertise you have which entitles you to demean and dismiss the opinions of others?

I certainly don't see that sort of dismissal of your thoughts from your readers (including me), so I think its only fair that you let us know why you think its acceptable to tell people to, "Stop Lying," or "take your ignorant triumphalism... elsewhere."

Let's make a civil discussion to address the crucial issues, not to make ourselves feel better by attacking others.  What do you say?

Thanks Aaron - agreed.

Please stop this. 875 isn't even getting a vote in committee.

One doesn't have to become vegetarian to help alleviate these problems. Buy from local sustainable farmers or go hunting.  And yes, talk to your congressional reps, absolutely.  Like NAIS will be very damaging to small scale farmers and will benefit the factory (so-called) "farmers" (I prefer to call them food manufacturers).  But please don't blame meat perse, the culprits are those who manufacture meat and dairy.

It is hard to maintain good health on a vegetarian or vegan diet.

Jill, I agree with everything you stated except the last sentence. It is a widely believed misconception . It is not hard to maintain good health from vegetarian or vegan diets. The only issue is getting enough of the right protein which is easy if you eat legumes, beans and anything in the cabbage family. Vegetarians/vegans have much less incidence of  heart attack/stroke and less health problems in general. (Resveratol a red wine extract reduces the incidence of HA/stroke for everyone).

Thanks Mark. 

I agree that meat-eaters who eat conventional meat and other unhealthy things in general have more health problems.  I have recently read the excerpt from such a study.  However, what I would like to see is a study comparing meat-eaters that consume only grass-fed or organic meats to vegetarians.

The only real evidence we have to go on there are the indigenous populations still existing today.  The Inuit, Swenki and Masai are some examples.  They eat large amounts of animal products.  The Masai live on the blood, milk and meat of animals pretty much exclusively, the Inuit live on 98% animal products (blubber, seal oil, raw fish, etc) and these are the healthiest people in the world.  It is not the meat that is the issue, it is how the meat is produced that is giving us many troubles. 

I don't have the study, will have to look, but I did read one that showed the health of Indians.  They compared the statistics of the vegetarian diet in the South and the meat-eating diet of the north.  They found many more health problems in the South (and these people do consume dairy). 

There are no traditional vegan diets.  This is because animal protein is far superior in quantity and quality over the proteins you get from matching grains and legumes (which is how many vegetarians and, hopefully, all vegans are getting thier protein).  At least a vegetarian can get protein from dairy.  But it needs to be in large amounts and for it to be truly healthy it needs to be from raw milk.  Vegans, on the other hand, run the risk of major deficiencies. 

The body and the brain need lots of fat to function optimally.  I take in about 50-60 percent of my calories from fat.  Fat is essential for the absorption of nutrients.  On a vegan diet I cannot imagine how you would get enough fat and cholesterol for good health.

Fish oil is essential for the brain to function properly, how does a vegan or vegetarian get this?

Another risk on the vegetarian and vegan diet is the overconsumption of grains and soy products.  Soy, even in it's organic form, contains large amounts of estrogen.  Soy is in almost all processed foods, read the labels carefully.  Most of it is NOT organic and therefore quite dangerous.  Grains are relatively new to the human diet (compared to meat and even dairy).  Traditionally people prepared grains properly, neutralizing the gluten and phytic acid, thereby allowing proper nutrient absorption.  These days, even if you eat whole grains, almost all grain consumption is not in the soaked or sprouted form.  We are consuming large amounts of gluten and many people are developing gluten senstivities which do damage to the gut.  Celiac disease is caused by too much gluten.  Without fermenting or soaking grains we are leaving the phytic acid intact which blocks mineral absorption.  Over-consumption of grains also results in weight gain for many people.

Another issue with the grain-based vegetarian/vegan diet is that many people (believe me, just about every vegetarian I've met) tend to eat a lot of industrially processed foods.  Crackers, pretzels, pastas, granola, and cereals become a daily fixture in the diet.  Even in the organic, whole grain form, these are not real foods. They often contain sugars, soy products, and fillers and again the phytic acid is not neutralized, making what little minerals they contain inaccessible.

Vegans need to be especially careful to get enough protein and fat.  This involves major amounts of home-cooking to get.  I'm still not even sure if it is physically possible to get the fat you need on a vegan diet.

Mark, I'm a little confused.  I am saying that I don't think vegan is a healthy diet.  I wasn't saying that protein is the only problem with a vegan diet.  That is just one of many.  I could go on and on so I just left it at that because the post was long enough.  I agree that B12 is a major problem for vegetarians and vegans.  I had a B12 deficiency until I began eating read meat again (I ate a mostly vegetarian diet for many years and suffered because of it). 

Thanks for the study, I will look later.  But from a cursory glance I can see there was no distinction between types of meat eaten, like you said.  This is a major issue because then we could go on and on about the ills of factory-farmed meats, which most people eat.  So in a sense these articles help to prove my point that factory-farmed meats are bad.  Would love to see a study on grass or pasture-raised or even organic meat-eaters.  Like, sample farmers from across the country.  Of course, then we would have trouble because overall they have a pretty high level of physical activity.  Sheesh.....

Jill, the protein comment wasn't directed at you. That was to Mark Oddi who said "The only issue is getting enough of the right protein which is easy if you eat legumes, beans and anything in the cabbage family."
I couldn't disagree more with that statement. It's not a common misconception, and that's certainly not the ONLY issue with diets that avoid animal products. You did an excellent job outlining more issues and I tried to cover a little more ground with my post.
If you ever find a study like the one you're searching for, I hope you'll share your finding. I'd love to find something like that myself, but I seriously doubt we'll ever see one. Someone has to pay for science... and most farms selling grass-fed beef are too small and too busy bringing their products to market to worry about studies.

Dear Mark;
      There are , indeed, many deficiencies in a purely vegetarian diet. Vitamin B-12, iodine, methionine, lysine, vitamin D (in the absence of sunshine), and even copper (in some animals at least) come to mind. The only real chance anyone has is a very varied diet with no processed food and with certain key supplements.

      In so far as that last is concerned, I feel a sales tax should be levied on any food that has known poisons added such as aluminum, aspartame, fluoride (see http://charles_w.tripod.com/fluoride.html ), sulfite, and etc. or essential nutrients subtracted. It should be effective even at the municipality level and certainly the state. I am certain this would cause an improvement in our country's health when processors corrected the situation or, if not, when less of it was purchased. If a tax were placed on food that has had essential nutrients removed the improvement in health would be dramatic. A fringe benefit would be to enable the heavy Medicare tax to be reduced or eliminated. If everyone is getting good food most diseases would disappear and we could then devote our research to the few remaining. Perhaps you can use your influence to get such a law passed in your town.

     We talk endlessly about better health insurance. Insurance is a marvelous invention, but there is no excellent substitute for not getting sick in the first place. In any case, if everyone is healthy, the insurance premiums will go a way down as a side effect no matter how they are instituted. With the extra money we could then start to pay down that miserable national debt and with the extra time, enjoy ourselves (say with a shorter work day).

     In the mean time, you can at least see ways that you or some one you love who has rheumatoid arthritis, heart disease, or high blood pressure can counter the loss of potassium from current junk food in this article and its links http://charles_w.tripod.com/arthritis9.html   . This would have a much more advantageous affect on high blood pressure than reducing sodium. Indeed it is not the sodium that is causing the high blood pressure anyway, but the chloride associated with it, since potassium chloride increases blood pressure and sodium bicarbonate does not.
       Sincerely,  Charles Weber