The Key to Longevity

By: Kate M. Serrano

It is well known that Japan has one of the better life expectancies worldwide. Scientists often explain this phenomenon by the quality and health content of food Japanese people eat: a lot of fish and vegetables and very little meat. But when two countries from Europe, namely Italy and Switzerland, are both as well ranked by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as Japan, the mystery of longevity once again becomes a blur.

The OECD is an organization of 34 countries that helps promote policies to improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world. They work with governments to seek solutions to common problems and help drive social, economic and environmental change. Since 1970, countries from the OECD have extended their life expectancy by ten years. This progress can be explained by the improvement of the living conditions and the advances in medicine. While the Japanese eat rice and drink tea, Italians eat pasta and drink coffee. In this case, it seems that the quality of food is not as determinant in the longevity as we thought it was. Geographically close to Italy, Switzerland is standing at the highest place of the podium with a life expectancy of 82.8 years and is one of the richest countries in Europe. Ironically the United States – who is as rich as Switzerland – is 24 ranks down.

So what is the key to longevity? It’s not just on the quality of food intake and eating patterns, it’s just a quarter of the story. There are other factors to consider – a healthy lifestyle and time well spent for loads of happiness.

                      

Up with Good Food, Down with Bad Livestock Practices

By: Jessica Robertson

A team of scholars at the University of Bristol’s School of Veterinary Science has begun to address the challenge of making ruminant livestock a sustainable part of the planet’s food supply. The challenge holds more difficulties than may first come to mind; with a growing worldwide population, a changing climate, and an astounding one in seven people malnourished across the world, the environmental and economic costs of current livestock-keeping practices are far too high. Ruminant livestock are a major contributor to total methane gas production annually, which is a strain on the environment; and, overall, they do not serve as a high quantity food producer, making them a poor choice for feeding a growing population. Honestly, current livestock practices end up taking more from the food supply and environment than they give. The academics offer eight strategies for improving the current practices to a more sustainable level and to boost the quality and quantity of overall food production. 
• Keep human food for humans.
As of today, livestock consume about one-third of global cereal grain while that grain could act as a resource to feed people directly. Ruminant livestock can digest foods like hay that humans cannot digest, suggesting a more resourceful and efficient alternative.
• Raise animals in their appropriate region.
Local breeds of livestock are appropriately adapted to their environment, translating into their optimal yields of milk. Costs and disease increase dramatically in breeds that are relocated, and their productivity declines proportionally.
• Prevent animal disease.
Animal disease is a huge human concern; approximately 2.2 million people die annually from zoonosis (diseases that can be transferred from animals to humans). Assuring healthy animals by improving hygiene and surveillance can help control disease.
• Implement appropriate supplements.
Using supplements to encourage the bacteria in the digestive systems of livestock can increase the animals’ nutrition and decrease their production of methane.
• Keep quality above quantity.
Milk and meat may seem greedy options when considering how to provide food for a world population. However, including these animal products into a balanced diet in undernourished populations is a health benefit.
• Fit practices to culture.
Nearly one-seventh of the world relies on livestock for their daily needs. Supplying not only food, but also wealth, status, dowry payments, livestock cannot always simply be replaced with industrial systems.
• Record costs and benefits.
Even though livestock contribute to greenhouse gas accumulation, they can also contribute to biodiversity, a healthy ecosystem, and improved carbon capture by plants and soil due to their fertilization capabilities when grazing is managed sustainability.
• Study best practice.
Research farms, a global network of them, purpose to evaluate the advantages of certain farming practices for the environment and economy. They are designed to serve as an example of responsible farming practice for both farmers and policymakers.
With these informative and thorough suggestions, hopefully sustainable changes can help make world hunger a thing of the past.

An Ideal Leader.

By: Daniela Silva

As an expansive species, it is easy to overhear others intentions for good in this life, but not many truly become motivated enough to achieve and conclude what they strongly believe should transpire within this world. One man has become an ideal example of an individual who has acted beyond sole opinions and has done a prodigious act; Jose Mujica the president of Uruguay has kept himself within a lower social standard to better impact his people.

At the ripe age of 77, Mujica was elected in 2009 of the second smallest nation in south america; however the riches that follow with a presidential life was of no interest to this palpable man, he had better things to do.

Ingloriously living within a farmhouse with his wife, Mujica has donated 90% of his salary to charities and lives his life completely satisfied, assured that he does not need more than the $1,250 of $12,500 he keeps to maintain and appreciate a modest life.

“I do fine with that amount; I have to do fine because there are many Uruguayans who live with much less,” Jose told the paper. He keeps his focus on guiding and providing aid for the poor and supporting entrepreneurs. Thinking and acting beyond temporary pleasures by consumer-driven living, this mans heart goes out to all of his people, knowing that an outstanding way to help the people is to provide the change that can better the standard of living.

“This is a matter of freedom,” he told BBC News. “If you don’t have many professions then you don’t need to work all your life like a slave to sustain them, and therefore you have more time for yourself.” Mujica’s passionate examples for change isn't limited to what he shares with those around him; instead, he’s also anticipating a change by impressing his altruistic ideology to other world leaders.

His doctrine on poverty and consumer expenditure was contributed at the Rio +20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in June. “If all I’m doing is working to buy things to get more, if society of consumption is the energy of everything, where does this go?” he asked. “We need to start to fight for another kind of culture.”

Mujica has openly implicated that other world leaders possess a “blind obsession to achieve growth in consumption”, the president is undoubtedly in opposition to this left-brained obsession of presidential riches with no regards to the working people beneath it all. His argument draws in environmental factors and respect from societies that are governed by its many leaders.

His ‘poor’ lifestyle has gained criticism to which Jose defended with a conscious remark, “I’m called ‘the poorest president’, but I don’t feel poor. Poor people are those who only work to try to keep an expensive lifestyle, and always want more and more”.

Thanks to Jose’s influential leadership, Uruguay is now considered a nation of gracious change; becoming one of the first nations to legalize Marijuana and a nation that is determined to ensure that all of its people are taken care of, many more positive changes are sure to be implemented.

In Jose Mujica’s logic, as a society can we reach out to our governments and ask them to slowly but surely follow Jose’s lead? Can you achieve your own selfless intentions and make a  difference in your community?

Do GMO's affect you?

By: Daniela Silva

     When providing a balanced diet for your children, to what extent do you control the nutritional value and safety of their food? One of the most important things you can do to help your child’s overall health is to maintain a healthy diet; full of organic, natural, raw material. Labels also help us make decisions as to what would be a healthier choice for our families. Nonetheless, more than 70% of produce in grocery stores have genetically modified (GM) ingredients that we cannot identify, owing to an absence of labeling. Almost all produce is distributed by Monsanto a company specialized in biotechnology; in other words, specialized in manipulating biological development for their own industrial use. In what way can this be healthy? How may we identify what is safe to eat?  

       Monsanto is a company that seeks to be a hero in a world of famine, using biotechnology to reduce water usage and waste, which by me; that doesn't sound bad at all. However despite their efforts there is more waste being generated and it is impacting the health of consumers, and obviously negatively impacting the ecosystem as well. Mass suicides in India’s agricultural work fields are said to be a result of Monsanto’s Bt cotton, and with further study on Monsanto’s other product; Bt corn, is now considered a pesticide by many.  Both The institute for responsible technology and the organic consumers association are concerned of the long term effects of the toxin as a result of the corn’s capability of producing the pesticide in every kernel of corn. It has been banned in 64 countries to have GM foods without labels.  However it is still kept in our grocery stores

    What is significantly alarming is that we don’t know to what extent genetically modified foods are safe for consumption; how much GM foods occupy our grocery stores. Some tests on store bought produce show that genetically modified foods can link to leukemia, anemia, allergens, and horizontal gene transfer. Whereas Monsanto has stated the food to be”… “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) in the United States, and are considered safe by food safety experts globally.”  Beneficial or not, we are not given the opportunity to make a decision democratically whether or not if it should be on our grocer’s shelves. In addition it is difficult to identify genetically modified products so we are not able to avoid these foods as a whole. As a consumer, I support banning non-labeled GMO foods; do research your local grocery stores and genetically modified products. You’ll be glad you did.

They've stopped counting the dead

By: Daniela Silva


It hard to really catch on the current events, especially on Syria; thinking about it, I myself sat in confusion as to what really was going on. Syria is located in western Asia, bordering Lebanon and the Mediterranean sea. It is a giant melting pot of diverse ethnic and religious communities, including Arab Alawites, Arab Sunnis, Arab Christians, Armenians, Druze, Kurds and Turks. Arab Sunnis make up the majority of the Syrian population of 22.4 million people.

With this in mind, Syria had peaceful protests in which the people asked for democratic and economic reconstitution within the government and in return the government had overthrown this peaceful protest with military force on the people openly shooting children and women. The civil war then came into motion in March 2011, when fourteen to fifteen teenagers were arrested, six,allegedly tortured and two brutally killed for vandalizing school property with an anti government statement. Since then the people have taken a stand and have began a civil war-which goes on to this day.

Over 130,433 people have lost their lives; the UN has decided to refrain from counting anymore. Fathers, mothers and children have been brutally killed on a day to day basis, and the war has shown no signs of breaking. Shootings of people, snipers that prey on children and chemical warfare have been used against the people. The chemical inside the deployed rockets, is called the sarin nerve agent; twenty times more deadly than cyanide. The Syrian army is believed to have 1,000 tonnes of chemicals for use in warfare, including the sarin chemical; It is highly believed by the United states of america that the Syrian government is responsible for this attack.

This right here is unethical, inhuman and gruesome; a lot of people still have no idea as to why.

Syrians need a voice, the people need aid and care. Stand up and voice what is going on; we need to step in. Below, a child is treated after a bombing.