Redesign the Paradigm

In the first blog of this series, Problems in the U.S. Critical Sectors – Monetary & Banking, Energy, Healthcare, Food Production, and Government – An Analysis the major economic sectors critical to the survival of a modern day society were identified and their long term problems addressed. These sectors include: monetary & banking system, energy production, healthcare, food production, and water distribution. It was also noted that a stable and reliable government free of corruption is necessary to ensure proper legislation and regulation.  Finally, it was pointed out that if problems in these sectors remain unresolved they can have serious long term consequences for our economy even changing the lifestyles that Americans have grown accustomed to.

In the second blog, Problems in U.S. Critical Sectors  - Monetary & Banking, Energy, Healthcare, Food Production, and Government – The Cause problems in our critical sectors were identified as residing in a significant resistance to change from those who seek to maintain the status quo and the massive profits and wealth it generates for them. The underlying reasons for the resistance to change was also identified as an age old belief system which promotes selfish individual / group gain and achievement over all else. This philosophy has little regard for long term public or environmental consequences. In today’s world its mantra is “economic growth at any cost”, and it favors and rewards those who strive for profit maximization, wealth generation, and the influential connections to political power that ensure ongoing control. Ultimately it is greed, avarice, selfishness, and mammon (love for money above all other things). This philosophy is prevalent in many of the country’s most wealthy and influential. Their businesses and special interests constitute many of our nation’s largest investment groups and Multi National Corporations (MNC’s) and have considerable sway over our country’s critical sectors.

Societies have been warned throughout the ages by their greatest teachers and spiritual leaders of what would happen if too much wealth and power were concentrated amongst those who embrace this philosophy. Let us now consider the effects the past actions have had on our critical sectors and how the American public is faring.

Monetary System:

• U.S. national debt and lack of fiscal responsibility continues to rise making our international debtors lose confidence in our ability to pay.
• Effect – International debtors are already shying away from U.S. treasuries and looking for different currencies other than the dollar to conduct international commerce. If this keeps up expect a devaluation of U.S. treasuriesand the dollar
• Effect on main street America – foreign goods (big box store products) become more expensive and Americans experience more inflation
• The FED is caught between trying to stimulate the ec onomy with Quantitative Easing (QE) or printing money and buying financial assetsfrom large banks to increase their reserves combined with artificially keeping interest rates low, and running the risk of devaluing the dollar by printing to much money and increasing inflation by keeping the interest rates artificially low for to long.
  • Effect – The FED will likely continue the current practice of” printing money” (actually its all electronic transfers now). Large banks will continue to influence / pressure the FED to keep supplying them with free money to invest with because it is profitable for them to do so. This outcome, while beneficial for large banks and MNC’s, if continued only further lowers international debtor confidence which further devalues the dollar.
    • Note – this money is being spent on large MNC’s and in financial markets i.e. derivatives, it has not been used as was originally intended to relax credit for small / medium businesses which are the primary drivers of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and job growth.
  • Effect on main street America - foreign goods become more expensive thus increasing inflation.

Financial /Banking System:

• Wall Street financial institutions increasingly invest in derivatives and other financial instruments that don’t contribute to GDP.  One in every three dollars is tied up in exotic financial investments like derivatives (hedges or bets on a derived value), this is essentially pulling money out of the economy that could be better used manufacturing, innovation, etc. They are also limiting investing to what they believe are safer investments – large MNC’s with global exposure in the growing economies inAsia.
  • Effect – Our largest banks virtually ignore startups, small, and medium sized business that are critical to job growth and who provide the bulk of taxable corporate revenue necessary in paying down the national debt. This has created credit restrictions to small / medium businesses which limit their expansion capabilities and our country’s job growth (85% of jobs).
  • Effect on main street America - Fewer manufacturing and other skilled labor jobs as large MNC’s export them overseas. Continuation of stagnant wages experienced in real world dollars since 2000. Fewer opportunities as growth slows and recession continues (unless you actually believe its over for most Americans)

Energy production:

• Readily available fossil fuels are becoming scarce. Extraction processes are increasing in costs and it is requiring more oil to
  extract resources. Some extraction processes are damaging the environment and contaminating water supplies.
  • Effect – Barriers to entry to protect profits from the fossil fuel industry for alternative energy resources guarantees that no
    significant funding or subsidies will become available (fossil fuel companies still enjoy subsides despite a decade of record profits). Global world production has plateau in the past 4 years while demand continues to increase.
  • The effect on main street America – Increasing energy costs at the pump and in electrical bills.  Increased inflation since almost everything has to travel hundreds of miles to get to its sales destination. Consider food which travels almost one thousand miles from processing plant to grocer. Fracking and other similar approaches contaminate
    local water supplies.

Healthcare costs:

• Insurance Companies are increasing premiums and stripping away benefits in response to rising healthcare costs in order to meet profit expectations. All this while industry executives enjoy some of the highest salaries of any industry. Billing practices have become convoluted and confusing for anyone not in a billing department.  Simple surgeries or routine testing can cost
  thousands of dollars.
  • Effect – Medical bills represent 2/3 of U.S. bankruptcies and this includes people with “good Insurance”. Huge lobbying
    efforts, campaign contributions, and sympathetic media outlets successfully act as deterrents to real non profit healthcare insurance companies or the creation of a national insurance program from which they would have to compete against.
  • Effect on main street America – Rates continue to rise while coverage becomes limited. As more baby boomers
    reach retirement age requiring additional expensive treatments for chronic diseases this problem is expected to amplify.
• The pharmaceutical industry’s concern is to provide long term expensive treatments. The public can expect few if any cures despite hundreds of millions from charities and the government for research. The toxic nature of long term drug use ensures future disease requiring still more prescription drugs. The FDA is financially supported by the very industry it is supposed to monitor.
  • Effect – The U.S. is the most medicated country in the world paying more than three times the average of all other developed countries. The medical system revolves around expensive patented prescription drug use where health and preventive measures continue to take a backseat to profits has the U.S. ranked near the bottom of developed countries in Healthy life expectancy (HALE).
  • Effect on main street America – Prescription drugs and insurance costs continue to rise. Prescription drug use
    in the population continues to rise increasing the need for more drugs and lowering the populations overall health.

Food production:

• Subsidized food production makes our food cheaper than at any point in human history, but it is processed, refined, genetically modified, and laden with additive levels of salts, sugars, fats, and additive preservatives and other compounds.  Industrialized
  farming is rapidly depleting nutrient value of soil requiring ever more petroleum based fertilizers. Four crops – corn, soy, wheat, and rice make up the bulk of all U.S. food and is becoming largely genetically modified and homogenized lowering crop resilience to disease.
  • Effect – one third of the country is obese and that figure is growing. Consumption of current processed food creates obesity related illness and expensive chronic diseases such as heart disease, stroke, cancer, etc. to rising healthcare costs which drive up the cost of healthcare and contribute to the nations debt.
    • Note – Food profit margins are low. To increase profits it is necessary for the population to consume more food. Obese people generally eat more. While this is good for the food and pharmaceutical profits, this cycle is also contributing significantly to rising healthcare cost which is approaching 2.5T per year. This in turn contributes to national debt as Medicare and Medicaid costs increase.
  • Effect on main street America – Healthcare insurance and prescription drugs become more expensive. Population (including children) are getting more obese and unhealthy (just look around). Increased consumption of addictive processed foods lowers nutrition value necessary to maintain healthy immune system requiring more trips to the doctor and more drugs.

Government:

• Politicians remain in gridlock over what to do about the rising national debt; despite recent posturing and attempts at compromise they remain more concerned with gratifying wealthy contributors’ and getting themselves re-elected. Both parties realize that tax revenues need to increase and spending needs to decrease but lack the political will to challenge party lines, contributors, and special interests.
  • Effect – Raising taxes and / or removing Bush era tax cuts and the cessation of three unproductive wars will be met by considerable resistance from Republicans. Decreasing the size of government and trimming endowment programs (Social Security and Medicare) even if only through efficiency measures will be met with considerable resistance from Democrats.
    The result is ongoing political games and kicking the problem down the road. This is degrading the confidence of international debtors in the U.S. ability to deal with fiscal responsibility causing some to seek out alternatives to the dollar
  • Effect on main street America – If the dollar experiences rapid devaluation inflation severely impacts all but the wealthiest of American families who have less money tospend in the economy. Less spending means prolonged recession.
• Legislation is being determined and in many cases written by lobbyists. Campaign contributions ensure that legislatures will champion contributors causes. Large Multi National Corporations and other special interests view the millions they spend on these endeavors as investments that provide incredible returns. The populace has no organized way of matching or countering these expenditures.
  • Effect – Corporate and special interests are determining the course of the country over the interests of the American people. The more money a group has the more favorable legislation they will receive regardless of the long term outcome for the public. New revolutionary technologies are shelved to protect existing industry profits,
  •  Effect on main street America – Polarization of wealth, stagnate wages, environmental degradation, disenfranchisement, and a loss of faith in government.

The overall effect on our critical sectors if we continue on our current course will be a continuation of the status quo and these unsustainable systems even to the point of collapse in order to protect profits and investor wealth. Our critical sectors are more than profit maximizing engines; they are the foundation of our information age society and are the staple of the lifestyles we are accustomed to. Individual and group selfishness doesn’t have to lead the U.S. into an era of decline. I agree with Warren Buffet – “our best days are ahead of us, perhaps not on this current trajectory.”

It is time to evolve our thinking beyond personal gain and include our fellow man, our communities, and our environments. Capitalism has propelled us to great heights, but current paradigms are now disproportionately benefitting a few to the expense of the overall country, we can make it work for all of us again it just involves a restructuring of the objectives. Those who are benefitting from the current systems can continue to do so, but for many who no longer see the benefits reaped by a few there are other options. In the next blog we will explore a few such options.

In the previous blog, Problems in U.S. Critical Sectors – Monetary & Banking, Energy, Healthcare, Food Production, and Government – An Analysis - the major economic sectors critical to the survival of a modern day society were identified and their long term problems addressed. These sectors include: monetary & banking system, energy production, healthcare, food production, and water distribution. It was also noted that a stable and reliable government free of corruption is necessary to ensure proper legislation and regulation. Finally, it was pointed out that if problems in these sectors remain unresolved they can have serious long term consequences for our economy even changing the lifestyles that all Americans have grown accustomed to.

Problems in these sectors are becoming obvious even to the general public. The causes are numerous but largely reside in a significant resistance to change from those who seek to maintain the status quo. This is understandable since it generates massive profits and wealth. These influentialindividuals and their associated special interests constitute many of our nation’s wealthiest investors and largest Multi National Corporations (MNC’s). They believe they have the expertise, resources, and global exposure necessary to ride out any detrimental scenario the future may bring, but what about the other 99% of Americans? Can they expect to turn to a government which has demonstrated repeatedly a definite lack of political will to realistically deal with any of these concerns? Campaign contributions and the best lobbyists’ money can buy guarantee it otherwise.

The real cause, the one underlying the resistance to change revolves around a new philosophy that has evolved over the past several decades, one that has replaced the American dream of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and redefined what success and achievement means in our society. In truth, this philosophy is not new; it has been with humanity since recorded history. It is a belief system that promotes selfish individual / group gain and achievement over all else, and has little regard for long term public or environmental consequences. In today’s world its mantra is “economic growth at any cost”, and it favors and rewards those who strive for profit maximization, wealth generation, and the influential connections to political power that ensure ongoing control. The cause has many names greed, avarice, selfishness, and mammon – it is the love for money above all other things, and seeks power to ensure that goal. People and resources become numbers on a balance sheet. Decisions to pursue profit and guarantee a return on investment (material wealth) can then be justified and even encouraged despite however much damage may be done.

Since World War 2 the US has experienced massive growth and most Americans have prospered, at least up until recently. Our country came out of World War 2 with an immense manufacturing base due to the war effort, and we were one of the few developed countries not straddled with large scale reconstruction costs. We rapidly became an economic powerhouse with readily available access to natural resources. The pie expanded for all. Now, large MNC’s view the U.S. as a country in its maturity phase, consuming more than it produces, relying on debt that because of fiscal irresponsibility is becoming more restrictive and more difficult to obtain from International debtors. The pie is growing much slower. However, large influential financial institutions, MNC’s, and investor groups still demand increasing profits and substantial returns on their investments in order to meet their growth models and expectations, and they are getting them by any means necessary.

The result of these actions has been a shrinking proportion of “pie” for Main Street America. This is evident by a decade of stagnant wages, a relatively jobless recovery, having to bear the brunt of a financial collapse that bailed out the very players that created it, and a growing polarization of wealth towards the upper 1%. Warren Buffet one of our nation’s most successful investors has stated accurately that the current rising tide is raising only the yachts. To make matters worse large MNC’s are looking towards what they believe are the more profitable growing economies and emerging markets of Asia. We can all sense that something is wrong in our country with our growing debt, increasing inflation, and a lack of faith in our political parties, but we are not sure what we can do.

Einstein declared that it is impossible to solve major problems with the mindset that created them. Yet that is exactly what continues to take place and the result has been a further entrenchment into the very systems causing the problems. Our aforementioned critical sectors are more than just profit maximizing engines for big corporations and the wealthy; they are the required foundations of our modern society.

Maximizing profits and increasing investor wealth are institutions of American capitalism and have helped raise the country to where it is.  But in our critical sectors it is beginning to limit progress and keep the country locked in archaic systems that are not only proving to be unsustainable but could result in a rapid decline of these sectors all at once. While the current paradigms are certainly financially beneficial to a select few, that benefit is not shared with the public. Quite the contrary, Americans are reeling from increasing costs and may soon have to prematurely deal with a tipping point that could result in an economic downturn even more severe than what we recently faced. The reality is that the playing field is no longer fair. Those with wealth and power have too much control over legislation, and that legislation is creating an environment that not only restricts the necessary change in our critical sectors, on a larger scale it is degrading the middle classes.

American’s are now being confronted with the reality that infinite growth and unsustainable debt models do not work in finite systems, and that an increased concentration of wealth into the upper 1% is taking away the very thing that makes America great, opportunity for all. We are allowing the insatiable appetite some have attained for profits and wealth to get the better of us as a nation. It is time for some of us to set aside the desire for personal gain and focus on more important things like fixing our critical sectors.

The greatest teachers and spiritual leaders of our past have all warned us against this type of belief system and what would happen when it is left unchecked.

Jesus Christ said “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other: or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” Meaning that if the love for money is all one is concerned about then all actions regardless of the consequences to others can be justified. Are we not seeing evidence of this today?

The Hindu Avatar, Krishna stated in the Bhagavad Gita – “A person with demoniac tendencies thinks: “So much wealth do I have today, and I will gain more according to my schemes. So much is mine now, and it will increase in the future, more and more”. Buddha said in the Samyutta Nikaya. – “Were there a mountain all made of gold, doubled that would not be enough to satisfy a single man: know this and live accordingly.”

In these passages and many others are references and warnings about the addiction to wealth, how it cannot be satiated, and how we can lose our compassion and the very essence of what makes us human when the desire for personal gain takes over.

Over the next few years the issues facing our society need to be realistically addressed, hopefully by people with the vision and courage to step beyond the selfish profit maximizing goals of today. Our critical systems have for to long only been driven and motivated by personal gain and ambition. Protecting profits and individual wealth is limiting our society’s ability to move beyond the unsustainable systems in our critical sectors. It may be time to assess our current form of capitalism as it applies to our critical sectors and realize that these sectors aren’t sustainable and need to be pulled back to their entrepreneurial roots.

In the next blog, the effects of the current systems in our critical sectors on the American people will be discussed.

There are four major economic sectors that are critical for the survival of a modern information age society. These sectors include: Monetary & banking system, energy production, healthcare, and food production /water distribution. It is also necessary to have a stable and reliable government to ensure appropriate legislation and regulation.

There are growing problems in these sectors and it is spilling into other sectors. If left unresolved these problems could have serious long-term consequences to the U.S. economy. Hindrances to their resolution consist of a growing lack of political will to deal with them and a significant resistance to change from those who seek to maintain the status quo and the profits and wealth it generates for them. These influential individuals and special interest groups constitute many of our nations largest Multi National Corporations (MNC’s) and wealthiest investors.

These large MNC’s and investor groups believe they have the expertise, resources, and global exposure necessary to ride out any scenario
and with their resources they could very well be right – but what about the other 99% of Americans?

Problems in our critical sectors will have to be dealt with sooner or later. If handled proactively, it will be possible to make the changes less painful. If continually postponed, they will have to be dealt with reactively and in a state of crisis. It is unfortunate that in our society critical issues are generally not addressed until they approach a crisis mode. The population is easily distracted by the various media outlets with the issues that are of lesser relevance but has more emotional impact.

Monetary & Banking Sector -  Problems in this sector begin with the U.S. centralized banking system and way it increases the money supply through government bonds and fractional reserve banking. Debt is inherent in the very nature centralized banking  and the accumulating interest is contributing in an exponential manner to the nation’s rising debt, which is currently $15.0 trillion, and 100% of GDP. What is significant here is that our rising debt means our international debtors, if they lose confidence in the U.S. ability to manage its debt & pay interest – they will purchase less of our debt instruments i.e. treasuries. The Federal Reserve or FED will then be forced to print more dollars to cover government spending – which will lower debtor confidence even more – thus creating a cycle.

The threat here is that this loss of confidence extends to the dollar – resulting in a devaluation of the dollar and consequently our treasury bills. This scenario can also give rise to inflation. Our international debtors hold approx 28% of the U.S. debt – purchasing has already slowed or stopped altogether in China, Russia, and some of the oil bearing countries.

What does this mean for the U.S. citizen – If the dollar becomes devalued the $1.5 T worth of goods the U.S. imports each year become more expensive. More expensive goods means inflation.

In addition to rising national debt is U.S. financial markets preference towards financialization, which primarily involves derivatives investing – derivatives tie up money which could be better spent in the real economy. There is $600T worth of derivatives worldwide, $433T are interest rate contracts and swaps ($223T in U.S.). Most of this amount is notional meaning thankfully it will never come due. The scenario here starts with the devaluation of the dollar and treasuries occurring from a loss in confidence; this then requires the FED to raise interest rates / treasury yields in order to continue attracting investors and results in interest rates going up as well. Consider what will happen if interest rates, which currently are being held low artificially by the FED, raise faster than expected and just a fraction of these interest rate contracts get called due.

The FED is using something called quantitative easing to keep interest rates low. Explained simply, the FED establishes very low short term interest rates, then prints more money. It uses that money (created from nothing) to buy government and corporate bonds from banks and other financial institutions so they have more money to invest. The problem here is that it can cause inflation if too much money gets flooded into the system and printing more dollars also devalues the dollar. This risk is compounded if the FED has to raise rates to attract investors. Note – There is also the assumption the banks and financial institutions will invest in main street (small and medium size business loans ) as opposed strictly to Wall Street financial investments, this has not and is not occurring at expected rates.

Think of interest rate contracts / swaps as hedges or as insurance policies against unexpected interest rate adjustments. Now consider our four main banks, they have over $188T of interest rate contracts on their books, any significant movement in interest rates could mean another “too big to fail” scenario. Requiring even more money be printed, once again lowering debtor confidence.

Energy –  Energy sector problems involve a combination of diminishing access to natural resources (i.e. fossil fuels), production capacities reaching their limits, costs of production increasing as diminishing resources become more difficult to extract, and
increasing global demand rapidly outpacing supply. Using oil as an example, production levels appear to have plateau at around 84,500,000 barrels per day which may be indicating a potential global peak oil scenario, while demand from developing countries in Asia is rapidly increasing to support their growing middle classes. These are only a few areas remaining in the world with untapped easy to access surface oil fields, the remaining untapped fields will require greater production costs and increasing amounts of energy (oil) for extraction and processing. Consider the difficulties and energy requirements for deep water drilling and oil sands / shale production.

As production capacities peaks and demand outpaces supply oil prices will rise. Oil price increases equate to inflation since all consumables have to travel hundreds of miles to get to their final destinations. Oil is also used extensively in manufacturing processes – which also contributes to higher prices at the base component level.

Renewable Energy as yet represents only a fraction of our supply(8%), and will require heavy infrastructure costs and better efficiencies to become a viable alternative. Biofuels that could be used to ease some the oil demand as yet represent only 3% of consumption. I’m a big fan of renewable energy – but it can at best supplement oil over the next decade. There is also a lack of political will to seriously push alternative fuels like cellulosic ethanol, algae based bio diesel, or high efficient batteries or capacitors for electric cars. All of which require significantly more research and infrastructure development costs, something we will have difficulty affording in the future.

Resistance is very strong and well organized in the fossil fuel energy sector driven multifaceted lobbying efforts and campaign contribution. These corporations stand to profit greatly from higher prices regardless if demand is met, but this attitude and the subsequent higher costs in gasoline and electrical bills is not going to help the rest of the economy or the American people.

Healthcare – Escalating healthcare costs in the Unites States are at $2.5 T and rising, that’s over $8000 per person. $2950 is the global average among the developed countries. Cost drivers include expensive advances in medical technology and associated new equipment, cumbersome administrative expenses, new generations of patented prescription drugs, and of course profit taking in every sector. The biggest expectation of future costs increases will come from aging baby boomers accompanied with growing rates of obesity and chronic disease.

Possibly the greatest costs driver is the pharmaceutical industry’s ongoing concentration on expensive patented long term drug treatments as opposed to actually providing cures, and the lack of any real interest in preventative care. In addition, almost all drugs have some level of toxicity which means that long term exposure generally results in another round of future disease requiring additional treatments. While this may represent a lucrative profit model for pharmaceutical companies it is the principle driver behind the rising healthcare costs of U.S. and if left on its current trajectory could potentially bankrupt the country. Powerful lobbying pressures ensure that there is little if any political will to address these rising costs.

Do U.S. citizens benefit from these rising costs? Consider that the U.S. ranks near the bottom of the 19 developed countries in Healthy life expectancy (HALE), The U.S. is dead last in the age-adjusted amenable mortality rate before age 75 category, which is a strong indicator of the effectiveness of treating disease. To make matters worse, the US appears to be slipping even further behind the other countries despite its increasing spending and being the most medicated of developed countries.

Food Production – Food production represents problems on a number of fronts.   The U.S. is better able to provide its population with readily available low cost food supply than at any time in history. This is possible due to very efficient large scale farming and the U.S. Farm bill which subsidizes the country’s primary crops – corn, soy, wheat, and rice. These crops can then be sold to food producers for less than costs of production. Food production companies then utilizes these four crops and a variety of cheap chemicals to create the majority of the food we enjoy today.  Unfortunately, in order to achieve the mass production efficiencies necessary to keep costs as low as possible these types of  food  are heavily refined and processed, thus loosing their original nutritional value. They are also laden with addictive levels of fats, salts, sugars and numerous chemically based additives.

Long term consumption of these food products is causing an obesity epidemic and contributing to chronic diseases.  Chronic disease such as heart disease, stroke, and cancer and obesity related diseases like diabetes have no real cures and currently require expensive and often long term treatment. This in turn contributes to rising health care costs.

Food production in the U.S. is becoming increasingly dependent on genetically modified crops (GMO). These crops usually consist of only one strain lacking the genetic diversity necessary for crop resiliency against disease. There are benefits to GMO’s which include pesticide resistance (GMO companies are generally chemical companies), rapid growth, drought resistance, and large visually attractive produce. However, they  have inferior nutritional value and there are growing concerns over long term health consequences. This has resulted in GMO crops being banned in a number of countries due to inadequate testing.  Over reliance on GMO crops and the foods produced from them could be another driver towards increasing healthcare costs. Over reliance on GMO crops and the foods produced from them could turn out to be another major factor raising  healthcare costs.

GMO crops also do not produce seeds that can be replanted, thus forcing farmers to purchase seeds yearly instead of saving their own. Farmers who do not purchase GMO seeds or do not use GMO crops are subject to lawsuits if there farms contain any GMO plants. A virtual certainty when considering that plants reproduce by their seeds traveling through the air via wind currents. In addition, if there is a disease that attacks and decimates the GMO crops there simply is not enough backup seed or diversity available to quickly recover. This could spell famine for many regions in the world dependent on U.S. GMO crops since indigenous farmers stopped producing since they cannot compete against cheap GMO imports.

Modern farming has also become heavily dependent on oil. Heavy machinery is used prolifically on all large scale farms. Mass production requires petroleum based fertilizers since it degrades the soil to the point crops will not grow otherwise.  Produce and food products travel hundreds of miles to grocery stores, so when oil prices go up, food prices do as well which increases inflation.

Freshwater scarcity represents another concern.  Our glaciers are diminishing, aquifer and lakes water tables and dropping. Our largest aquifers are not even replenishable by rain water. This will threaten farm productivity and limiting urban growth in many regions. It is being expedited world wide by increasing populations and may represent one of our most significant long term threats.

Government – The final area of concern is our lack of responsible government or what some would argue is legalized government corruption. This has resulted in an ongoing decline of moral values among our leadership. The process begins with well financed special interests led primarily by large banks / financial institutions, and MNC’s all of which are using lobbying to acquire and even write favorable legislation. It also includes campaign contributions that get officials elected who are beholden to their interests, especially those who sit in key subcommittee positions, the decision makers. The return these institutions receive is substantial, for every $1 of campaign contributions and / or investment in lobbying there is a yield of $1000 in favorable legislation, tax breaks, and subsidies.

This environment also creates a lack of fiscal responsibility regardless of which political party is in office as politicians become increasingly beholden to special interests. This is one of the principle reasons for the rampant deficit spending that is increasing the U.S. national debt. These actions further decrease global investor confidence in theU.S. ability to manage its debt.

There was large scale disapproval from our international debtors when 2011 budgetary projections went from $900B to $1.5T, the bulk of this increase went to extend the tax cuts. This occurred while Europe was and is currently taking on austerity measures to address its own debt. Without fiscal responsibility, an end of extensions for the Bush era tax cuts, and a cessation of combat duties in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya, CBO projections expect a debt level surpassing $20T by the end of the decade.

The abuses in lobbying combined with no limits on corporate campaign contributions are two of the primary reasons corrective actions to our problems are also so difficult.

All of these problems can be addressed effectively with the possible exception of water scarcity, which is very dependent on rising populations and changing weather patterns.

These factors also are interconnected and each contributes to the others. These issues need to be addressed as a whole in addition to their individual components.

In the next blog we will take a long honest look at the underlying cause of what is driving the scenarios in these critical sectors. Sectors essential for U.S. economic growth and maintaining the standard of life so many Americans have grown accustomed too. In a nut shell, these sectors are evolving into arenas concerned with only short term profit maximization, wealth generation, and ensuring that power and control of these systems remain in place regardless of the consequences. This emphasis is now disproportionately benefiting a small percentage of the population and it is happening at the expense of the overall country.

In the previous blog, A Call For The Transition To Renewable Energy  it was discussed that industrialized nations of the world will soon have to address that a world energy crisis driven by demand from developing countries is looming within the next 25 years. Fossil fuels alone will not be able to meet demand. The easier to extract surface sources are rapidly becoming exhausted requiring more difficult and environmentally damaging drilling and mining procedures that are both more time intensive and expensive. The increased costs of energy and potential shortages can create more geopolitical stresses between countries as they scramble to meet their energy demands. It is beyond time to ramp up existing renewable energy sources (biofuels, solar thermal, photovoltaics, wind, geothermal, tidal, and biomass) to supplement fossil fuels over the next 25 years while actively searching for long term, highly efficient energy systems to transition into beyond 2035.

The liquid fuel transportation sector is dominated by petroleum which is refined into gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. The transition process in this sector would involve escalating biofuels production in order to supplement future petroleum demand. Cellulosic ethanol can be economically derived from gasification processes and will represent the most cost effective and efficient production means of ethanol production. It also doesn’t compete against food crops, requires much less water, and can be attained from a multitude of carbon based sources including the unusable residue from crops, natural fast growing grasses and plants, disposable wood from logging, and even human waste. Increasing the additive rates of ethanol in gasoline up to E30 (30% ethanol / 70% gasoline) and providing government subsidies for fuel line conversions will contribute significantly to mitigating demand and reduce the chance of rampant  price increases due to regional gas shortages.

Diesel fuel necessary for commercial transportation (large trucks and ships) can also be supplemented by biofuels, in this case utilizing bio-algae, jatropha, and halophytes to create bio-diesel.  Microbial organisms can be used during the processing to increase yield and refinement efficiencies and reduce costs. Diesel blends up to B30 (30% biodiesel / 70% petroldiesel) can be attained without major modification in fuel lines. World governments can then provide similar subsides for fuel line conversions to trucking and shipping fleets. Jet fuel blends can be supplemented with bio-algae; the U.S. military and some commercial airlines have already taken keen interest and developed prototypes for this application.  The goal is to supplement petroleum based diesel and jet fuels with biodiesel which will mitigate demand and reduce the chance of price increases in commercial transportation which adversely affects consumer goods pricing and airline ticket prices.

In addition, supplementing petroleum based fuels should be done in unison with the generation of new hybrid (gasoline/battery) or completely battery based automobiles and light truck production over the next 25 years. Battery technology and high capacitance systems need to be elevated in importance and additional government funding for research and development put in place to provide economically viable batteries and ultra capacitors with greater yields and longer life capabilities. If necessary the patents held by the fossil fuel and aerospace defense industries need to be made available for public use instead of being put on ice as a potential threat of substitution to petroleum, or classified for military uses. Suitable battery technology may very well already exist but the public sector does not have access to it. Utilization of hybrid, battery, or high capacitance system will further reduce future demand for liquid petroleum fuels but will require increased demand in electricity production. Heavy trucks, trains, and ships used for commercial transportation require considerable power to move heavy loads. Battery and high capacitor systems are not currently able to provide adequate power to solely meet commercial transportation needs. They will be more reliant on hybrid systems and will require more energy from the biodiesel / petroldiesel blends than are required for cars and light trucks.

The unspoken and long term strategic goal of many developed countries appears to be to use up the petroleum resources of other countries while saving their own reserves for emergency or to sustain their countries liquid fuel needs decades from now.  This strategy needs to be scrapped and replaced with a new 25 year goal that includes drilling and refining the readily available global petroleum resources in combination with increases in cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel production, government subsidization for replacing fuel lines on existing personal and commercial vehicles,  and creating high efficiency hybrid, battery and high capacitance electric cars and light trucks for personal transportation, and hybrid biodiesel large trucks, trains and boats for commercial uses. Then by 2035, begin the process of transitioning into hydrogen fuel based transportation models for developed countries, while allowing undeveloped countries additional time to become petroleum independent. This means limiting expensive and risky deep water drilling rigs, shale extraction, and production of more oil refineries limited only to petroleum. All government subsidization for the petroleum sector should cease and be transferred to companies generating second (cellulosic ethanol), third (bioalgae), and fourth (high yield genetically modified plants combined with microbial catalysts) generation biofuels, and for the development of biofuel infrastructure. This would include refineries that can be utilized for both petroleum and biofuels.

Resistance from the very profitable petroleum sector will be considerable and OPEC nations will put up a strong fight even going so far as to temporarily drop oil prices in order to draw attention away from the need to transition to renewables and to save the petroleum industry’s future profitability. Excuses for why renewables are a panacea will flourish and will need to be set aside. Our next generation of automobiles may not run as fast, or have the same mileage capability, but they will be clean and reduce our reliance on a polluting fuel source that has created enough geo-political instabilities and wars already. This 100 year old technology is past its prime and the world is certainly capable of doing better. The reason fossil fuels have been held in place this long as our dominate source of energy is because of the massive profitability and wealth generation it provides for a small percentage of the world’s population and not for its current benefit to humanity.

The other half of the fossil fuel equation is electricity production which is provided by coal and natural gas. Electricity production actually requires more fossil fuels than the transportation sector and demand is projected to outpace petroleum and will be further increased by the need for hybrids, electric, and high capacitance vehicles all of which will draw additional power from the grid. The transition of this sector, over the next 25 years, should be a move towards the existing renewable energy sources of solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, tidal, geothermal, and biomass facilities. Biomass which uses carbon based refuse (forestry, crop, animal, and industrial) and wastes (sewage and municipal solid) will be the only source that requires commodity based replenishment that could be subject to price fluctuations, but this resource will be derived from throw away material.  The transition process itself can begin with the removal of coal and natural gas subsidies and strict limitations on future coal or natural gas power plant production. One such limitation could require no more coal fired plants built without adjacent bio-algae photo bioreactors for algae based biodiesel production and CO2 sequestration. Instead, funds could be allocated to infrastructure development of large solar thermal, geothermal, tidal and wind generation systems. Subsidies should also be provided to business and homeowners to put photovoltaic arrays on their premises.  If regional electricity service providers heavily vested in coal and natural gas production want to continue as public electricity providers they will need to be required to build an increasing number of energy facilities that are completely renewable in nature. Some renewable energy plants are more expensive to construct than traditional coal and natural gas facilities, certainly the case for large solar thermal operations. However, over the 25 year life span of the facility the infrastructure costs become offset within a few years since there are no ongoing requirements for expensive and environmentally damaging drilling, mining, refining, and distribution expenses associated with acquiring oil, coal, and natural gas.  Renewable energy power plants will be cheaper for developed and developing countries in the long run, providing clean energy, and not require purchasing or extracting fossil fuel commodities from potential hostile countries.

Synergies exist between complimentary renewable energy sources and with existing fossil fuel sources. Large megawatt solar thermal facilities can be designed to provide power for cities, or smaller solar thermal power plants can be utilized for neighborhood or suburb electricity generation.  Residential and commercial photovoltaic arrays with government subsidies to assist business and resident affordability can be utilized in conjunction with solar thermal (or other renewable energy sources) to help reduce the regions demand. Solar thermal, geothermal, and wind farms can share space with bio-algae photo bioreactors (PBR’s) to reduce land costs and reduce space requirements.  Biofuels can be generated from sewage, waste material, food crop residue, and wood residues creating fuel sources from material that would otherwise be burned or sent to landfills. Fast growing and drought resistant plants requiring little irrigation can be grown and harvested on lands unsuitable for crops and utilize husks, stovers, and other discardable material from traditional crop harvesting.  All existing coal fire and natural gas plants could have bio-algae PBR’s in place to absorb the CO2 that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere. In developed countries all new power plants should be renewable where possible and only natural gas if not. Coal plants should only be considered for poorer developing countries with large coal reserves.  

A new paradigm for worldwide renewable energy production can be implemented where profitability expectations are removed from future State owned and privately held renewable energy companies.  In countries with a private sector, existing renewable energy companies could be incentivized by their governments to switch to a strictly non-profit model. Another option is the creation of new private non-profit renewable energy companies with infrastructure development and scaling subsidies provided by their governments that would allow them to provide energy at lower costs to consumers and compete directly against for-profit renewable energy (and fossil fuel).  If full government subsidization is not possible then 0% infrastructure and scaling loans could be made available with repayment plans established that assure competitive energy pricing remains available to the public.  State owned energy companies with little incentive to eliminate their profit structure will still be able to provide energy indigenously and to the developing nations but in time will be hard press to remain competitive outside their own borders.

The goal of the non-profit renewable energy provider is to be able to produce and distribute electricity in the most efficient and low cost manner possible and to pass those savings onto their customers. It is also to provide energy sector jobs to replace those jobs lost from the fossil fuel industries.  Favorable government legislation and subsidization for private sector non-profits will be essential to ensure political barriers to entry are removed and to meet infrastructure costs and to develop economies of scale.  Subsidization can come from removing subsidies provided to very profitable oil, coal and natural gas companies and from tax revenues associated with providing clean energy. A non-profit model focused on efficiency and removing unnecessary expenses associated with pay for performance executive compensations, investor ROI expectations, profits for mining and drilling operations, costs related to exporting of fossil fuels, and short sighted profit maximizing decision making will be removed from the future energy equation.  I am not advocating government takeover of the western energy industry, but the establishment of true non-profit private companies in the free market economies. For already established state owned companies heavily vested in fossil fuels my hope is they will eventually operate under the same non-profit guidelines as they to transition towards renewable.  This should also decrease geo-political instability in certain regions of the world that use energy profits to sponsor terrorism or as funds to support military buildup and wars.

It is time for world governments especially those in developed countries with free market to start acting responsibly and considering its citizens. Energy is a basic requirement for all societies and the world has been limited to technology and policies that are outdated and no longer in its best interests. The question of how to pay for the transition to renewable energy is legitimate. Whether governments should increase taxes or use existing tax dollars to subsidize renewable energy infrastructure and provide assistance for companies to scale up production will be debate and heavily resisted from many channels. Interestingly enough, funding didn’t appear to difficult to acquire when it was necessary for bailing out irresponsible financial companies or providing massive subsidies to the ridiculously profitable fossil fuel industry. Fossil fuel based companies know they will eventually have to venture into the renewable market as oil, coal, and natural gas become to scarce or expensive. Why should the world wait until governments are near financial collapse due to high energy costs affecting nearly every sector of their economies, or countries are on the brink of war due to scarcity and conflicts over meeting demand?

Prior to 2035, world governments, academia, and even private sector labs should have been be utilized to search out the most promising energy sources with the greatest efficiencies that will meet the world’s long term energy needs. The push should be to develop free or extremely low cost energy systems such as fusion or kinetic systems for electricity production, and a hydrogen based fuel source for vehicles. We must begin this researching process and planning for this process now.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/highlights.html

How is it that our scientists and technologies have created exponential growth in computing, super colliders, nano-technology, particle weaponry, world-wide satellite coverage, etc. and yet for energy production we are limiting ourselves to a polluting, 100+ year old technology that creates geo-political instability around the world and has most recently become subject to the whims of commodities traders?

Industrialized nations of the world will soon have to address that a world energy crisis driven by demand from developing countries is looming within the next 25 years. The bulk of the energy industry’s production motives which are dominated by fossil fuels and its obsession with profitability are not going to provide the solution for our upcoming energy problems. World energy producers have become very efficient at extracting, processing, refining, and distributing petroleum for transportation liquid fuels, and coal / natural gas for electricity production. However, production will not be able to keep pace with the growing world wide demand expected to rise almost 50% by 2035, much of that coming from the developing countries of China, India and in Southeast Asia. This is not a matter of peak oil or how much fossil fuel remains in the ground, but an issue of simple supply versus demand.

Fossil fuels have served our world’s growing energy needs extremely well, despite the fact that oil and coal use has been around since the turn of the 20^th century, but we are fast approaching the limits in improvements that can be expected from production capabilities. In addition, the easier to extract surface fossil fuel sources are rapidly becoming exhausted requiring more difficult and environmentally damaging drilling and mining procedures that are both more time intensive and expensive. The increased costs will be passed on to end users and when combined with potential shortages will create stresses between countries scrambling to meet their own energy demands,  this may even include going to war to guarantee energy  stability. This scenario can be further complicated by fossil fuel commodities traders who take advantage of regional problems to run up prices. This is an excellent formula for State owned or privately held oil companies interested in ensuring ongoing profits for decades, but not for the rest of the world.

There is also the matter that the regions containing fossil fuels are not only proving to be environmentally difficult to work in but geo-politically hostile as well. Many countries rich in fossil fuels (ie. Middle East and African countries) also divert funds to groups and organizations that sponsor regional unrest and acts of terrorism or can use earnings to build up military capacity and develop weapons of mass destruction.

We are fast running out of time to seriously implement existing renewable energy sources (biofuels, solar thermal, photovoltaics, wind, geothermal, tidal, and biomass) as a supplement to fossil fuels over the next 25 years while actively searching for long term, highly efficient energy systems to transition into beyond 2035. The industrialized countries of the world and their private or state owned energy companies are going to have to set aside their fossil fuel based profitability expectations for energy production and begin thinking in terms of transitioning. This will not be done willingly, these companies and their holdings represent significant infrastructure investments and they are cash cows, in many cases representing the only significant source of income for the region. In countries with capitalism based economies the lobbying stranglehold the fossil fuel industry holds over energy legislation will need to be removed, and campaign contributions that help elect sympathetic representatives curtailed if there is to be any significant infrastructure support from those governments.

This process will have to be driven from the free market economies since State owned companies with large oil reserves will have little incentive to transition on their own since they can meet their domestic demand, and fossil fuels represents a substantial income source for the country and they will profit off of the projected 84% expected increase in demand from developing countries over the next 25 years. This sharp increase in demand will be buffered by developing countries themselves as S. America, China and India are currently taking their own measures to implement renewable energy sources realizing their own vulnerabilities. Even if these developing countries begin the transition process to renewable energy sources, State owned companies will be needed to fill the remaining projected demand. Privately held companies in the U.S., Canada and Europe can then be utilized to meet remaining 16% growth expectation from the developed countries with fossil fuels and renewables.

Existing renewable energy processes need to become more efficient and costs brought down through economies of scale. The purpose for expansion of these renewable sources is to increasingly supplement fossil fuels over the next 25 years.  This must become mandated. In addition, new technologies and system improvements investigated and existing patents that have been shelved to protect fossil fuels from competition should be re-evaluated. Their feasibility and economic viability analyzed, and those with satisfactory efficiencies implemented. World governments cannot immediately dump existing fossil fuel systems since renewable capacity falls far short of meeting demand. In addition, current levels of debt among industrialized countries are already to burdensome due to the irresponsible behaviors of governments and their financial leaders to sufficiently generate new infrastructure in a timely enough manner. We can however begin to aggressively supplement fossil fuels consumption with renewable energy sources in the industrialized worlds. This will allow the poorer developing countries to continue to use predominately fossil fuel sources while they implement renewable energy infrastructure themselves. This may require years of transitioning so it must begin now.

World energy demand can become as significant an issue as the 2008 world wide collapse of the financial markets and generate long term recessions. I would like to emphasize this point once again; regardless of how world fossil fuel producers try to ramp up production they cannot meet global demand. For the transition period over the next 25 years we must utilize all sources of energy and start the process of relinquishing the political stranglehold that the fossil fuel industry holds in the political arenas.

By 2035 renewable energy sources should play significant role supplementing fossil fuels and contributing towards global demand. During this transition period research and development initiatives from world government’s, academia’s, and even government funded and private sector laboratories’ should be utilized to search for new energy sources and refine existing systems for still greater efficiencies. Possibilities for new energy systems include hydrogen, advance fuel cells, new battery or high efficiency capacitors for transportation requirements, and fusion reactors and kinetic energy systems combined with advancements in solar, geothermal, wind and tidal power for electricity generation. 

The goal after 2035 is not to supplement fossil fuels but replace them. The motivation to look for energy systems that provide ongoing streams of company profits and investor return will have to be put aside and a new generation of non-profit energy providers created. Profit maximization will then be replaced with production efficiency and providing free or extremely low cost energy to end users. Research for these next generations of renewable energy systems must begin now with long term plans designed for the transition.

My next blog will discuss procedures necessary to implement the transition process to renewable energy sources in both the transportation and electricity production sectors.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/highlights.html

In my last blog Take Responsibility for Your Health – Foods to Avoid, I mentioned how the U.S. healthcare system may attempt within the next decade to begin to tier coverage based on age, obesity related diseases, and individuals with chronic illnesses, all in an attempt to curb escalating healthcare costs. Provisions to the Healthcare Reform Act could be enacted over the next 10 years that would target and limit coverage to individuals who display behavioral health patterns that result in otherwise preventable chronic and terminal diseases. These provisions may even target citizens after they reach a certain age if they are determined to no longer be a viable, contributing member to society.

If you think this sounds far fetched consider the recently enacted Executive Order  — Establishing the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council. This council shall have the power to:

(a) provide coordination and leadership at the Federal level, and among all executive departments and agencies, with respect to prevention, wellness, and health promotion practices, the public health system, and integrative health care in the United States;

(b) develop, after obtaining input from relevant stakeholders, a national prevention, health promotion, public health, and integrative health-care strategy that incorporates the most effective and achievable means of improving the health status of Americans and reducing the incidence of preventable illness and disability in the United States, as further described in section 5 of this order;

(c) provide recommendations to the President and the Congress concerning the most pressing health issues confronting the United States and changes in Federal policy to achieve national wellness, health promotion, and public health goals, including the reduction of tobacco use, sedentary behavior, and poor nutrition;

(d) consider and propose evidence-based models, policies, and innovative approaches for the promotion of transformative models of prevention, integrative health, and public health on individual and community levels across the United States;

(e) establish processes for continual public input, including input from State, regional, and local leadership communities and other relevant stakeholders, including Indian tribes and tribal organizations;

(f) submit the reports required by section 6 of this order; and

(g) carry out such other activities as are determined appropriate by the President.

The administration and congress both know that continued rampant increases in healthcare costs can threaten the stability of our future economy. The majority of baby boomers will be in retirement by 2020 requiring more hospitalization and treatments for multiple complex conditions. Costs associated with obesity related diseases are projected to rise to $344 billion a year by 2018, a five fold increase. Chronic disease is currently responsible for 7 out of 10 deaths in America. Heart attack, cancer, and stroke which represent the three main chronic diseases kill at least 50% of Americans, and both figures are expected to increase over the next 10 years. Both obesity and chronic disease are largely prevented by behavioral lifestyle changes which include exercise, smoking cessation, decrease alcohol use, and proper diet and nutrition.

If we don’t take responsibility for ourselves and change our lifestyles, the government may step in with what could be a European style of socialized medicine in conjunction with a system of monitoring and data collection regarding our health histories and try to do it for us, or they could simply tier the healthcare coverage in order to limit what is available for those that don’t meet the standards.

Of the behavioral lifestyle changes perhaps the most important is eating healthy. Unfortunately, that means moving away from an American diet. The bulk of U.S. manufactured foods are saturated in addictive levels of fats, sugars, and salts and contain complex preservatives and additives some of which have been found to block receptors that tell us we are full and that have additional addictive qualities themselves. Basically if the food comes in a box, can, plastic bag, or similar such container it is probably processed and refined multiple times and is generally very good at making people fat and food companies profitable. Below is a list of foods we should eat that are healthy.

If possible all the following vegetables and fruits should be organic, free of pesticides and not genetically modified. Seek out farmers markets if available.

Alkaline products are also listed – ideal diet is between 60 – 70% alkaline vs. 25 – 40% acidic.

Vegetables – all vegetables are alkaline unless otherwise noted acidic

* Eat in moderation – no more than 2 to 3 times per week.  MUST be organic.

Fruits – all fruits are alkaline unless otherwise noted acidic

* Certain individuals may want to regulate consumption due to allergic reactions and acid nature of citrus fruits to the stomach.

Meats and Poultry – Type O blood types may require meat and poultry

*   Eat in moderation – no more than 2 to 3 times per week.

** Eat in moderation – no more than 1 to 2 times per week. 

Dairy Products

Grain Products

Seeds and Nuts

Spices

Cooking oils

Other

Water is also critical, proper hydration is essential to health and almost every bodily function. Find bottled water from reputable natural spring sources or drink filtered water via UV or Osmosis systems. Consumption for the average person should be at least 8 8oz glasses per day.

Understanding PH levels and what foods cause the body to be acidic versus alkaline is very important. Think of a Ph level below 7.0 as acidic and a breeding ground for bacteria and disease. A slightly alkaline ph level of 7.35 – 7.45 is considered ideal for optimum health. Go to the link Alkaline and Acid Forming Foods for more information.

A minimum of 12 minutes per day of continuous exercise six times per week provides optimum health benefits. The exercise does not have to be strenuous but should increase the heart and respiratory rate. Benefits of exercise include helping keep weight off, combat chronic illnesses, boost energy levels, assist in deeper more restful sleep,  muscle strengthening, bone density, improve moods, and excellent reliever of stress. A sedentary lifestyle can defeat many of benefits of eating healthy so please exercise.

Use pharmaceutical drugs sparingly. They are of immense value in many situations but long term exposure can be toxic especially when drugs are combined. This can lead down a spiral of diminished health as more and more drug treatments become necessary to battle problems created by adverse conditions associated with the drugs themselves. As you begin to take better care of your health through proper nutrition, hydration, and exercise you will discover a diminishing need for drug treatments. There are many countries with a population that has better health than we do in the U.S. and they take a fraction of the pharmaceuticals we do.

If you smoke, STOP SMOKING. If you take illegal drugs (including prescriptions), stop taking drugs. If you consume to much alcohol, stop or at least limit consumption. There are no excuses here.

Eating as mentioned above is difficult. It will require a considerable amount of time just to locate healthy variety of foods. You must be aware of labeling tricks food manufacturers use. Your diet will change drastically requiring you to actually cook and learn new recipes. You may experience withdrawals and serious cravings for all the good tasting junk you were used to eating. You must be vigilant because the health benefit payoffs are incredible and will provide you a good quality of life well into your elderly years. In addition, if the future healthcare system does become tiered you will be healthy and not at the mercy of a system more concerned with controlling costs.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-establishing-national-prevention-health-promotion-and-public-health

http://www.naturalnews.com/027868_obesity_health_care_costs.html

http://www.aha.org/aha/press-release/2007/070508-pr-boomers.html

http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/overview/index.htm

http://www.ariseandshine.com/Cleanse28Guide.pdf

http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/05/07/20/the-6-most-unhealthy-foods-you-should-avoid-at-all-costs.htm

http://www.basic-keys-to-natural-health.com/Unhealthy-Foods.html

http://www.pureliquidgold.com/acid-alkaline-forming-foods.htm

http://www.rense.com/1.mpicons/acidalka.htm

Baby boomers and individuals with chronic illness or obesity related diseases, even those experiencing these conditions who are in their 40’s please take heed. The U.S. healthcare system of the near future may begin to tier coverage based on age, history of chronic illnesses, and obesity levels in an effort to curb escalating costs. This can be accomplished by providing satisfactory levels of coverage to the public but limiting coverage for the more expensive treatments associated with obesity related diseases, chronic illness, and the those experienced by the elderly.

If you want a good quality of life into your 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s going to your doctor and being treated with drugs for years is not the answer. Save drugs for emergencies, they are of incredible value for curing infections, certain cancers, and a host of other diseases. They are also very valuable as an intermediate treatment method to help avoid or survive a life threatening occurrence such as a heart attack.

However, long term exposure to pharmaceutical drugs and especially when multiple drugs are used in conjunction creates its own problems. Drugs are generally toxic to the system and different drugs have been found to have adverse reactions to one another. This leads to further illness requiring more drugs, a good deal for big pharmaceutical companies but a dangerous downward spiral for your health.

Too many people in our society look to their medical professionals for the quick fix (a pill) to their ailments or if things get out of control they will accept more drastic solutions out of necessity like surgery or more complex treatments (i.e. cancer treatments).  Then more drugs and a return to their lifestyle that created the problems to begin with.

This is not the solution! Our healthcare costs are expected to rise significantly over the next decade. Large numbers of retiring baby boomers and a massive increase of obesity related illnesses will continue to drive costs up. Some form of European socialized healthcare may be implemented to reign in rampant corporate profit maximization and other related costs. But under this type of healthcare, coverage will suffer for those who are the greatest burden on the system.

The only real long term solution available to us is to change our lifestyles, and this means first and foremost the way we eat. US food manufacturers are producing foods that refined and processed with decreasing nutritional value and saturated with addictive levels of salts, sugars, fats, simple carbohydrates, and a myriad of preservatives and additives. If it comes in a box, package, can, plastic bag (frozen foods), etc. it is probably unhealthy. That means we must get used to reading labels and understanding what they mean. Below is a preliminary list of foods to avoid.

For a complete list of foods to avoid please visit any of the first three links listed below

Eliminate or at least reduce microwave use. AC microwaves alter many of the minerals, vitamins, and nutrients and the body cannot absorb these altered compounds. Eating micro waved food for long periods can cause immune system deficiencies, memory loss, lowered concentration, emotional instability, and can even decrease intelligence.

Avoiding the aforementioned foods can be difficult. They have become the foundations of our American diets, and are almost unavoidable in our grocery stores and restaurants. Many of the additive and preservative compounds are difficult to find on labels hidden behind terms like artificial or natural flavors and contains no preservatives. There are also misleading connotations like “fat free” but then the food is saturated with sugars, or “sugar free” but contain potentially more harmful artificial sweeteners. Finally, and I speak from my own personal experience, many of these foods, especially those that taste the best or are American staples are considerably addictive. This statement is being supported by research being currently conducted at a number of universities.  One doesn’t realize how addictive until they try to stop eating them. I had considerable difficult weaning myself off fast foods and processed packaged food, and salty snacks and caffeine have proven near impossible.

Exercise is the second half of the equation and absolutely critical. A minimum of 12 minutes per day of continuous exercise provides numerous health benefits. The exercise does not have to be strenuous but should increase the heart and respiratory rate. Exercise at least five or six time week if possible. Benefits of exercise include helping keep weight off, combat chronic illnesses, boost energy levels, assist in deeper more restful sleep,  muscle strengthening, bone density, improve moods, and excellent reliever of stress. Humans have engaged in varying degrees of exercise throughout their existence, it has only been over the past half century that many have become as sedentary.

Finally is you smoke, STOP SMOKING PERIOD.

http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/05/07/20/the-6-most-unhealthy-foods-you-should-avoid-at-all-costs.htm

http://www.basic-keys-to-natural-health.com/Unhealthy-Foods.html

http://www.ariseandshine.com/Cleanse28Guide.pdf

http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/benefits-of-exercise

http://www.encognitive.com/node/4093

The U.S. healthcare system is currently the last remaining privatized healthcare system in the industrialized world. There is a strong possibility this will change over the course of the next 5 to 10 years. The new healthcare plan passed by the Obama administration is the first of many stages that could, over the next decade, lead us down the road to socialized or universal medicine. This is a similar path that many European countries followed along the way to creating a complete socialized medical system.  Many of these countries plans were initially met with strong public resistance but the end result was a socialized medical system.

This may not be as drastic a transition for the U.S. as one might think; we already have active programs of socialized or universal medicine, Medicare, Medicaid, and the U.S. military’s Tricare.  The U.S. Medicare system was the basis for the country of Taiwan’s recently redesigned socialized medicine health care system. Over the next decade U.S. citizens could see incremental legislative corrections to the new health care reform bill. These corrections could also result in a further expansion of Medicaid and Medicare and possibly the combining of both programs into one nationalized health care insurance program with a streamlined electronic billing process.  Taxes will likely have to be increased to help fund this. Existing for-profit healthcare insurers may find themselves competing against the new Medicaid system and may be downgraded to providing secondary insurance coverage. New legislation for price controls for medical supplies, medical equipment and pharmaceuticals can be expected by the end of the decade (2020). Medical procedure costs i.e. heart transplants, surgeries, cancer treatments, etc. could see rigid price controls with limitations on who will qualify for access.

These measures are expected to decrease healthcare costs for a large section of the population but if implemented will drastically change the corporate landscape of healthcare reducing profitability among a number of health care sectors. Regardless of ones political philosophies what almost every health care economist and the bulk of our lawmakers already know is that the system we had prior to the healthcare reform was unsustainable. The massive numbers of retiring baby boomers and the near exponential increase of obesity related health issues could overburden the old system within 10 to 20 years. Something had to be done to curb the increasing costs and profit taking at every sector before the system completely collapsed further damaging what is likely to be an already fragile economy.

Lawmakers believe that by being proactive there is a chance to stem costs and provide as much service as is financially possible to the majority of the population. Unfortunately, if you are over 75 or whatever the determined cutoff age is you may no longer be considered a viable contributor to society, therefore your tier of service will begin to decrease compared to the rest of the population. Another possibility would be to limit expensive healthcare programs and treatments associated with aging from the overall plan offered to the public. There will still be the option of purchasing what will certainly be very private supplementary insurance.

The US currently spends the most on healthcare of any nation on Earth and even with a social system the costs will remain high. It is the most medicated country in the world while having the highest mortality rate among preventable terminal illnesses. In addition, obesity rates due to poor diets consisting of refined processed foods saturated in fats, salts, sugars, and simple carbohydrates are the highest of any of the industrial nations and the primary cause of the US overall poor health.

Baby boomers of retirement age and those in their middle years are going to have to realize that their healthcare coverage into their 70’s may not be able to meet their needs. With limiting medical resources available and healthcare designed around providing drug treatments as opposed to preventive practices and cures, those in high risk tiers are going to need a different approach.

The future of US healthcare may eventually evolve into something similar to today’s European socialized medicine. The U.S. population should start taking responsibility for their health and change their lifestyles if they want to live into their 70’s and 80’s with any kind of quality of life. This means eating healthy and abandoning our unhealthy American food preferences, instead begin eating like our grandparents did, exercising at least 15 – 30 minutes per day (continuous movement), and weaning ourselves off of multiple drug treatments and their long term toxic effects and towards preventive measures and more natural remedies where applicable. Catastrophic health care costs associated with heart disease, cancer treatments, etc. may not be readily available once individuals reach the determined cut off age, if this becomes the case we will have to rely on our own ability to stay healthy.

The next series of blogs will discuss the options and difficulties of eating healthy in the U.S.

The U.S. healthcare system is currently the last remaining privatized healthcare system in the industrialized world. There is a strong possibility this will change over the course of the next 5 to 10 years. The new healthcare plan passed by the Obama administration is the first of many stages that could, over the next decade, lead us down the road to socialized medicine. This is a similar path that many European countries followed along the way to creating a complete socialized medical system.  Many of these countries plans were initially met with strong public resistance but the end result was a socialized medical system.

This may not be as drastic a transition for the U.S. as one might think; we already have active programs of socialized medicine, Medicare, Medicaid, and the U.S. military’s Tricare.  The U.S. Medicare system was the basis for the country of Taiwan’s recently redesigned socialized medicine health care system. Over the next decade U.S. citizens could see incremental legislative corrections to the new health care reform bill. These corrections could also result in a further expansion of Medicaid and Medicare and possibly the combining of both programs into one nationalized health care insurance program with a streamlined electronic billing process.  Taxes will likely have to be increased to help fund this. Existing for-profit healthcare insurers may find themselves competing against the new Medicaid system and may be downgraded to providing secondary insurance coverage. New legislation for price controls for medical supplies, medical equipment and pharmaceuticals can be expected by the end of the decade (2020). Medical procedure costs i.e. heart transplants, surgeries, cancer treatments, etc. could see rigid price controls with limitations on who will qualify for access.

These measures are expected to decrease healthcare costs for a large section of the population but if implemented will drastically change the corporate landscape of healthcare reducing profitability among a number of health care sectors. Regardless of ones political philosophies what almost every health care economist and the bulk of our lawmakers already know is that the system we had prior to the healthcare reform was unsustainable. The massive numbers of retiring baby boomers and the near exponential increase of obesity related health issues could overburden the old system within 10 to 20 years. Something had to be done to curb the increasing costs and profit taking at every sector before the system completely collapsed further damaging what is likely to be an already fragile economy.

Lawmakers believe that by being proactive there is a chance to stem costs and provide as much service as is financially possible to the majority of the population. Unfortunately, if you are over 75 or whatever the determined cutoff age is you may no longer be considered a viable contributor to society, therefore your tier of service will begin to decrease compared to the rest of the population. Another possibility would be to limit expensive healthcare programs and treatments associated with aging from the overall plan offered to the public. There will still be the option of purchasing what will certainly be very private supplementary insurance.

The US currently spends the most on healthcare of any nation on Earth and even with a social system the costs will remain high. It is the most medicated country in the world while having the highest mortality rate among preventable terminal illnesses. In addition, obesity rates due to poor diets consisting of refined processed foods saturated in fats, salts, sugars, and simple carbohydrates are the highest of any of the industrial nations and the primary cause of the US overall poor health.

Baby boomers of retirement age and those in their middle years are going to have to realize that their healthcare coverage into their 70’s may not be able to meet their needs. With limiting medical resources available and healthcare designed around providing drug treatments as opposed to preventive practices and cures, those in high risk tiers are going to need a different approach.

The future of US healthcare may eventually evolve into something similar to today’s European socialized medicine. The U.S. population should start taking responsibility for their health and change their lifestyles if they want to live into their 70’s and 80’s with any kind of quality of life. This means eating healthy and abandoning our unhealthy American food preferences, instead begin eating like our grandparents did, exercising at least 15 – 30 minutes per day (continuous movement), and weaning ourselves off of multiple drug treatments and their long term toxic effects and towards preventive measures and more natural remedies where applicable. Catastrophic health care costs associated with heart disease, cancer treatments, etc. may not be readily available once individuals reach the determined cut off age, if this becomes the case we will have to rely on our own ability to stay healthy.

The next series of blogs will discuss the options and difficulties of eating healthy in the U.S.

Solar thermal may represent a viable way to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, but what will the cost be to implement the required infrastructure for the power facilities and grid connections, some of which may be required in isolated areas?

The U.S. produced 4,119,388,000 megawatts and consumed approximately 3,978,000,000 megawatts of electricity in 2008.  Production of electricity breaks down as follows:

• 1445 Coal generation plants represented 48.2% of electricity production providing 1,985,801,000 megawatts.
• 3768 Natural gas processing plants represented 21.4% of electricity production providing 882,891,000 megawatts.
• 104 Nuclear power plants represented 19.6% of production of electricity production providing 806,208,000 Megawatts.
• 3966 hydro electric plants represented 6% of production of electricity production providing 254,351,000 megawatts.
• 2576 Renewable energy plants represented 3% of electricity production providing 126,212,000 megawatts.  (Renewable sources included biomass, wind, wood derived, geothermal, and solar thermal / photovoltaic)
• 3768 petroleum power plants represented 1% of electricity and 46,243,000 megawatts.
• Other gases and their power facilities represented .25% of electricity production providing 11,707,000 megawatts.

Solar thermal even when combined with photovoltaics produces less than 1/20^th of one percent of U.S. electricity production.

Solar thermal energy (STE) systems utilize high temperature collectors that reflect concentrated sunlight collected from mirrors or lenses. The resulting solar radiation (heat) is focused to specific collection points. A liquid medium is passed through collection points where it is heated. This heated fluid can be used to produce steam necessary to drive a turbine used to produce electricity.

Most of the electricity today is still provided by steam turbines. STE systems are no exception. Traditional steam turbines have efficiencies approaching 40% with temperature conversions below 600 degrees. Above 600 degrees gas turbines can be utilized with even better efficiencies, but the highest temperature conversions are possible with liquid fluoride salts, molten salts, or synthetic oils and are approaching 800 degrees providing up to 50% efficiencies.

There are a number of STE design systems. Parabolic trough designs are currently the most common type  utilizing curved mirrors to reflect solar radiation into a pipe which contains the fluid and runs the length of the trough usually just above the collectors. Other designs include Power Tower designs or heliostat designs have arrays of flattened movable mirrors that focus solar radiation on a collection tower.  Dish systems implements a large parabolic dish that focuses sunlight on a collector positioned just above the dish. Linear Fresnel reflector designs use a series of slightly curved mirrors to focus light onto linear receivers located just above the mirrors.

STE plants need to be able to produce electricity in overcast conditions and in periods of darkness. This is possible via thermal storage mediums which store heat in an underground basin for later use. These mediums include molten salt storage commonly called saltpeter, graphite heat storage which use purified graphite, and organic or inorganic phase change materials.

There are a variety of proposed plants set for construction in the next few years. The world’s largest single planned solar thermal plant, a 340 MW facility, will be started in Arizona by the end of 2010. It will utilize parabolic trough design reflecting concentrated sunlight to a narrow tube containing synthetic oil that will be heated to 800 degrees before being pumped back to a central power block where steam will be produced to drive a turbine.

Molten salt will be the storage medium that will be heated and stored for night time use; allowing the facility to continue generating power when the sun is not shining. This will also help reduce water requirements in the arid desert environment.

A 340MW power plant regardless of type (coal, natural gas, hydro-electric, or solar) could in optimum conditions produce 340 x 24 x 365= 2,978,000 MW per year of electricity. This is contingent on the power plant running 24 hours per day, all year, without down time. For the proposed Arizona plant it means the heat retained in the molten salt must provide the same levels of steam for electricity generation in periods without direct sunlight as the heated synthetic oil during daylight hours.

The cost of comparable coal fired power plant can easily exceed one billion dollars while similar natural gas plants are pushing 700 Million. Costs for both types of power plants have been increasing significantly over the past decade.

If the United States were to be solely converted to solar thermal it would require 1383 of the 340MW plants schedule for construction in Arizona. Those STE systems would cost approximately $2.76 trillion dollars at current levels and require years to build.  Building the power plants would not be the only expenditure involved, electrical grid infrastructure will be necessary to connect the facilities to end users since most of the facilities may be in the  isolated areas of the southwest. Above ground power lines run approximately $10 per foot and up to 10 to 15 times that amount is buried.

This cost might seem ridiculous initially and from a short term position it probably is.  However, projected over 25 years the costs to build coal fired or natural gas plants are projected to continue to rise substantially while solar thermal facilities have yet to enjoy lower construction costs associated with the mass production of components. In addition operation costs for coal and natural gas are projected to increase further reducing the initial infrastructure costs.  STE designs will require ongoing maintenance and repairs as with all forms of power plants maintenance but will not require ongoing exploration costs, mining / drilling expenditures, and require distribution networks / pipelines to move the raw material to processing facilities.  These additional costs over time will overshadow initial infrastructure savings.

STE is also a completely clean source of energy releasing no pollutants and has a net zero carbon footprint. Coal and natural gas release considerable amounts of CO2 and a number of pollutants. Energy demand in the U.S. and especially worldwide will continue to grow and the more traditional fossil fuel plants built will contribute ever increasing amounts of greenhouse gases and pollutants.

The U.S. has other renewable non polluting options available so a 100% conversion will not be necessary. Combinations of renewable systems such as STE’s combined with bio-algae photobioreactors can be used in the same isolated areas and in close proximity, reducing land costs and the expense of running electrical power lines to separate facilities. Smaller STE plants can be positioned close to urban areas allocating power to sections of a city or suburbs.

STE may be initially expensive but remains one of the few truly clean power supply’s available.  Its current infrastructure development costs are on par with nuclear power plants but without the nuclear radiation storage issues or having to purchase uranium from volatile countries. These prices, as previously mentioned, will drop as more cost efficient technology and mass production takes hold. Once the facilities are built they will provide clean power for decades with only maintenance costs. If we cease building fossil fuel and nuclear power plants in favor of STE’s, geothermal, wind, and tidal facilities and start to slowly phase out older fossil fuel plants the U.S. can begin a slow but deliberate move towards sustainable energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/03/why-dont-we-bury-more-power-lines

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/solarthermal/solarthermal.html

http://news.cnet.com/Shrinking-the-cost-for-solar-power/2100-11392_3-6182947.html

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/05/13/worlds-largest-solar-thermal-plant-340mw-planned-for-arizona/

Obesity in the United States is increasing at an alarming rate. In 1985 17% of the population was considered obese, that figure has risen to over 34% in 2009. Obesity is measured as having a body mass index (BMI) of 30 and above for adults. It is also responsible for almost $80 billion dollars in health care costs, which is 9% of our overall spending. These figures are expected to increase within 10 years to $344 billion and over 21% of health care spending. This means all but 6 states will be at least 50% obese. Obesity will become one of the leading drivers of our overall health care expenses. It is one of the primary causes of diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and contributes to more than 50 other diseases/illnesses.

Obesity is not affecting adults only; it is having a significant impact on our children. The CDC has collected data which illustrates the increases in the prevalence of obesity over the past 30 years for the following age groups: in 2-5 yr olds from 5% to 12%, in 6-11 yr olds from 6.5% to 17%, and in 12-19 yr olds from 5% to 17.6%. There is also an 80% chance that those children and adolescents will remain obese into adulthood.

Physicians and other health officials cite the primary reasons for increased obesity rates are poor eating habits.  These habits consist of the type of foods that are consumed, which include unhealthy processed and refined prepackaged foods, and fast food / restaurant food. A second habit is the increase in portion sizes consumed, including the ongoing consumption of super size meals at fast food establishments, eating at restaurants (especially chain restaurants) that serve larger portions, and purchasing prepackaged foods and not observing recommended allowance guidelines. In essence, we have become trained to expect and consume meals that have larger portions than meals contained 20 years ago. Finally, our snacks of choice between meals and after dinner tend to lean towards junk food and soft drinks. The end result is we are not only consuming more calories, we are consuming higher levels of addictive fats, sugars, and salts plus large quantities of calories and simple carbohydrates.

At the same time, our overall physical activity levels have decreased. We spend more time in front of a T.V. or on our computers, basically we are sitting which also tends to provide an opportunity for more snacking. We evolved under conditions which required physical activity in order to survive. We are genetically programmed to store energy for lean times. Our food manufacturers and fast food chains understand this and provide large portions of cheap processed foods. In addition, three compounds: fats, sugars and salts, have always been rare in our evolutionary pathways and very coveted so they (food manufactures, et al) laden the foods with addictive levels of these as well.

Eating well, that is healthier food, will cost you approximately 17% to 19% more. For most families this is not an option and the higher obesity rates in lower and lowers to middle income families bear this out. Interestingly enough, higher incomes and individuals with higher education levels tend to eat the healthiest not only because they can afford it, they are more health conscious. The problem for lower income families is they have to stretch their dollar further and therefore have to buy the more economical, prepackaged and processed food.

What it comes down to is profits for food growers and manufactures in many cases being one in the same. The farm bill subsidizes cheap commodity crops, which are then sold at a discount (in many cases less than the cost of production) to food manufacturers, the foods and associated compounds made from these crops are then mass produced into cheap refined and processed high in fats, sugars, salts, and additives. This in turn contributes to the increasing obesity rates. So, not only are we left with unhealthy food choices we are going to get stuck with the higher health care costs associated with obesity. When do we say, enough is enough? We are subsidizing the crops, getting poor food quality for our subsidization, the end product makes us unhealthy and fat, thereby making us pay more for health care and lowering our quality of life and productivity.

To eat healthy and wholesome meals should NEVER cost more than to eat food that is essentially harmful to our health. What can be done about this?

Potential solutions:

• Physical activity: reinstate physical education in schools and create a public exercise awareness program
• Set portion size limits on chain restaurant and fast food franchises, remove super sizing options. Restaurants can then reduce the price to the customer for the smaller portions
• Re-design the farm bill to stop subsidizing only the commodity based food production of corn, soy bean, wheat, and rice and instead subsidize a variety of health oriented foods to decrease price and increase availability for all income levels
• Regulate the amount of addictive salts, sugars, and fats that go into foods under the guise of meeting consumer taste preferences
• Create independent private or public laboratories to test for addictive qualities in additives and preservatives and require them to be removed
• Assess a tax on refined and processed foods that have been determined to contribute to obesity in order to ensure those prices are no longer inexpensive compared to healthier foods. The tax should be applied to fast food franchises and restaurants chains as well.
• Finally sue companies that knowingly put addictive compounds and additives in foods much like how tobacco companies were sued for covering up the addictive and harmful health affects of cigarettes.

Some additional health concerns we can address with possible solutions include:

• Re-scrutinize studies for antibiotic and growth hormone usage and if necessary re-determine long term health and environmental costs associated with its use
• Subsidize companies that lengthen the amount of time required for natural maturation of livestock which avoids or deceases the use of growth hormone
• Subsidize companies for increasing holding pen size /decreasing animal crowding which will lower antibiotic requirements
• Re-scrutinize studies for genetically modified crops to determine long term health risks associated with these crops
• Provide subsidies for non-profit food growers and manufactures dedicated to providing a greater variety of crops and healthier end product foods. Utilize large economy of scale and mass production methods implemented in our current system.

The above list may appear daunting considering the vast lobbying power and the number of congressmen and senators who receive campaign contributions from agribusiness. However, a failure to act will result in a continued deterioration of our food supply and further increases in obesity and its related illnesses if this system is allowed to continue unchecked.

The remaining food growers and manufacturers are all for-profit corporations. They have a fiduciary responsibility to increase their investor’s wealth. They accomplish this by meeting Wall Street Analyst’s profit expectations from quarter to quarter. If this is done, the analysts give positive reviews which reflect well on stock price and investor value. Much of executive compensation is also tied to profitability and stock price. The food production system in place now meets those ends, but at the expense of the health of the US population, its primary customer. As a populace we need to represent our interests which should far exceed those of a few thousand wealthy investors and executive officers.

This system can be redesigned but we need to act. One option might be to take the profit structure out of the equation. Subsidized non-profit food growing and manufacturing companies concentrated on increasing efficiencies and ensuring healthier varieties of inexpensive food. The type of non-profits I’m speaking off would be modeled after Swiss and German healthcare insurers. Another option may be to reign in the remaining for-profit companies through very strict regulation and compliance. Large corporations beholden primarily to profits have demonstrated that they should no longer have the controlling decision making capability over such a vital component of our national interests that being our food supply.

The remaining prepackaged processed foods can be taxed to help pay for their contribution to obesity and support the new farms and healthy food production facilities. The same can apply to fast food chains. To eat unhealthy and become obese should be a luxury similar to cigarettes and taxed accordingly.

Please provide any additional ideas or solutions.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/17/health/main5683256.shtml

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_10_25/ai_111585626/pg_3/?tag=content;col1

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/causes/index.html

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html#County

We are told by experts here in the U.S. that we should be more individually responsible for maintaining our own healthy diets. While this is certainly true; it gets a bit difficult if we are constantly exposed to foods that trigger our addictive impulses. We humans are naturally drawn to three basic tastes that were scarce for the majority of our evolution; those are fats, sugars, and salts. When exposed to food containing these components we tend to want to eat as much of that food as we can.

That is just what the food industry is providing for us. Foods are being sold that are processed and refined, that meet our consumers’ tastes for high levels of fats, sugars, and salts, that are cheap to grow and produce, and that are readily available at affordable prices.

Food growers and manufactures can do this by utilizing large economies of scale and mass production. This method can be done with outstanding efficiencies and requires relatively small amounts of land.The mantra for success has become grow food faster, bigger, and cheaper than it has ever been at any point in our history.

This current model of food production developed out of a need to satisfy the emerging new fast food industry of the 1950’s. Fast food companies wanted to provide inexpensive food to customers that could be prepared quickly and thattasted good. They also wanted conformity in the food products they purchased so they would taste the same regardless of franchise location.

Over time the influence of the fast food industry over food production grew. Fast food companies were fast becoming the largest purchasers of ground beef and potatoes and among the largest buyers of chicken, pork, tomatoes, and lettuce in the world. This practice of conformity and efficiency eventually evolved to include all the prepackaged supermarket food items we have available today.

To meet the new requirements food growers and manufactures decided to concentrate on growing and producing a few commodity crops very cost efficiently. The harvested crops were then reengineered into the majority of the components found in today’s food. In essence, when you read the packaging labels, the long lists of difficult to pronounce items are derived from a few crops; corn, soybeans, wheat, and rice.

The U.S. Government then provides subsidies to farmers and agribusiness enabling these commodities to be produced and sold for less than the cost of production. Large Multi National Corporations (MNC’s) have lobbied strongly to create and maintain subsidization through the U.S. Farm Bill. MNC’s are best suited to profit from the subsidies with their ability to use large economies of scale, efficiencies in production, and ongoing research and development. Acquisition strategies and consolidation eventually led to four to five dominant companies in each segment.

The same has occurred in livestock (cattle, poultry, and pork) and diary production. Growth in both crop and livestock production has been substantial in the past fifty years in some cases approaching a tenfold increase in size. Unfortunately, as with all things allowed to rapidly grow without real checks and balances a few problems have crept into the mix.

In the 1990’s growers were coerced into using into using genetically modified herbicide tolerant and pesticide resistant seeds. There is mounting concern that initial safety tests were too few and lacked supporting data to be conclusive, and that the intended targets may develop resistances that create a super weed or pest. In concentrating on fewer crop varieties and larger farms we are loosing crop diversity necessary for resilience in the event of environmental or climatic change and may be creating extremely resistant disease and insects.

In livestock production, intense crowding and the use of commodity based feed (primarily corn) instead of grass has resulted in a much faster fattening of animals. It has raised concerns about the increase of harmful bacteria in the livestock’s digestive system, and whether that bacteria accompanied in the animal waste that could end up washed into the water supply as runoff or is possibly packaged with the meat for sale. In addition, wide spread use of antibiotics could lead to drug-resistant diseases, and studies supporting the widespread use of growth hormone remain controversial and it use is banned in many countries.

Another growing problem is that profits have been used by food growers and manufacturers to create a strong lobbying presence in Washington and has provided significant campaign contributions to elected officials. Also, many key government people in decision making positions for agriculture and food manufacturing are also key people in some of the biggest agriculture, chemical (GMO), and food production companies.

This has resulted in ongoing positive legislature such as the Farm Bill which benefits large MNC’s and Food Libel laws which grants a food manufacturer or processor the right to sue if disparaging comments are made about their food products. It has also resulted in a reduction in regulatory monitoring and inspection of farms and plants.  Finally, the research being conducted for the creation of the new drugs or compounds and that is used as data for FDA approval is usually not only inconclusive it is being performed by the very companies that are seeking approval.

These situations have all lead to an environment that favors large MNC’s profits while leaving the consumer to ingest foods that contribute to our nations exploding obesity rates and have potentially long term health safety risks.

So what can we do about this?

We need to change our policy. Currently we are practicing a type of agriculture that utilizes subsidization for a few commodity produced crops. These crops are used to cheaply produce processed and refine foods which equate to bad calories.

Why can’t we subsidize locally grown and organic food as well? How about funding research into alternative methods of farming like wide scale local hydroponics? Keeping some percentage of food production local would lesson the impact on food costs due to increases in diesel fuel costs.

Why can’t we demand subsidization for a healthier variety of crops and then utilize the food manufactures mass production models for organic and healthy food production while pulling subsidies away from foods that are refined and processed and that increase our nation’s health costs.

Why can’t we use the genetic insights used by large chemical companies to make GMO’s for purposes other than just pesticide and insect resistant crops. How about increasing their nutrition levels as well or tax the seeds to provide an even playing field for public seeds and use the proceeds for health benefiting GMO research.

Why don’t we create real enforceable regulatory boards and identify and remove people from bureaucratic office with private sector interests. One step further would be to make it illegal for public officials to take employment in the private sector for two years in an associated field.

Why don’t we demand the creation of real independent public or non profit labs for testing? Make it illegal for a company that stands to benefit from the sale of a compound to provide all the supporting data. Instead use the company’s data as a starting place for testing.

Please provide suggestion or comments to shed additional insight or improve the blog.

http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/cropmajor.html

http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html

http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog/advocacy/2009/11/burger-bashing-and-sirloin-slander-food-disparagement-laws-in-the-united-states/

http://www.foodincmovie.com/

What has happened that we, as a society, are becoming so overweight? Is it because we are all eating too much? Are we foregoing a quality diet for ready made and fast food? Are we choosing taste over health? I would probably say yes to all three. But here is an interesting argument, what if our current foods were actually designed by our food companies at the base ingredient levels, and even at the chemical level to make sure we get fatter? Why would a respectable food manufacturing corporation want to do that? Hmmm, good question, well lets see, maybe a fatter population could … eat more. Wait a minute, that’s ridiculous. No corporation would want me to get fat on purpose. That’s unethical and preposterous. Unless of course, if a whole population were to eat more, and by eating more, they bought more food, wouldn’t profits increase?

What is the goal of food manufactures? Is it our health? Perhaps, for those whose niche market is organic, natural, or health conscious consumers. Now what about the rest of the food manufacturers and producers? Isn’t their goal to sell as much food as possible? The food manufacturing industry already has some of the lowest profit margins of any industry. They are constantly experiencing pressures from price increases in raw materials and key input goods driven by China and India. I don’t think China and India are planning to slow down their economic growth any time soon. Another pressure is rising fuel and transportation costs. Manufacturers have little if any ability to influence these volatile expenditures. The only hope for food manufacturers is to increase food sales since their profit margins are so small.  Any increase in expenses can offset small profit margins and potentially eliminate profits.

In the past 25 years U.S. obesity rates have increased considerably. We have become more sedentary, but eat larger servings, and the food we eat is not as healthy for us as it once was. Let’s see, I come home from work or school and … watch TV, play video games, or work on the computer. All of which are very energetic activities, big calorie burners. Then its time to sit down at the table (or couch if a good program is on) for dinner and a nice pre-packaged meal consisting of largely processed and refined foods laden with carbohydrates (the bad ones), sugars, salts, and so many additives and preservatives that they have to be combined together in groups or the label becomes to long to fit on the wrapper or box. I’m sure there is nothing wrong with ingesting hundreds of different chemical additives in meals day after day for years and years. Food manufacturers are probably testing all those additives and preservatives for long term health risks just as often as they are testing for taste. If my wife or I don’t get home in time to heat up or microwave dinner, thankfully any number of fast food outlets are ready to provide a dinner that’s probably even less healthy for us. If the meal wasn’t filling enough or we burned too many calories playing video games there’s always those trusty soft drinks and snacks before bed. Nothing says a good night’s sleep and waking up fit and trim like eating 30 to 40 grams of simple carbohydrates and 10 to 15 grams of fat right before hitting the hay.

The problem with food in the United States is centered around the food manufacturing industry. Food manufacturers and industry as a whole have very small profit margins. In order for manufacturers to be profitable, they have to sell large volumes of their products, and they have to do it in very cost effective manner. To do this, they use large economies of scale. They purchase large quantities of raw materials and utilize huge production facilities to lower the individual cost of each item. Combined with this are the numerous additives and preservatives that are created and massed produced to ensure an extended shelf life. This whole process is not a recipe for healthy and nutritious food. It is a model for cheap production and chemically enhanced product longevity. One other interesting factor is that a lot of the laboratories that are used by food companies are highly secretive to ensure that secret formulas and ingredient combinations remain confidential. These labs constantly experiment with making food more appealing, better tasting, and lower in price to the public.

However, they are also the testing grounds to find the cheapest base ingredient combinations to ensure continued desirability. They want the people to want the product and to buy it over and over. The trends over the past ten to twenty years has been to use and combine simple compounds, such as increasing the levels of fat (trans & saturated fats), sugar, and salts, while increasing carbohydrate levels. Studies are being conducted at universities to determine why food companies are utilizing many times the needed amount of fats, sugars, and salts required to produce the desired taste. Ongoing ingestion of food high in these compounds results in a rewiring of the neurobiological networks in the parts of the brain associated with increased craving and addiction. A consensus is developing that the only reason that high levels of these compounds are being used is to increase obesity rates among consumers by creating addictive cravings. A more obese person consumes more food, more consumption means more purchases, and more purchases equal more profits.

The final part of the equation involves the use of different chemical compounds to enhance the taste of foods, increase their shelf life, provide coloring, and a variety of other things. However, many of these compounds have startling other affects as well. An example would be an additive used as a flavor emhancer, while it would enhance the flavor of certain foods; it would also have a tendency to make people want to eat more of those foods. As researchers are looking more closely at how the chemical compounds are used, some alarming questions are being asked, such as: why are some of these compounds even present in the food as they do not perform a preservative or additive function. In addition, some compounds when combined together and ingested can create potentially toxic reactions in the physical body. Some researchers are speculating that the increasing rate of certain diseases may be strongly related to all of the cheap, processed and refined foods that we eat each day. What happens when these chemical compounds are ingested over long periods of time?

Regardless of toxic reactions, much of this processed and refined food is not easily digestible in the human body and can end up being stored in tissues and organs. Humans are omnivores and capable of eating a wide variety of food stuffs but when the digestive system encounters many of the chemical compounds that have never appeared in nature before it simply doesn’t know how to process it correctly. After long term exposure to this situations health problems may develop.

One additinal note, food manufactures are beginning to use nano-materials to enhance food coloring, and flavoring. Its being used for antibacterial purposes in food packaging. It is utilized to increase the potency of chemical fertilizers. And of course, the applications to strengthen additives and preservatives are potentially endless.  Nanotechnology is a technology that’s stands to benefit many industries in vast ways, but the FDA isn’t even in the testing stage to determine what long term consequences to the human body might be.

The bottom line is – our current food is predominately processed, refined, and laden with high levels of fats, sugars, and salts. These compounds can cause cravings and addictions. When combined with all the combinations of chemical additives and preservatives is it causing an ever increasing portion of the U.S. population to become obese and unhealthy? I realize that the food tastes good and is easy to prepare or acquire, but is it also leading to increased problems with our health and well being? Is it in our best interests to allow our health to continue to suffer in order to have cheap food and maintain profit levels? Are there any measures available to us as a population that can provide a healthier alternative to the current system?

Please provide additional information, comments, recommendations, or corrections.

Some great websites for follow-up readings are:

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/26/AR2009042602711.html

http://www.healthrecipes.com/eat5.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-nanoparticles-in-food-pose-health-risk

http://www.drweil.com/