"Each year, Big Agriculture feeds millions and millions of pounds of antibiotics to factory-farm animals, all to slightly increase their profits by plumping up their meat."

I have read articles that said chicken are fed this concoction to make them grow from baby to full grown in less than 3 months. Recently I asked my doctor if this might be the reason that I have such a hard time losing weight. She seemed to be almost afraid to answer that question but did finally say maybe.

Most of my diet is boneless skinlesss chicken breasts, turkey breasts, very lean cuts of beef along with lots of vegetables, brocolli, spinach, carrots, brussell sprouts, celery, green beans, peas, etc. I don't add any salt but use lots of black pepper. My one vice is 2 cups of coffee in the morning with a small amt of cream. If I feel like I want something sweet, a tsp of peanut is my treat. My thyroid checks out as normal.

I would like to see a study done to see if these additives that are used to fatten chickens, beef, etc., is also fattening us. Why has no one (that I can find) addressed that issue?

Mark S -- I remember in the 1950's my father saying something about "keeping up with Joneses". The 1% were pushing this artificial psychological need long before reagan. I agree reagan made it a revolution.

DAM -- Damn! That occurred to me while I was sleeping last night. Do I get to have a "redo"?

Debt Jubilee. You guys watch too much science fiction.

It should be known that at the top of the pyramid, BIG AGRICULTURE is NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION. NSC is able to hold extended bonded debt longer than 99 years and count it as a deposit. All agriculture ultimately pays Transportation. Even Big Oil pays Transportation. Who controls the highways and shipping lanes, controls commerce.

Above all, kids, please remember, "Transtar is Transportation."

@chuckle8 Sorry I took so long to reply I had a hard time tracking down my comment. What I meant by spoon feeding is ALEC writes all the legislation then hands it to congress members who don't change a thing alas spoonfeeding and I was thinking we the common man could draw up legislation that is in the common mans best intrest and spoonfeed it to congress members.

Since when was it "cool" for someone else to own a piece of your hide?!! - AIW

Farmers who can't meet their costs go out of business. You would be surprised to learn how little power of choice today's livestock producers actually have. Family farms have continued to be phased out by corporate farming. Of course farmers care about their wallets! They have to meet their bills, too. Being an independent farmer today is very much like walkiing a tightrope.

This is a subject I live with daily: farm chemicals. I live in the middle of Ohio grain farm country. There are a few large animal operations in the next county that generate a huge number of complaints from neighbors, but we buy our beef and pork from a farmer who raises animals the natural way, without "farm chemicals."

I know Thom has talked about ag chemicals before. And I don't know if my comments fit here but here goes...I live in the middle of Ohio grain farm country. Modern farming is bullshit. They spray the corn several times a season, with RoundUp or whatever chemical/seed company they got into bed with, then it grows about 10 to 15 feet high; produces 1, maybe 2 ears; harbors marijiana growers; harbors coyotes they brought in to cull the deer population and protect their crops, who eat our barn cats; harbors thieves that break into our homes under the cover of crops. Why is so much bio-mass wasted on 1 ear per plant? I'd think shorter plants could produce better. Why are so many trees and fencerows sacrificed to one more bushel of corn? I am so tempted to put a sign in my yard reading, "If you like to breathe, stop cutting down trees." Why are so many harmful chemicals needed to make this crap grow? Something seems very wrong.

There are mainly large family farms around me that operate like corporations: they pay little in taxes if any, pay less for fuel, bitch about regulations and the government, but get the county to pay for and do the work to solve their drainage issues, which usually cause the rest of us to now have drainage issues and NO ONE to take care of ours but us; are harsh to family outsiders (in-laws) to protect their corporation; and get government subsidies. Yes the "family" farmer gets government welfare and it's not small change. These figure are found online. Everytime I hear a farmer with his hang-dog expressions, hands in pockets shuffle and kick his toe in the dirt and say, There's no money in farmin' I want to say, "farm subsides are published online, you don't look like you're doing that bad"--hell the wife just has her name on the deed and she gets $300,000 (this is NOT an error) in HER name then HE gets some, too. (I had a business myself, I know they are permitted to write-off a lot of taxes because they "breakeven" or make no profit and therefore cannot be taxed--and believe me, they know all the angles.) They tell you this while they are sitting in their yearly brand-new truck, in the paved driveway of their McMansion with the wife's new vehicle parked and maybe the kids who can drive, and send all the kids to college or build them McMansions when they marry other farmers to keep the "money in the family", ...

I could harp on this all night and the next day.... My ancestors were farmers, but today's farmers are bad neighbors and non-existent stewards--unless it affects their wallet.

I was in debt before it was cool.

Very well said in post #22, AIW! I would only add that our culture so lionizes wealth and stigmatizes poverty that people are driven by sheer threat of social opprobrium to live beyond thir means. It's an artificial psychological need created by the Reagan Cultural Revolution - which was like Mao's Cultural Revolution only from the right - that so demonized and stimatized not only poverty but even relative lack of superfluous wealth that people feel they must keep up appearances of extravegant wealth to maintain their most basic self esteem. Amongst the poor it encourages much criminal enterprize, particularly amongst impoverished youth.

Scientifically, in our society it is necessary, in order to keep the Great Machine of consumer capitalism running, not only that everyone produce but also that they consume. Thus, in our society, an individual is judged not only by how much they produce but also by how much they consume.

The 'iron dome' we're spending a fortune on to 'protect' Israel probably has a 5% success rate. Talk about rip-offs. Except of course for Raytheon.

DAnneMarc,

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Sea level rise - history to forecasts- was a hot topic at the December American Geophysical Union meetings in San Franscisco last December. Richard Alley- I believe he was on Thom's program in the past year- among many others (over 115) gave presentations. One that struck me as well done came from the Hadley Center in the U.K. (but I encourage you to explore others too at the AGU meetings website):

http://abstractsearch.agu.org/meetings/2000/FM/sections/U/sessions/U61B/...

While there were estimates as high as 2m by 2100 most were considerably lower. There is a great deal of uncertainty in all the estimates given, as duely noted in the presentations. Getting back to the NASA report which links projections of sea level rise to potential methane emissions, there is substantial uncertainty as to net emissions of methane to the atmosphere.

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-science-understand-arctic-methane-var...

Over the past couple of years the concern of release from methane hydrates in shallow coastal zones (these were published in Science & Nature) indicates that there would be substantial methane oxidation of potential releases in near surface waters.

I heartily agree with you that there would be dramatic ecological, societal & economic consequences if a 2m sea level rise by 2040 becomes a reality. And if the findings from the study Thom noted were repeated by other researchers, we'd better prepare for major upheaval. However, pushing what at this time appears to be a well outside of science consensus position will alienate the portion of the public 'tuning in' to this number in the more likely probability that sea level rise will not reach that level.