It's too late for this bubble to deflate without damage, but states and communities should act promptly to reverse some of the conditions that encouraged the bubble and to build a more sustainable economy.
Economic misconceptions, as well as speculation, played a huge role in creating our retail bubble. For example, big-box chains inevitably promise to create hundreds of jobs and bring millions of dollars in sales tax revenue when lobbying to build a new store. The claims are not false, but grossly misleading.
Without population growth, spending on typical big-box goods like hardware, basic clothing or housewares is a relatively fixed pie. Though we might shift our shopping, we don't increase our consumption of socks or toasters much just because a new venue is selling them. "New" sales tax proceeds and jobs simply displace jobs and revenue at existing area businesses.
The community may see an immediate spike in revenue from the new store, but once newly generated public costs for traffic signals, sewer, water, and fire protection are calculated, cities often experience a net loss. This is one reason why, despite the new receipts accompanying retail sprawl, taxes often rise fastest in rapidly growing communities.
A community loses big, however, when a chain displaces sales at an independent business (or displaces entire businesses). Why? A new chain store typically is a clone of many other units, eliminating the need for local planning, and using a minimum of local goods and services. Profit is exported to corporate headquarters and almost all local jobs are low-skill positions.
In contrast, independent business owners typically spend much of their profit locally, give back more to the community, and create jobs for local accountants, Webmasters, ad agencies and many other higher-skilled people. In addition to offering greater career potential, these jobs are a training ground for future generations of entrepreneurs.
A 2007 study in San Francisco by Civic Economics is one of many to quantify the premium that cities derive from local ownership. It found that dollars spent at independent businesses yielded nearly three times more local economic benefit than those spent at chain competitors, and created about 80 percent more jobs.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Economic Benefits of Independent Bookstores
Jeff Milchen's article on the downturn in retailing in Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle, The next bubble to burst?, talks about the importance of independent retailers to communities. Independent bookstores and other locally-owned businesses provide more economic benefits to communities than chain stores.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Remove GE-Tainted Foods from School Cafeterias
Institute for Responsible Technology, Newsletter on GM Foods, Spilling the Beans
By Jeffrey M. Smith
Comanche County Chronicle, Elgin, OK, September, 2008
Before the Appleton Wisconsin high school replaced their cafeteria's
processed foods with wholesome, nutritious food, the school was
described as out-of-control. There were weapons violations, student
disruptions, and a cop on duty full-time. After the change in school
meals, the students were calm, focused, and orderly. There were no more
weapons violations, and no suicides, expulsions, dropouts, or drug
violations. The new diet and improved behavior has lasted for seven
years, and now other schools are changing their meal programs with
similar results.
Years ago, a science class at Appleton found support for their new diet
by conducting a cruel and unusual experiment with three mice. They fed
them the junk food that kids in other high schools eat everyday. The
mice freaked out. Their behavior was totally different than the three
mice in the neighboring cage. The neighboring mice had good karma; they
were fed nutritious whole foods and behaved like mice. They slept during
the day inside their cardboard tube, played with each other, and acted
very mouse-like.
The junk food mice, on the other hand, destroyed their cardboard tube,
were no longer nocturnal, stopped playing with each other, fought often,
and two mice eventually killed the third and ate it. After the three
month experiment, the students rehabilitated the two surviving junk food
mice with a diet of whole foods. After about three weeks, the mice came
around.
Sister Luigi Frigo repeats this experiment every year in her second
grade class in Cudahy, Wisconsin, but mercifully, for only four days.
Even on the first day of junk food, the mice's behavior "changes
drastically." They become lazy, antisocial, and nervous. And it still
takes the mice about two to three weeks on unprocessed foods to return
to normal. One year, the second graders tried to do the experiment again
a few months later with the same mice, but this time the animals refused
to eat the junk food.
Across the ocean in Holland, a student fed one group of mice genetically
modified (GM) corn and soy, and another group the non-GM variety. The GM
mice stopped playing with each other and withdrew into their own parts
of the cage. When the student tried to pick them up, unlike their
well-behaved neighbors, the GM mice scampered around in apparent fear
and tried to climb the walls. One mouse in the GM group was found dead
at the end of the experiment.
It's interesting to note that the junk food fed to the mice in the
Wisconsin experiments also contained genetically modified ingredients.
And although the Appleton school lunch program did not specifically
attempt to remove GM foods, it happened anyway. That's because GM foods
such as soy and corn and their derivatives are largely found in
processed foods. So when the school switched to unprocessed
alternatives, almost all ingredients derived from GM crops were taken
out automatically.
Does this mean that GM foods negatively affect the behavior of humans or
animals? It would certainly be irresponsible to say so on the basis of a
single student mice experiment and the results at Appleton. On the other
hand, it is equally irresponsible to say that it doesn't.
We are just beginning to understand the influence of food on behavior. A
study in Science in December 2002 concluded that "food molecules act
like hormones, regulating body functioning and triggering cell division.
The molecules can cause mental imbalances ranging from attention-deficit
and hyperactivity disorder to serious mental illness." The problem is we
do not know which food molecules have what effect.
The bigger problem is that the composition of GM foods can change
radically without our knowledge. Genetically modified foods have genes
inserted into their DNA. But genes are not Legos; they don't just snap
into place. Gene insertion creates unpredicted, irreversible changes. In
one study, for example, a gene chip monitored the DNA before and after a
single foreign gene was inserted. As much as 5 percent of the DNA's
genes changed the amount of protein they were producing. Not only is
that huge in itself, but these changes can multiply through complex
interactions down the line.
In spite of the potential for dramatic changes in the composition of GM
foods, they are typically measured for only a small number of known
nutrient levels. But even if we could identify all the changed
compounds, at this point we wouldn¹t know which might be responsible for
the antisocial nature of mice or humans. Likewise, we are only beginning
to identify the medicinal compounds in food. We now know, for example,
that the pigment in blueberries may revive the brain¹s neural
communication system, and the antioxidant found in grape skins may fight
cancer and reduce heart disease. But what about other valuable compounds
we don¹t know about that might change or disappear in GM varieties?
Consider GM soy. In July 1999, years after it was on the market,
independent researchers published a study showing that it contains 12-14
percent less cancer-fighting phytoestrogens. What else has changed that
we don¹t know about? [Monsanto responded with its own study, which
concluded that soy¹s phytoestrogen levels vary too much to even carry
out a statistical analysis. They failed to disclose, however, that the
laboratory that conducted Monsanto¹s experiment had been instructed to
use an obsolete method to detect phytoestrogens results.]
In 1996, Monsanto published a paper in the Journal of Nutrition that
concluded in the title, "The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean
seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans." The study only
compared a small number of nutrients and a close look at their charts
revealed significant differences in the fat, ash, and carbohydrate
content. In addition, GM soy meal contained 27 percent more trypsin
inhibitor, a well-known soy allergen. The study also used questionable
methods. Nutrient comparisons are routinely conducted on plants grown in
identical conditions so that variables such as weather and soil can be
ruled out. Otherwise, differences in plant composition could be easily
missed. In Monsanto's study, soybeans were planted in widely varying
climates and geography.
Although one of their trials was a side-by-side comparison between GM
and non-GM soy, for some reason the results were left out of the paper
altogether. Years later, a medical writer found the missing data in the
archives of the Journal of Nutrition and made them public. No wonder the
scientists left them out. The GM soy showed significantly lower levels
of protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine, an essential amino acid.
Also, toasted GM soy meal contained nearly twice the amount of a lectin
that may block the body¹s ability to assimilate other nutrients.
Furthermore, the toasted GM soy contained as much as seven times the
amount of trypsin inhibitor, indicating that the allergen may survive
cooking more in the GM variety. (This might explain the 50 percent jump
in soy allergies in the UK, just after GM soy was introduced.)
We don't know all the changes that occur with genetic engineering, but
certainly GM crops are not the same. Ask the animals. Eyewitness reports
from all over North America describe how several types of animals, when
given a choice, avoided eating GM food. These included cows, pigs, elk,
deer, raccoons, squirrels, rats, and mice. In fact, the Dutch student
mentioned above first determined that his mice had a two-to-one
preference for non-GM before forcing half of them to eat only the
engineered variety.
Differences in GM food will likely have a much larger impact on
children. They are three to four times more susceptible to allergies.
Also, they convert more of the food into body-building material. Altered
nutrients or added toxins can result in developmental problems. For this
reason, animal nutrition studies are typically conducted on young,
developing animals. After the feeding trial, organs are weighed and
often studied under magnification. If scientists used mature animals
instead of young ones, even severe nutritional problems might not be
detected. The Monsanto study used mature animals instead of young ones.
They also diluted their GM soy with non-GM protein 10- or 12fold before
feeding the animals. And they never weighed the organs or examined them
under a microscope. The study, which is the only major animal feeding
study on GM soy ever published, is dismissed by critics as rigged to
avoid finding problems.
Unfortunately, there is a much bigger experiment going on one which we
are all a part of. We're being fed GM foods daily, without knowing the
impact of these foods on our health, our behavior, or our children.
Thousands of schools around the world, particularly in Europe, have
decided not to let their kids be used as guinea pigs. They have banned
GM foods.
The impact of changes in the composition of GM foods is only one of
several reasons why these foods may be dangerous. Other reasons may be
far worse (see http://www.seedsofdeception.com).
With the epidemic of obesity and diabetes and with the results in
Appleton, parents and schools are waking up to the critical role that
diet plays. When making changes in what kids eat, removing GM foods
should be a priority.
By Jeffrey M. Smith
Comanche County Chronicle, Elgin, OK, September, 2008
Before the Appleton Wisconsin high school replaced their cafeteria's
processed foods with wholesome, nutritious food, the school was
described as out-of-control. There were weapons violations, student
disruptions, and a cop on duty full-time. After the change in school
meals, the students were calm, focused, and orderly. There were no more
weapons violations, and no suicides, expulsions, dropouts, or drug
violations. The new diet and improved behavior has lasted for seven
years, and now other schools are changing their meal programs with
similar results.
Years ago, a science class at Appleton found support for their new diet
by conducting a cruel and unusual experiment with three mice. They fed
them the junk food that kids in other high schools eat everyday. The
mice freaked out. Their behavior was totally different than the three
mice in the neighboring cage. The neighboring mice had good karma; they
were fed nutritious whole foods and behaved like mice. They slept during
the day inside their cardboard tube, played with each other, and acted
very mouse-like.
The junk food mice, on the other hand, destroyed their cardboard tube,
were no longer nocturnal, stopped playing with each other, fought often,
and two mice eventually killed the third and ate it. After the three
month experiment, the students rehabilitated the two surviving junk food
mice with a diet of whole foods. After about three weeks, the mice came
around.
Sister Luigi Frigo repeats this experiment every year in her second
grade class in Cudahy, Wisconsin, but mercifully, for only four days.
Even on the first day of junk food, the mice's behavior "changes
drastically." They become lazy, antisocial, and nervous. And it still
takes the mice about two to three weeks on unprocessed foods to return
to normal. One year, the second graders tried to do the experiment again
a few months later with the same mice, but this time the animals refused
to eat the junk food.
Across the ocean in Holland, a student fed one group of mice genetically
modified (GM) corn and soy, and another group the non-GM variety. The GM
mice stopped playing with each other and withdrew into their own parts
of the cage. When the student tried to pick them up, unlike their
well-behaved neighbors, the GM mice scampered around in apparent fear
and tried to climb the walls. One mouse in the GM group was found dead
at the end of the experiment.
It's interesting to note that the junk food fed to the mice in the
Wisconsin experiments also contained genetically modified ingredients.
And although the Appleton school lunch program did not specifically
attempt to remove GM foods, it happened anyway. That's because GM foods
such as soy and corn and their derivatives are largely found in
processed foods. So when the school switched to unprocessed
alternatives, almost all ingredients derived from GM crops were taken
out automatically.
Does this mean that GM foods negatively affect the behavior of humans or
animals? It would certainly be irresponsible to say so on the basis of a
single student mice experiment and the results at Appleton. On the other
hand, it is equally irresponsible to say that it doesn't.
We are just beginning to understand the influence of food on behavior. A
study in Science in December 2002 concluded that "food molecules act
like hormones, regulating body functioning and triggering cell division.
The molecules can cause mental imbalances ranging from attention-deficit
and hyperactivity disorder to serious mental illness." The problem is we
do not know which food molecules have what effect.
The bigger problem is that the composition of GM foods can change
radically without our knowledge. Genetically modified foods have genes
inserted into their DNA. But genes are not Legos; they don't just snap
into place. Gene insertion creates unpredicted, irreversible changes. In
one study, for example, a gene chip monitored the DNA before and after a
single foreign gene was inserted. As much as 5 percent of the DNA's
genes changed the amount of protein they were producing. Not only is
that huge in itself, but these changes can multiply through complex
interactions down the line.
In spite of the potential for dramatic changes in the composition of GM
foods, they are typically measured for only a small number of known
nutrient levels. But even if we could identify all the changed
compounds, at this point we wouldn¹t know which might be responsible for
the antisocial nature of mice or humans. Likewise, we are only beginning
to identify the medicinal compounds in food. We now know, for example,
that the pigment in blueberries may revive the brain¹s neural
communication system, and the antioxidant found in grape skins may fight
cancer and reduce heart disease. But what about other valuable compounds
we don¹t know about that might change or disappear in GM varieties?
Consider GM soy. In July 1999, years after it was on the market,
independent researchers published a study showing that it contains 12-14
percent less cancer-fighting phytoestrogens. What else has changed that
we don¹t know about? [Monsanto responded with its own study, which
concluded that soy¹s phytoestrogen levels vary too much to even carry
out a statistical analysis. They failed to disclose, however, that the
laboratory that conducted Monsanto¹s experiment had been instructed to
use an obsolete method to detect phytoestrogens results.]
In 1996, Monsanto published a paper in the Journal of Nutrition that
concluded in the title, "The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean
seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans." The study only
compared a small number of nutrients and a close look at their charts
revealed significant differences in the fat, ash, and carbohydrate
content. In addition, GM soy meal contained 27 percent more trypsin
inhibitor, a well-known soy allergen. The study also used questionable
methods. Nutrient comparisons are routinely conducted on plants grown in
identical conditions so that variables such as weather and soil can be
ruled out. Otherwise, differences in plant composition could be easily
missed. In Monsanto's study, soybeans were planted in widely varying
climates and geography.
Although one of their trials was a side-by-side comparison between GM
and non-GM soy, for some reason the results were left out of the paper
altogether. Years later, a medical writer found the missing data in the
archives of the Journal of Nutrition and made them public. No wonder the
scientists left them out. The GM soy showed significantly lower levels
of protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine, an essential amino acid.
Also, toasted GM soy meal contained nearly twice the amount of a lectin
that may block the body¹s ability to assimilate other nutrients.
Furthermore, the toasted GM soy contained as much as seven times the
amount of trypsin inhibitor, indicating that the allergen may survive
cooking more in the GM variety. (This might explain the 50 percent jump
in soy allergies in the UK, just after GM soy was introduced.)
We don't know all the changes that occur with genetic engineering, but
certainly GM crops are not the same. Ask the animals. Eyewitness reports
from all over North America describe how several types of animals, when
given a choice, avoided eating GM food. These included cows, pigs, elk,
deer, raccoons, squirrels, rats, and mice. In fact, the Dutch student
mentioned above first determined that his mice had a two-to-one
preference for non-GM before forcing half of them to eat only the
engineered variety.
Differences in GM food will likely have a much larger impact on
children. They are three to four times more susceptible to allergies.
Also, they convert more of the food into body-building material. Altered
nutrients or added toxins can result in developmental problems. For this
reason, animal nutrition studies are typically conducted on young,
developing animals. After the feeding trial, organs are weighed and
often studied under magnification. If scientists used mature animals
instead of young ones, even severe nutritional problems might not be
detected. The Monsanto study used mature animals instead of young ones.
They also diluted their GM soy with non-GM protein 10- or 12fold before
feeding the animals. And they never weighed the organs or examined them
under a microscope. The study, which is the only major animal feeding
study on GM soy ever published, is dismissed by critics as rigged to
avoid finding problems.
Unfortunately, there is a much bigger experiment going on one which we
are all a part of. We're being fed GM foods daily, without knowing the
impact of these foods on our health, our behavior, or our children.
Thousands of schools around the world, particularly in Europe, have
decided not to let their kids be used as guinea pigs. They have banned
GM foods.
The impact of changes in the composition of GM foods is only one of
several reasons why these foods may be dangerous. Other reasons may be
far worse (see http://www.seedsofdeception.com).
With the epidemic of obesity and diabetes and with the results in
Appleton, parents and schools are waking up to the critical role that
diet plays. When making changes in what kids eat, removing GM foods
should be a priority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)