The Nutrition Source

What Should You Eat?

The answer to the question "What should you eat?" is actually pretty simple. But you wouldn't know that from news reports on diet studies, whose sole purpose seems to be to confuse people on a daily basis. When it comes down to it, though—when all the evidence is looked at together—the best advice on what to eat is relatively straightforward: Eat a plant-based diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains; choose healthy fats, like olive and canola oil; and red meat and unhealthy fats, like saturated and trans fats, sparingly. Most important of all is keeping calories in check, so you can avoid weight gain, which makes exercise a key partner to a healthy diet.

Eight Tips for Eating Right

	Choose good carbs, not no carbs. Whole grains are your best bet.
	Pay attention to the protein package. Fish, poultry, nuts, and beans are the best choices.
	Choose healthy fats, limit saturated fat, and avoid trans fat. Plant oils, nuts, and fish are the healthiest sources.
	Choose a fiber-filled diet, rich in whole grains, vegetables, and fruits.
	Eat more vegetables and fruits. Go for color and variety—dark green, yellow, orange, and red.
	Calcium is important. But milk isn't the only, or even best, source.
	Moderate drinking can be healthy—but not for everyone. You must weigh the benefits and risks.
	A daily multivitamin is a great nutrition insurance policy. Some extra vitamin D may add an extra health boost.

The Healthy Eating Pyramid, created by the Department of Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health, can be your guide to choosing a healthy diet.

Vegetables and Fruits: Get Plenty Every Day

Introduction

"Eat your fruits and vegetables" is one of the tried and true recommendations for a healthy diet. And for good reason. Eating plenty of vegetables and fruits can help you ward off heart disease and stroke, control blood pressure, prevent some types of cancer, avoid a painful intestinal ailment called diverticulitis, and guard against cataract and macular degeneration, two common causes of vision loss.

Q. What counts as a cup of vegetables and fruits?

A. For most fresh or cooked vegetables and fruits, 1 cup is just what you would put in a household measuring cup. There are two main exceptions to that rule: For lettuce and other raw leafy greens, you need to eat 2 cups to get the equivalent of 1 cup of vegetables. For dried fruit, you only need to eat ½ cup to get the equivalent of 1 cup of fruit.

Remember—on the Healthy Eating Pyramid, created by the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, potatoes are not counted as a vegetable, since they are mostly starch and should be used sparingly.

What does "plenty" mean? More than most Americans consume. If you don't count potatoes—which should be considered a starch rather than a vegetable—the average American gets a total of just three servings of fruits and vegetables a day. The latest dietary guidelines call for five to thirteen servings of fruits and vegetables a day (2½ to 6½ cups per day), depending on one's caloric intake. (1) For a person who needs 2,000 calories a day to maintain weight and health, this translates into nine servings, or 4½ cups per day (2 cups of fruit and 2½ cups of vegetables).

Over the past 30 years or so, researchers have developed a solid base of science to back up what generations of mothers preached (but didn't always practice themselves). Early on, fruits and vegetables were acclaimed as cancer-fighting foods. In fact, the ubiquitous 5 A Day message (now quietly changing to Fruits and Veggies: More Matters) seen in produce aisles, magazine ads, and schools was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute. The latest research, though, suggests that the biggest payoff from eating fruits and vegetables is for the heart.

Vegetables, Fruits, and Cardiovascular Disease

There is compelling evidence that a diet rich in fruits and vegetables can lower the risk of heart disease and stroke.

The largest and longest study to date, done as part of the Harvard-based Nurses' Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-up Study, included almost 110,000 men and women whose health and dietary habits were followed for 14 years. The higher the average daily intake of fruits and vegetables, the lower the chances of developing cardiovascular disease. Compared with those in the lowest category of fruit and vegetable intake (less than 1.5 servings a day), those who averaged 8 or more servings a day were 30 percent less likely to have had a heart attack or stroke. (2) Although all fruits and vegetables likely contribute to this benefit, green leafy vegetables such as lettuce, spinach, Swiss chard, and mustard greens; cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, Brussels sprouts, bok choy, and kale; and citrus fruits such as oranges, lemons, limes, and grapefruit (and their juices) make important contributions. (2)

When researchers combined findings from the Harvard studies with several other long-term studies in the U.S. and Europe, and looked at coronary heart disease and stroke separately, they found a similar protective effect: Individuals who ate more than 5 servings of fruits and vegetables per had roughly a 20 percent lower risk of coronary heart disease (3) and stroke, (4) compared with individuals who ate less than 3 servings per day.

Vegetables, Fruits, and Blood Pressure

High blood pressure is a primary risk factor for heart disease and stroke. As such, it's a condition that is important to control. Diet can be a very effective tool for lowering blood pressure. One of the most convincing associations between diet and blood pressure was found in the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) study. (5)

This trial examined the effect on blood pressure of a diet that was rich in fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy products and that restricted the amount of saturated and total fat. The researchers found that people with high blood pressure who followed this diet reduced their systolic blood pressure (the upper number of a blood pressure reading) by about 11 mm Hg and their diastolic blood pressure (the lower number) by almost 6 mm Hg—as much as medications can achieve.

More recently, a randomized trial known as the Optimal Macronutrient Intake Trial for Heart Health (OmniHeart) showed that this fruit and vegetable-rich diet lowered blood pressure even more when some of the carbohydrate was replaced with healthy unsaturated fat or protein. (6)

Vegetables, Fruits, and Cancer

Numerous early studies revealed what appeared to be a strong link between eating fruits and vegetables and protection against cancer. But because many of these were case-control studies, where people who already have a certain health outcome (cases) are compared to people who do not have that outcome (controls), it is possible that the results may have been skewed by problems inherent in these types of studies; people with illnesses, for example, often recall past behaviors differently from those without illness, which can lead to potential inaccuracy in the information that they provide to study investigators.

Cohort studies, which follow large groups of initially healthy individuals for years, generally provide more reliable information than case-control studies because they don't rely on information from the past. And data from cohort studies have not consistently shown that a diet rich in fruits and vegetables prevents cancer in general. For example, in the Nurses' Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, over a 14-year period, men and women with the highest intake of fruits and vegetables (8+ servings a day) were just as likely to have developed cancer as those who ate the fewest daily servings (under 1.5). (2)

A more likely possibility is that some types of fruits and vegetables may protect against certain cancers. A massive report by the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research suggests that non-starchy vegetables—such as lettuce and other leafy greens, broccoli, bok choy, cabbage, as well as garlic, onions, and the like—and fruits "probably" protect against several types of cancers, including those of the mouth, throat, voice box, esophagus, and stomach; fruit probably also protects against lung cancer. (7)

Specific components of fruits and vegetables may also be protective against cancer. For example, a line of research stemming from a finding from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study suggests that tomatoes may help protect men against prostate cancer, especially aggressive forms of it. (8) One of the pigments that give tomatoes their red hue—lycopene—could be involved in this protective effect. Although several studies other than the Health Professionals study have also demonstrated a link between tomatoes or lycopene and prostate cancer, others have not or have found only a weak connection. (9) Taken as a whole, however, these studies suggest that increased consumption of tomato-based products (especially cooked tomato products) and other lycopene-containing foods may reduce the occurrence of prostate cancer. (7) Lycopene is one of several carotenoids (compounds that the body can turn into vitamin A) found in brightly colored fruits and vegetables, and research suggests that foods containing carotenoids may protect against lung, mouth, and throat cancer. (7) But more research is needed before we know the exact relationship between fruits and vegetables, carotenoids, and cancer.

Vegetables, Fruits, and Gastrointestinal Health

One of the wonderful components of fruits and vegetables is their indigestible fiber. As fiber passes through the digestive system, it sops up water like a sponge and expands. This can calm the irritable bowel and, by triggering regular bowel movements, can relieve or prevent constipation. (10) The bulking and softening action of insoluble fiber also decreases pressure inside the intestinal tract and so may help prevent diverticulosis (the development of tiny, easily irritated pouches inside the colon) and diverticulitis (the often painful inflammation of these pouches). (11)

Vegetables, Fruits, and Vision

Eating plenty of fruits and vegetables also keeps your eyes in good shape. You may have learned that the vitamin A in carrots aids night vision. Other fruits and vegetables help prevent two common aging-related eye diseases—cataract and macular degeneration—which afflict millions of Americans over age 65. Cataract is the gradual clouding of the eye's lens, a disk of protein that focuses light on the light-sensitive retina. Macular degeneration is caused by cumulative damage to the macula, the center of the retina. It starts as a blurred spot in the center of what you see. As the degeneration spreads, vision shrinks.

Free radicals generated by sunlight, cigarette smoke, air pollution, infection, and metabolism cause much of this damage. Dark green leafy vegetables—such as spinach and kale—contain two pigments, lutein and zeaxanthin, that accumulate in the eye; these pigments are found in other brightly colored fruits and vegetables as well, including corn, squash, kiwi, and grapes. (12) These two pigments appear to be able to snuff out free radicals before they can harm the eye's sensitive tissues. (13)

In general, a diet rich in fruits and vegetables appears to reduce the chances of developing cataract or macular degeneration. (14–17) Lutein and zeaxanthin, in particular, seem protective against cataract. (18)

The Bottom Line: Recommendations for Vegetable and Fruit Intake

Vegetables and fruits are clearly an important part of a good diet. Almost everyone can benefit from eating more of them, but variety is as important as quantity. No single fruit or vegetable provides all of the nutrients you need to be healthy. The key lies in the variety of different vegetables and fruits that you eat.

Get your leafy greens today—try Mollie Katzen's delicious spring recipe for ruby chard.

Try these tips to fit more fruits and vegetables into your day:

• Keep fruit out where you can see it. That way you'll be more likely to eat it. Keep it out on the counter or in the front of the fridge.
• Get some every meal, every day. Try filling half your plate with vegetables or fruit at each meal. Serving up salads, stir fry, or other fruit and vegetable-rich fare makes it easier to reach this goal. Bonus points if you can get some fruits and vegetables at snack time, too.
• Explore the produce aisle and choose something new. Variety is the key to a healthy diet. Get out of a rut and try some new fruits and vegetables—include dark green leafy vegetables; yellow, orange, and red fruits and vegetables; cooked tomatoes; and citrus fruits.
• Bag the potatoes. Choose other vegetables that are packed with more nutrients and more slowly digested carbs.
• Make it a meal. Try some new recipes where vegetables take center stage, such as Tunisian carrot salad and spicy broccolini with red pepper.

References

1. 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

2. Hung HC, Joshipura KJ, Jiang R, et al. Fruit and vegetable intake and risk of major chronic disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004; 96:1577–84.

3. He FJ, Nowson CA, Lucas M, MacGregor GA. Increased consumption of fruit and vegetables is related to a reduced risk of coronary heart disease: meta-analysis of cohort studies. J Hum Hypertens. 2007; 21:717–28.

4. He FJ, Nowson CA, MacGregor GA. Fruit and vegetable consumption and stroke: meta-analysis of cohort studies. Lancet. 2006; 367:320–26.

5. Appel LJ, Moore TJ, Obarzanek E, et al. A clinical trial of the effects of dietary patterns on blood pressure. DASH Collaborative Research Group. N Engl J Med. 1997; 336:1117–24.

6. Appel LJ, Sacks FM, Carey VJ, et al. Effects of protein, monounsaturated fat, and carbohydrate intake on blood pressure and serum lipids: results of the OmniHeart randomized trial. JAMA. 2005; 294:2455–64.

7. World Cancer Research Fund, American Institute for Cancer Research. Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective. Washington DC: AICR, 2007.

8. Giovannucci E, Liu Y, Platz EA, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC. Risk factors for prostate cancer incidence and progression in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Int J Cancer. 2007; 121:1571–78.

9. Kavanaugh CJ, Trumbo PR, Ellwood KC. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's evidence-based review for qualified health claims: tomatoes, lycopene, and cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007; 99:1074–85.

10. Lembo A, Camilleri M. Chronic constipation. N Engl J Med. 2003; 349:1360–68.

11. Aldoori WH, Giovannucci EL, Rockett HR, Sampson L, Rimm EB, Willett WC. A prospective study of dietary fiber types and symptomatic diverticular disease in men. J Nutr. 1998; 128:714–19.

12. Sommerburg O, Keunen JE, Bird AC, van Kuijk FJ. Fruits and vegetables that are sources for lutein and zeaxanthin: the macular pigment in human eyes. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998; 82:907–10.

13. Krinsky NI, Landrum JT, Bone RA. Biologic mechanisms of the protective role of lutein and zeaxanthin in the eye. Annu Rev Nutr. 2003; 23:171–201.

14. Brown L, Rimm EB, Seddon JM, et al. A prospective study of carotenoid intake and risk of cataract extraction in US men. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999; 70:517–24.

15. Christen WG, Liu S, Schaumberg DA, Buring JE. Fruit and vegetable intake and the risk of cataract in women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005; 81:1417–22.

16. Moeller SM, Taylor A, Tucker KL, et al. Overall adherence to the dietary guidelines for Americans is associated with reduced prevalence of early age-related nuclear lens opacities in women. J Nutr. 2004; 134:1812–19.

17. Cho E, Seddon JM, Rosner B, Willett WC, Hankinson SE. Prospective study of intake of fruits, vegetables, vitamins, and carotenoids and risk of age-related maculopathy. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004; 122:883–92.

18. Christen WG, Liu S, Glynn RJ, Gaziano JM, Buring JE. Dietary carotenoids, vitamins C and E, and risk of cataract in women: A prospective study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008; 126:102–109.

Food Allergy

What Is It?

A food allergy is a reaction by the body's immune system to a protein in a food. The food protein that causes an allergic reaction is called an allergen. When a person with a food allergy eats the food containing the allergen, a chain of chemical reactions can be triggered, causing inflammation and irritation in the skin, digestive and respiratory systems. Most allergic reactions occur within 30 minutes of consuming the problem food. Often, the reaction occurs within five to 10 minutes, but it can occur as long as four to six hours after ingestion. In extreme cases, the result can be anaphylaxis, a potentially life-threatening condition marked by faintness, rapid pulse, difficulty breathing and other severe symptoms requiring emergency medical treatment.

Many children who are thought to have a food allergy actually have food intolerance. Food intolerance involves a physical reaction to the food itself or to an additive in the food. Food intolerance does not involve the immune system. Lactose intolerance is the most common type of food intolerance. It occurs in people who do not have enough lactase, the enzyme needed to digest lactose, the sugar in milk. After eating or drinking dairy products, people with lactose intolerance can experience bloating, gas, abdominal pain or diarrhea. Food additives, including flavor enhancers, such as MSG, or preservatives, such as sulfites, also can trigger a food-intolerance reaction.

Food allergy is not as common as generally believed. Although many people think they have food allergies, only about 1% of adults do. Approximately 8% of preschool children and 2% of older children have food allergies. Controlled studies with newborns have found that about 2% of infants have either a milk allergy or milk intolerance. Children of parents who have a history of food allergies have the highest risk of developing food allergies.

Most food allergies are caused by a few foods. In young children, the foods most likely to cause allergies are cow's milk, eggs, wheat and peanuts. In older children and adults, peanut and seafood allergies are most common. Other foods that commonly cause allergic reactions include soy products and tree nuts, such as almonds, pecans and Brazil nuts.

Symptoms

Common symptoms of food allergies include:

• Tingling, swelling and itching of the lips, mouth and throat that can begin within seconds of eating the food

• Nausea and vomiting

• Diarrhea

• Itching and a skin rash (usually hives)

Sometimes, a severe allergic reaction to food can cause breathing difficulties when the upper airways become swollen and obstructed. This is not the same as asthma, which involves inflammation and constriction of the lower airways.

In rare cases, food allergies can cause anaphylaxis, a severe reaction that requires immediate medical attention.

Diagnosis

A family history can help to determine whether a child is likely to have a food allergy, and various tests are used to determine which food is causing the reaction. A child may be allergic to more than one food.

Skin tests The allergy skin-prick test is the most common screening test because it is inexpensive and easy to do. It involves pricking the skin with a solution of the suspected food. A positive test will produce a small hive-like reaction, but a positive result does not always indicate a true allergy.

RAST blood tests Radioallergosorbent (RAST) laboratory tests measure the amount of food-specific IgE in the blood. IgE antibodies are made by the body in response to allergens. Once you have developed these IgE antibodies, they are constantly circulating in your blood. Therefore, this blood test can be done at any time. The greater the amount of IgE, the higher the probability the person has an allergy to that particular food. Like skin-prick tests, RAST tests are prone to false positives, meaning a positive response can occur even when the person is not allergic to the food.

Elimination and challenge The most certain way tof diagnose food allergies is with a test called a double-blind, placebo-controlled (DBPC) food challenge. In this test, capsules containing the suspected food and others containing sugar are given to a person and the reaction is observed. Because there can be a risk of a serious, life-threatening reaction, this test usually is done in a clinic or hospital.

A more common way to do this test is for the person to record what he or she eats, and monitor any reactions, which typically occur within two hours of ingestion. First, the suspected foods are eliminated from the diet for one to two weeks. Then, the foods are added back into the diet slowly under medical supervision. It's helpful to keep a food diary of everything consumed, and the amounts.

Expected Duration

While most children outgrow food allergies, some carry them into adulthood. Teenagers need to be aware of food allergies they had as children and not assume they have outgrown them. In particular, allergies to peanuts, tree nuts, fish and shellfish usually are not outgrown.

Prevention

The following measures can help lower the risk that food allergies will develop in infants and young children in families with a history of allergies:

• Don't introduce solid foods until 6 months of age.

• Breastfeed babies until they are at least 1 year old. However, you also will have to avoid highly allergenic foods since allergens can pass through breast milk. If breastfeeding isn't possible, discuss the choice of formula with your doctor.

• Introduce new foods in small portions and one at a time. Monitor for reactions for several days before introducing the next food. Do not introduce foods that commonly cause allergies, such as peanuts, egg whites or fish until the second year of life.

• Wait to give a child cow's milk until age 1 and peanuts until age 3.

For older children who have developed allergies, the best way to avoid an allergic reaction is to avoid the food or foods that cause a reaction. Here are some steps you can take:

• Educate yourself so that you can recognize other forms or minor traces of the allergens in the foods your child eats. Read food labels and ask questions when you eat in restaurants. If your child has a milk allergy, for example, avoid foods with ingredients that include casein, caseinate, whey or milk solids.

• Educate your child about foods that must be avoided and why.

• Inform all adults who have contact with your child about the allergy and what to do in an emergency.

• Learn cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

• If your child has a history of severe reactions to certain foods, you and your child should carry epinephrine at all times, and use it at the first sign of an allergic reaction.

• Speak to your child's school. Food in the cafeteria can be a hazard.

Food Healthy

Sales of salmon, blueberries, walnuts and spinach, and the likes of more esoteric produce such as goji berries and spirulina, have soared in the last two years as books, supermarkets and the media extol their particular health benefits. Eat them, we're told, to help reduce the risk of cancer and heart disease.

These so-called 'superfoods' are often promoted as having almost magic health-giving properties. But is the magic all in the marketing? And are we being bamboozled into buying expensive berries and exotic fruit when they're no better for us than a crunchy English apple or a homely cauliflower?

What's the science?

There is no official or scientific definition of the term 'superfood'. It's applied to foods ranging from oats to walnuts, spinach to yoghurt, turkey to watercress. Meat and fish contain proteins and other nutrients. Fruit and vegetables also contain essential vitamins and minerals and phytochemicals - bioactive non-nutrient components - that are good for health. Labelling some as 'superfoods' could give the impression that they are more health-enhancing than others.

Generally, fruits and vegetables given a 'superfood' tag are high in antioxidants such as vitamin C. Flavonoids, responsible for the colour of dark fruits such as blueberries, and other phytochemicals such as betacarotene, are also known for their antioxidant properties, which is why brightly coloured fruit and vegetables are considered especially beneficial.

For the past decade or so prevailing opinion, based on scientific research, has been that because antioxidants are especially effective at combating free radicals - harmful molecules that damage cells and DNA and can contribute to ageing, heart disease and cancer - they make fruit and vegetables particularly good for health. But phytochemicals, also present in less brightly coloured fruit and vegetables not classed as superfoods, could also act in other ways to protect against disease. Scientists investigating the different ways phytochemicals can act believe too much importance may have been attached to antioxidant activity, and not enough to the other beneficial effects of phytochemicals.

Soar-away sales

Because the term 'superfood' has been widely used and understood to mean extra-healthy, and because certain foods have become more widely available, sales of so-called 'superfoods' have increased dramatically in the past few years.

Blueberry sales in the UK have risen by 132 per cent since 2005, with shoppers spending £95m on blueberries in a single year. Spinach sales went up from £32m worth to £42m, and salmon sales went up 31 per cent during the same period.

Perhaps to encourage sales, yet more foods, such as watercress, are being termed as 'superfoods'.

Berry pricey

It's no bad thing if we all eat more watercress, but the most heavily promoted so-called 'superfoods' are exotic imports such as pomegranates, blueberries, avocados, mangoes and goji berries. Compared to home-grown apples they cost more and come with a larger carbon footprint because of the CO2 produced by their journey to the shops.

There is as much vitamin C in six flavonoid-packed blackberries - free from a hedgerow near you at certain times of year - as in one lemon

While blueberries do grow in the UK, most are imported to meet demand. Yet our home-grown blackcurrants have a similar phytochemical content and there is as much vitamin C in six flavonoid-packed blackberries - free from a hedgerow near you at certain times of year - as in one lemon.

Backing claims

Following EU legislation introduced in July 2007 to prevent unsubstantiated health claims being made on foods, terms such as 'superfood' will have to be backed by evidence explaining why the food is healthy. This could be difficult as there is no official definition of the term 'superfood'.

There is a two-year period before the legislation comes into force, during which food producers must prove to the European Food Safety Authority that any claims can be backed up by evidence. Products that are high in calcium, for instance, can legitimately claim that calcium is good for bones. Oats have been shown to help reduce cholesterol as part of a low-fat diet and this claim could be made on a product.

A healthy diet

No food is 'super' on its own

Even if certain foods were proved to be much higher in nutrients than others, it's important to eat a range of foods. "A handful of berries won't be enough to make you healthy and well," says the British Nutrition Foundation's nutrition scientist Anna Denny, who believes that "we should eat a rainbow-coloured diet. No food is 'super' on its own. There are so many benefits in all fruits and vegetables. There is no such thing as 'superfoods', only super diets."

Some of the latest research by leading university-based scientists suggests that it isn't just the antioxidants in fruit and vegetables that provide protection against disease. There is strong evidence that the phytochemicals in broccoli can help protect against bowel cancer by acting in other ways. These same phytochemicals are also contained in cauliflower, sprouts and cabbage which haven't been accorded the same 'superfood' status as broccoli.

Eating exotic foods may offer health benefits we don't yet understand. Just because they're eaten in other parts of the world where there is a lower incidence of certain diseases, however, doesn't mean that they'll give the same protection to those following a very different diet and lifestyle in the UK.

It may also be that what's important is how a particular food works in combination with other foods. Eating one so-called superfood to the exclusion of other fruit or vegetables may limit the benefits.

Beet that

On the plus side, the 'superfood' tag has done wonders for the humble home-grown beetroot. Most people fail to meet the target of five portions of fruit and vegetables a day. As long as we don't reject some fruit and vegetables in favour of more fashionable ones, publicity that encourages consumers to eat more fruit and vegetables is to be welcomed, say even sceptical nutritionists.

Pirate of the Pacific busted by Greenpeace

Greenpeace activists from Fiji and Papua New Guinea stand on juvenile yellowfin and skipjack tuna in the hold of a vessel that was caught tansferring fish six times in the last month in the Pacific Commons.

Enlarge Image

Pacific Ocean — We caught an illegal tuna purse seiner (Queen Evelyn 168) in the Pacific Commons on Friday. This Philippines-flagged vessel was close to the transfer of tuna between her sister vessel and a refrigerated mothership. It was likely that transfer of fish at sea, involving this illegal vessel, was about to occur. But upon our arrival the vessels immediately separated and fled.

These motherships, known as 'reefers' are a gateway for laundering tuna out of the region. Fish transfer is known to happen in the Pacific Commons but it has never been documented before. This area is especially prone to pirate activities and tuna have disappeared unreported on motherships like this for years.

Activists from our ship, Esperanza, managed to catch up with the reefer and were given permission to board it by the Captain. They documented the contents of the hold that consisted predominantly of juvenile yellowfin and skipjack tuna.

The Captain admitted to at least six other transfers of tuna he had done over the last month in the same pocket of international waters between Papua New Guinea and the Federated States of Micronesia. These transfers alone added up to 675 tonnes of skipjack and yellowfin tuna onboard and were mainly from boats flagged to the Philippines belonging to the same company, TPS Marine Industries.

The illegal tuna purse seiner, Queen Evelyn 168 (background) next to the reefer (KenKen 888) and her sister vessel (foreground).

Globally US $9 billion a year is lost to pirate fishing and estimates in the Pacific range from US$134 million to US$400 million. These pirates earns four times more than Pacific Island states earn in access fees and licenses.

We can do two things to reduce piracy: ban the transfer of fishing catches at sea and create marine reserves in the Pacific Commons, off limits to all fishing. This would close off a safe escape route currently open to pirates illegally fishing adjacent national waters.

Greenpeace has reported the illegal purse seiner to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission and our ship, Esperanza, continues to defend the Pacific Commons.

Take Action

• Ask the UN to create of a network of marine reserves by protecting 40 percent of the world's oceans so that fisheries and marine life can recover.

Donate

• We can't keep our ships at sea without your help. We don't accept any funding from governments or corporations, relying entirely on people like you to keep us going.

Jiri Rezac on the Southern Ocean

Photographer Jiri Rezac's observations on board the Esperanza in the Southern Ocean as they search for the whaling fleet.


View the story

Greenpeace ship tour "Defending our Mediterranean"

Coris julis over a Zostera seagrass bed near Kas, Greece. The Greenpeace ship, the Arctic Sunrise is in the Mediterranean for a three-month ship tour taking action on the threats to the sea and calling for a network of large-scale marine reserves to protect the health and productivity of the Mediterranean Sea.

Enlarge Image

International — The Mediterranean Sea is a global treasure. Rich seagrass meadows and rocky reefs dominate its coastal zone while an awe-inspiring array of underwater mountains (seamounts), cold seeps and trenches are found on its seabed.

The Mediterranean represents less than 1 percent of the world's oceans yet contains some 10,000 species - that's around 9 percent of the world's marine biodiversity.

But over-fishing and destructive fishing, including continued illegal use of driftnets, pollution, and rampant coastal development are steadily eroding this treasure.

"Defending our Mediterranean"

Greenpeace, for the third year in a row, is tackling these threats head-on. With our ship the Arctic Sunrise we are conducting a 3 month "Defending our Mediterranean" tour. The expedition will travel across the Mediterranean region exposing and taking action on destructive activities, documenting areas in need of protection, and calling for solutions.

The expedition is part of our call for a network of marine reserves across the Mediterranean, in both international waters and in coastal regions. Marine reserves - national parks at sea - are areas where no destructive activities are allowed, they provide a sanctuary for marine life.

The message is simple. "If we want fish tomorrow; we need marine reserves today".

Threats facing the Mediterranean Sea

Bluefin tuna is on the brink of collapse

The majestic bluefin tuna is famous as a symbol of the Mediterranean. This incredible fish can accelerate faster than a Porsche and can swim as fast as 43 miles (almost 70 kilometres) per hour. It is one of the top predators of the Mediterranean food-chain; crucial to the delicate ecosystem.

But Mediterranean bluefin are in serious trouble - "time and tuna are running out." In 1999, we recorded how Mediterranean bluefin stocks had declined by 80 percent, and it's getting worse. Rampant over-fishing and pirate fishing are pushing this precious species to the brink of extinction.

The bluefin tuna fishery in the Mediterranean is out of control, and must be closed immediately to allow the population to recover. Proper management must be put in place, including marine reserves to protect tuna breeding areas, if the fishery is ever to become sustainable again.

Driftnets - "walls of death"

Driftnets, known as "walls of death" are primarily used to catch dwindling stocks of swordfish, but are also responsible for regularly trapping and killing whales, dolphins and turtles that happen to cross their path.

Driftnets have been banned for years by the United Nations, the European Union, the International Commission for Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean, (GFCM). In other words, they are most definitely illegal.

Despite millions of euros being spent on decommissioning driftnets, they are still widely used in the Mediterranean. Hundreds of thousands of kilometres of these illegal nets are loose in the waters, indiscriminately killing marine life. In 2006, Greenpeace confronted and confiscated driftnets from Italian vessels, including one that had received €28,000 in grants to change its fishing gear.

Coastal development

Seagrass beds are common to shallow seas around much of the Mediterranean. They are important nursery areas, and help protect the seabed. They provide a special habitat for small animals and plants. But rampant development of coastlines for hotels, holiday homes, marinas and ports is destroying seagrass beds. In the worst areas they have disappeared altogether; leading to serious loss of biodiversity and habitat.

Between 2005 and 2006 Greenpeace Spain recorded that some 1.5 million dwellings and 293 golf courses had been built along 8000 kilometres of Spanish coastline. 116 leisure ports were either constructed or added to; 102 cases of urban development corruption were uncovered. The unplanned and reckless nature of this urban development along the coastline is causing severe erosion and pollution.

Pollution

Thousands of tonnes of toxic waste are pumped directly into the Mediterranean Sea every year. Shipping, urban and agricultural pollution and tourism are aggravating the crisis. Mercury, cadmium, zinc and lead in sediments are found at "hot-spots", all too often located in coastal zones exposed to pollution. These substances can travel thousands of kilometres, posing irreversible risks to human health and marine life across the region.

Approximately one third of the world's total merchant shipping crosses the Mediterranean each year. Some 370 million tonnes of oil are transported annually across this busy Sea- that's more than 20% of the world total.On average 10 oil spills a year happen in the Mediterranean.

Expedition is calling for Marine Reserves

"Defending our Mediterranean" will confront these threats, and more. We are calling for a network of marine reserves to cover forty percent of the Sea. Large scale reserves to protect international waters, and a network of smaller reserves to protect coastal areas and allow fishing grounds to recover and flourish again. A network of marine reserves for the Mediterranean Sea will represent a shift in the balance of human impacts, from damage and harm to protection and conservation.

The demand for marine reserves in the Mediterranean is part of Greenpeace's call for a global network of properly enforced marine reserves to cover forty percent of the world's oceans. The Greenpeace ship, the Esperanza is currently in the Pacific confronting overfishing and calling for the creation of marine reserves in the Pacific Commons.

Take Action

• If we want fish tomorrow, we need marine reserves today. Add your name to the call to protect the world's oceans.

Endangered Species Act threatens Polar Bears

Polar Bears on an ice shelf. Mother and cub.

Enlarge Image

United States — For the last three years, the US Department of Interior has been dragging its feet when it comes to protecting the polar bear. It has now finally listed the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. This might seem like a victory but there are enough exemptions in this listing to leave the polar bear unprotected against its biggest threat, global warming.

What happened?

After months of calculated delays and several lawsuits against them, brought by Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defence Council and the Center for Biological Diversity, the Bush administration has listed the polar bear as threatened under the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA).

A threatened listing under the ESA is supposed to provide broad protection to polar bears. This includes a requirement that United States federal agencies ensure that any action carried out, authorised, or funded by the United States government will not "jeopardise the continued existence" of polar bears, or adversely modify their critical habitat.

However, the decision comes with a big catch: an exemption (technically known as a “4(d) exemption”) for global warming pollution. Global warming is the biggest threat facing polar bears and this exemption eliminates any real protection the listing could have provided for the polar bear. It specifically says federal agencies don’t need to consider the impact of global warming pollution on the polar bear. It gets worse: the listing also proposes a separate regulation that reduces the protections the polar bear would otherwise receive under the ESA.

This might look like a listing to protect the polar bear but it’s really just a way for the administration to protect the interests of the oil and gas industry, as well as get away without taking action on global warming.

What does the science say?

A decision about whether or not to list a species under the ESA is supposed to be based on the best available science. The best available, most current science on the impact of global warming on polar bears is clear: the species faces extinction because its Arctic ice habitat is melting. Sea ice melts and refreezes seasonally, but recent years have shown a smaller area of maximum sea ice in the winter. Predictions about Arctic sea ice loss have become worse with each passing year. A few years ago, scientists were predicting the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in summer as early as 2100, then that prediction was moved up to 2050, then 2040 and 2030. Late last year, one leading scientist predicted the Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer as soon as 2012. It seems clear that the pace of global warming in the Arctic is outrunning predictions and is happening faster than expected.

“I have been following this issue for quite some time, and I have seen firsthand the impacts of global warming in the Arctic. I’ve been in Alaska’s Beaufort Sea when the sea ice retreated so far offshore that a lone polar bear was stranded in open water, swimming for what little ice it could find in search of its ringed seal prey that were hundreds of miles away at the ice edge. That bear was not long for this world, and the image haunts me every time I read another grim report about the plight of polar bears in our warming world,” said Melanie Duchin, a global warming campaigner for Greenpeace US, based in Alaska.

In 2007, the US Geological Survey predicted that by 2050, two thirds of the world’s polar bears would disappear, including all of the polar bears in the United States. Scientists are witnessing evidence that polar bears are already in real trouble. Reduced food supplies due to global warming has resulted in polar bears actually resorting to cannibalism in the north coast of Alaska and Canada. Scientists with the US Minerals Management Service documented the drowning of at least four polar bears in September 2004, when the sea ice retreated a record 160 miles off the state's northern coast. Just last week, scientists in Alaska reported that fewer polar bear yearlings are making it to maturity. The polar bear population in Western Hudson Bay of Canada has declined from approximately 1200 bears in 1987, to 1,100 bears in 1995, and then to fewer than 950 bears in 2004 due to ice loss. Arctic sea ice loss set a record low in 2007. This year, the sea ice melt season is already shaping up to break the record set in 2007.

Polar bears and sea ice

Polar bears live only in the Arctic and are totally dependent on the sea ice for all of their essential needs, including hunting their prey. The rapid warming of the Arctic and melting of the sea ice poses a serious threat to polar bears. The polar bear could be the first mammal to lose 100 percent of its habitat to global warming. As the ice continues to disappear, so will the polar bear. The only way to save the polar bear is to stop global warming and protect their sea ice habitat from melting away, and the only way to do that is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Once again, the Bush administration is ignoring the science that is staring it in the face: global warming is threatening polar bears with extinction. The federal government’s press release carried the headline, “Secretary Kempthorne Announces Decision to Protect Polar Bears under Endangered Species Act,” but it’s clearly mistitled. It would have been more aptly written if it had said, “Secretary Kempthorne Announces Decision to Protect Oil and Gas Industry.” Exempting global warming pollution caused by unabated oil and gas drilling spells doom for the polar bear, pure and simple.

For those reading this and thinking that, while saving the polar bear is a laudable goal, what’s more important is drilling for oil, jobs and the economy, consider these facts:

• The US will never be able to drill its way to energy independence since it has only three to four percent of global oil reserves, yet burns one-quarter of the world’s oil.
• The Arctic is a harbinger for things to come at lower latitudes. What we see now in the Arctic – unprecedented sea ice loss and species threatened with extinction – will not be limited to the Arctic. Serious global warming impacts and species’ extinction will accelerate in the mid-latitudes as it is in the Arctic.
• Stalling action now means more disruption and economic cost down the line. It’s not just about polar bears and the Arctic, the entire country will benefit if the government replaces dirty sources of energy such as oil, gas and coal with cleaner, climate friendly forms of energy like solar and wind. Conservation can go a long way toward cutting US energy needs as well.

Donate

• To maintain its independence, Greenpeace accepts no donations from corporations or governments. We rely entirely on support from millions of people like you.

Harpooned: Greenpeace exposes scandal at heart of whaling

Greenpeace Japan whale campaign coordinator Junichi Sato weighs 23.5 kilograms of whale meat stolen by crewmembers of the Nisshin Maru whaling ship. The contents of the box were listed as "cardboard."

Enlarge Image

Tokyo, Japan — Stake outs, testimony from informers, hidden cameras and tailing trucks full of stolen goods - it reads like a Hollywood movie, but it was an every day experience for Greenpeace activists in Japan, who have spent four months cracking open a major conspiracy of corruption at the heart of Japan's government-backed, sham scientific whaling operation.

Today we displayed a cardboard box filled with the best cuts of whale meat, smuggled ashore by the crew of the Japanese whaling factory ship, Nisshin Maru, for illegal trade and personal gain, at the Japanese taxpayer's expense. The box, along with videotaped testimony and other evidence, suggest widespread embezzlement of whale meat has been occuring for decades under the noses of the public officials who run the whaling programme, and are allowing it to happen.

Bureaucrats ignore theft from taxpayers

Our activists delivered the evidence, including the whale meat, to the Public Prosecutor's office in Tokyo, calling on it to make a full public enquiry into how deep the corruption runs with the whaling programme. We're also calling for an end to the USD$4.7 million taxpayer subsidies for the programme, and for the license of the company operating the whale hunt, Kyodo Senpaku, to be withdrawn.

The four-month Greenpeace investigation employed undercover tactics to reveal dramatic evidence of an embezzlement ring involving crewmembers on board the Nisshin Maru. Informers who spoke to the activists claim that senior crew and officials from Kyodo Senpaku turned a blind eye to the whale meat theft, allowing it to continue for decades. One informer associated with Kyodo Senpaku told Greenpeace that officials from the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) - the agency that carries out the so-called "scientific research" work on board the Nisshin Maru - are most likely aware of the thefts as well.

"The information we have gathered indicates that the scale of the scandal is so great, it would be impossible for the ship's operating company, Kyodo Senpaku, not to know," said Junichi Sato, Greenpeace Japan whales campaign coordinator. "Kyodo Senpaku is turning their back on large scale corruption and theft of taxpayers' money. What we need to know now, through a full public enquiry, is who else is profiting from the whaling programme? Who else has allowed this fraud to continue?" Sato added.

Working from information given by former and current Kyodo Senpaku employees, the Greenpeace investigators secretly documented the offloading of smuggled whale meat into a special truck, while Kyodo Senpaku officials and crew members stood by, following the Nisshin Maru's return earlier this year, on April 15th. Greenpeace then tracked the consignment from the ship to a depot in Tokyo.

Consignment sheet detailing, in Japanese, the contents of a crewmembers' personal box offloaded from the whaling factory ship Nisshin Maru, containing 23.5 kilograms of stolen whale meat. The sheet lists the contents of the box as "cardboard."

The house that stolen whale meat built

One of four boxes destined for the same private address was then intercepted, to verify the contents and establish the fraud. The consignment notes claimed the box contained "cardboard" - but in reality held 23.5kg of salted 'prime' whale meat, worth up to US$3,000, hidden beneath overalls. One informer told Greeneace that dozens of crew take as many as 20 of these boxes each, and said he overheard one crewmember claim to have built a house from the proceeds in stolen whale bacon alone.

To track down the final destination of this meat, activists visited pubs and restaurants in a number of different locations around Japan where they requested "special" meat and filmed the responses using hidden cameras. Traders and restaurant owners confirmed that they were expecting the imminent delivery of whale meat from this year's hunt, despite the fact that the Japanese Fisheries Agency and the Institute of Cetacean Research do not release the whale meat for sale before the end of June, 2008.

The ongoing Japanese government-backed scientific whaling programme, which takes place in the internationally-recognised Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, has been continually mired in controversy, lies and scandal, bringing Japan into international disrepute. This latest scandal begs the question of just who profits from a whaling programme which generates no useful science, and is commercially unsustainable.

Scandals high and low: how high does this one go?

While the scandal of stolen whalemeat is the most shocking, it's not the only revelation to come from this investigation. Further allegations from our informants that require investigation include:

• Throwing tonnes of whale meat overboard daily because they did not have processing capacity for the increased quotas
• Cancerous tumours being found and cut out of whales and the remaining meat processed for public sale
• Targeted hunts to ensure maximum catch, not random "sampling" as required by the research permits
• Harsh working conditions because of the increased workload from the increased quotas

Download the full dossier

With Japanese society already bristling from a litany of public scandals involving recycling, food labelling, pensions, bid-rigging for public works and bribes for defence contracts, the whaling industry now joins the ranks of the dishonoured, as well as earning the scepticism of an increasingly dubious business community, with business magazine Shukan Toyo Keizai suggesting that "the stance of whaling hardliners could also be a vent for narrow-minded nationalism".

Earlier this year, the Asahi Shimbun newspaper reported that the whalers were struggling to pay back $1 billion Yen in borrowed public funds. With a massive 4,000 tonne stockpile of unconsumed whalemeat and Asahi Shimbun reports of consumer disinterest in "bloody drippings", the whalers seem to be onto a sure loser. To make matters worse, the annual increase in targeted Southern Ocean whales means that supply is already outstripping demand, a situation "unthinkable for an ordinary business entity" according to the accountant of a major audit corporation quoted by the Asahi Shimbun.

"The whaling programme in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary is funded by the Japanese taxpayers and they have a right to know who is profiting from their money," commented Sato. "The Japanese whaling programme has already been shamed internationally for its lack of scientific credibility, embarrassed by the generation of vast stockpile of whale meat few want to eat and is now embroiled in a scandal at home for being corrupt. It is time for the whaling programme to be stopped and public money spent on something more honourable." Sato concluded.

Take action

• Help us create an outcry for a full investigation and demand the permits of the whalers be revoked. Write a letter to the Japanese Prime minister. It will only take a minute.

Donate

• How can Greenpeace continue to bite the hands of governments and corporations? We don't let them feed us, that's how. But that means we rely on small donations from people like you to keep our investigators undercover, our ships at sea, and our campaigns effective. Please give whatever you can.

Movement about change:

Founded by Laurie David, the Academy award winning producer of An Inconvenient Truth, StopGlobalWarming.org is a website devoted to the reality of global warming. The website provides the latest environmental headlines, educational resources and several ways to take action including joining the virtual march.This is a movement about change, as individuals, as a country, and as a global community. Join the 1,087,056 supporters of the Stop Global Warming Virtual March, and become part of the movement to demand our leaders freeze and reduce carbon dioxide emissions now. We are all contributors to global warming and we all need to be part of the solution.

Phils unveil new strategy: Green power

by: Sandy Bauers 15 May 2008

The Phillies players all wore green hats last night. Whether it did anything to help their game, no one will know.

But it was a sign of the team's new environmental strategy and its new logo: Red Goes Green.

Yesterday, the team rolled out an entire green program, announcing that it would buy enough renewable energy - wind, in all likelihood - to cover all of its energy use at Citizens Bank Park this year.

The 20 million kilowatt hours will make the Phillies the third-largest purchaser of green power in the city. It will heat the fryers, light the field, power the scoreboard and more.

In short, it will juice everything except Chase Utley's swing.

The team also plans myriad smaller greenings such as switching to biodegradeable cups and plates.

The fry oil from the chicken tenders and French fries will be converted to biodiesel.

The stadium's cans and bottles - 20,000 for sodas alone - will be recycled.

All in all, it will be enough to turn the Phanatic . . . oh, wait, he's already green.

Major League Baseball executive vice president John McHale Jr., who donned his own green cap along with Mayor Nutter and Gov. Rendell at an afternoon ceremony, termed the Phillies' commitment "unprecedented."

He said the club had gone far beyond what his office imagined when it challenged the league's teams in March to green their operations.

It also opened the door for a host of groaner puns, from suggestions that saving the planet requires "a team effort" to hopes that the new initiative would be "a hit."

Meanwhile, the accolades flowed. "We will hold you up as an example to the rest of the country," said regional Environmental Protection Agency administrator Donald Welsh.

"This is absolutely a great thing," said Allen Hershkowitz, a senior scientist with the national environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council, which advised the league for free. "There's no downside to it."

He said it was important that a cultural icon like baseball would throw its considerable weight behind environmental initiatives, and to do so "in a fish bowl. It's a courageous thing."

Said Rendell: "It's our hope the fans will emulate the club."

The Washington Nationals may be building the nation's greenest stadium, and the Eagles may have beat them to it with their own burst of green projects last fall, including toilet paper made from recycled materials. But the Phillies are leading on the renewable energy front. With the wind-power purchase - expected to cost about $250,000 - they have become the first major-league baseball team to join the EPA's "Green Power Partnership," which encourages groups to buy green power.

In the city, the team will rank behind the nearly 200 million kilowatt hours the University of Pennsylvania purchases, and just below the 21.5 million kilowatt hours the city purchases for City Hall and the airport.

The team is also one of only 13 groups in the state to purchase the renewable energy equivalent to 100 percent of the energy it uses.

This does not mean, however, that a field of wind turbines will literally be sending the electrons they generate to Citizens Bank Park.

What the team is actually buying is renewable energy credits, brokered by WindStreet Energy Inc., a Perth Amboy, N.J., company.

Here's how it works:

All kinds of generators, from coal plants to wind turbines, pump electricity into the grid.

But in the case of wind turbines, solar panels and other forms of renewable energy, the environmental benefits - no air pollution, for instance - of each kilowatt hour can be separated and sold as "renewable energy credits."

The credits are certified by an independent auditing body - in the case of the Phillies, a company called Green-e Energy - and registered so they can only be sold once.

The credit system helps offset the higher costs of generating clean energy. So while the Phillies aren't literally powering the park with wind, "if people weren't buying these credits, the wind farms would not have the financial incentive to operate," said WindStreet president Christopher Kent.

Jeff Deyette, an energy analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit unconnected with the effort, called Green-e certification the "gold standard" for ensuring the validity of the credits.

Other than hooking the stadium directly to wind turbines or solar panels, "it's the next best thing they can do to support clean energy," he said.

Penn's new environmental sustainability coordinator - which tops the nation's colleges and universities with its wind purchase - welcomed the Phillies into the clean energy fold.

"The idea of influencing behavior through associating with things you like is very powerful," said Penn's Dan Garofalo. "So the Eagles and Phillies are greener; every little bit helps influence the general population."

The NRDC's Hershkowitz also saw potential for green growth. "The story as I see it is that one of the most culturally influential organizations is saying, 'We're going to look at our supply chain and our operations to see where to reduce our impact,' " he said.

"It really is a huge cultural shift . . . There's motherhood, apple pie, baseball, and now there's environmentalism."

The Promise of Green Paint

by: Sarah Kershaw 15 May 2008

When it comes to building, renovating and maintaining a home, paint is a little like milk: it's a staple, a basic ingredient. And much like milk, a product that helped make the organic food movement a mass-market phenomenon, paint is leading the expansion of the green building movement, as stricter regulations, pressure from environmental groups and increasing consumer demand for eco-friendly products force manufacturers to produce paints with fewer dangerous and smog-producing compounds.

In the last few years, the marketplace for paint has undergone a dizzying revolution, with paint companies furiously researching technologies that will help them compete with new green lines in this changed universe. A number of start-ups, too, have introduced paint brands (several made with milk) that they claim are not only safer for humans and the earth than conventional paint, but more durable and better performing than the paints billed as eco-friendly that came on the market in the early 1990s and failed to take hold.

Not everyone is happy about the shift. Many designers, painters and consumers who applaud environmental responsibility are nevertheless worried about the growing restrictions on oil-based paints (which contain high levels of harmful volatile organic compounds), and even on less hazardous water-based latex ones.

They argue that there is no way, at least with the products currently available, to replicate the sheen, consistency or lasting power of an oil-based paint, particularly for use on cabinetry, trim, bookshelves and other specialty jobs. And they complain that painting a wall or ceiling can require several more applications of the newer paints made to be low in volatile organic compounds, or V.O.C.'s, than of old-fashioned latex blends.

Even then, the look is not the same, and flaws like rough brushstrokes are more visible. Maura Spery, who paints apartments in New York, said she has begun to advise clients to expect to spend more time and money on jobs using low-V.O.C. paints, given that she has to use five coats to achieve the same coverage she gets with two coats of traditional latex paint.

"I just wish they could get the product to really perform as well as the other products," she said of the manufacturers.

Jackie Greenberg, an interior designer in Manhattan, said she had designed an apartment for clients who requested low-V.O.C. paint, then demanded a new paint job within a year because of signs of wear and tear; J. J. Snyder, a Brooklyn painter who works on high-end residential jobs, said he has heard from clients about problems that start even earlier.

"They will tell you that the new latex is just as hard-wearing," Mr. Snyder said. "But it's not as hard-wearing. You put this latex on a cabinet, and six months later your clients are complaining."

Eve Ashcraft, an architectural color consultant in Manhattan, agreed. "The products behave differently. If you bring the old ideas in, the paint's going to be disappointing."

Still, Ms. Ashcraft and other designers and painters interviewed said they supported the efforts to protect the environment, and that the demand from their clients for safer, more environmentally responsible paints was getting stronger. Adrienne LaBelle, another Manhattan interior designer, said she was seeing it grow, especially among clients with young children. "Everybody's really on this right now," she added.

The problem is one of expectations, Ms. Ashcraft said: "If you want health-food Doritos, I bet you they will not taste the same. It's a trade-off."

THE environmental issues are complex, the regulations vary wildly across the country, and many questions remain about the performance of paints known as low- or no-V.O.C. They contain small or only trace amounts of volatile organic compounds, solvent additives that manufacturers have long regarded as crucial to paint quality. But they also release harmful vapors and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and can cause headaches and dizziness, can potentially exacerbate asthma and other health conditions, and can even cause kidney and liver damage if exposure is extremely high, according to public health experts.

Oil-based paints, which contain the highest levels of V.O.C.'s, have been tightly restricted in recent years in California, New York and a growing number of other East Coast states. They are still readily available in other parts of the country, but this summer the United States Environmental Protection Agency is expected to propose a stricter regulation that would bring the national standards in line with those East Coast states. If the proposal is adopted, sales of oil-based paints would be limited across the country.

The rules have also required manufacturers to bring down V.O.C. levels in their latex paints, which are significantly lower in V.O.C.'s than oil-based ones.

Southern California has the toughest rules, and industry experts said they expected the federal rule to eventually reflect those standards. Anticipating a world of low- and very low-V.O.C. paint, a growing number of manufacturers have developed new paints to comply with the strictest standards, including Sherwin-Williams, the Home Depot and Benjamin Moore, which introduced its premium low-V.O.C. Aura line last year.

"We didn't want to have to go back and reformulate it every time a state changes its rules," said Carl Minchew, Benjamin Moore's director of product technology. "Our view is that what starts in California eventually finds its way across the country."

Benjamin Moore, which is still selling oil-based paints outside of California and the East Coast states that restrict them, has marketed its Aura line as a high-performing paint — requiring only one coat — that also happens to be safe for the environment. It is considerably more expensive than the company's higher-V.O.C. Regal line: $54.95 on average per gallon, compared to $35 to $42, according to company officials.

Mr. Minchew said the higher cost stems from the investment in the research and development that made the Aura line possible, and that he expects the price to come down over time.

Other, smaller manufacturers, like Yolo Colorhouse in Portland, Ore., and Mythic Paint, a Mississippi-based company in business since December, sell only low- or zero-V.O.C. paints. They say they can match any color — any one of Benjamin Moore's 3,300, for example — and also offer their own palettes.

"Consumers are becoming more educated," said Virginia Young, a founder of Yolo Colorhouse, a brand that sells for $39.95 a gallon and that Ms. LaBelle, the Manhattan interior designer, said she had used and was generally pleased with. "Three years ago, when we launched, people didn't know what V.O.C.'s were. On the West Coast, at least, that's in their vocabulary now."

IN March, Consumer Reports released an assessment of 57 interior paints currently on the market, including low-V.O.C. ones, that evaluated their "hiding performance, surface smoothness, and resistance to staining and scrubbing, their gloss change, sticking, mildew and fading." The testers gave "mixed marks" to the low-V.O.C. paints, although they said the products had improved significantly in terms of durability and sheen since they first came on the market.

Benjamin Moore's Aura was ranked third among 21 paints in the low-luster category, which included conventional latex and oil-based paints. True Value EasyCare and Glidden Evermore, both low-V.O.C. lines, came in sixth and seventh, respectively, on the list. But several other low-V.O.C. brands, including Harmony, the Sherwin-Williams zero-V.O.C. line, did not hold up to the performance tests.

For consumers who have decided to use only low- or no-V.O.C. paints, Green Seal, a nonprofit environmental organization that certifies products as eco-friendly, also conducts performance tests that evaluate coverage and how the paint holds up. The group's Web site, greenseal.org, lists 21 brands that have passed its environmental safety and performance tests.

For die-hard fans of oil-based paint, meanwhile, there are still ways to get hold of it, even in the East Coast states that limit its sales. There are exceptions in the regulations allowing the paint to be sold in quarts rather than gallons, and in larger quantities for industrial paint jobs — a loophole that some designers said they had taken advantage of. European lines, like Farrow & Ball, which is sold over the Internet, also have extensive oil-based paint lines, and several designers and painters said that was another way to keep oil in their repertory.

Still, some said they suspect it's only a matter of time before their repertories will have to be reinvented.

"I think it'll be a challenge to figure out something else," said Ms. Greenberg, the Manhattan decorator. "But there have been so many advances just in the last year," she added. "They will have to come up with more in terms of the finishes, but we all have to be more responsible about it."

Mr. Snyder, the Brooklyn painter, was similarly philosophical, if a little less optimistic.

"Every year we're faced with a new set of obstacles to get the same finish," he said, but eventually, "everybody will adapt. People's expectations will change."

"We'll all have our hands tied," he continued. "Hopefully I'll be retired by then."

Making Wet Paint Less Hazardous

VOLATILE organic compounds, or V.O.C.'s, are emitted as gases by products like paint, lacquer, cleaning supplies and pesticides. Exposure to V.O.C.'s in high concentrations can cause short- and long-term health problems, the Environmental Protection Agency says. The agency recommends ventilating spaces that are being painted and buying paint in limited quantities, since even closed containers can emit gases.

Over the past decade, various state and federal regulations have been enacted to reduce V.O.C. levels in paint and other household products. The federal government limits V.O.C.'s in paint to 250 grams per liter for flat finishes and 380 grams per liter for other finishes. Information on V.O.C. content can be found on paint can labels.

The Ozone Transport Commission, an advisory group created under the Clean Air Act of 1990, has established recommendations limiting V.O.C. content further — to 100 grams per liter for flat paint and 150 for other finishes — that New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and the District of Columbia have either adopted or are in the process of adopting. This summer the E.P.A. is expected to propose stricter federal standards modeled on these recommendations, agency officials said. The strictest rules in the country are in Southern California, where the South Coast Air Quality Management District, a regional regulatory body that oversees Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, as well as parts of Los Angeles — an area with a population of more than 15 million people — requires that all paint sold contain less than 50 grams of V.O.C.'s per liter. Many of the new paints on the market, including Benjamin Moore's Aura, Home Depot's Freshaire Choice and Sherwin-Williams's Harmony, meet that standard. There are also a number of start-up companies, like Yolo Colorhouse and AFM Safecoat, that produce only low- or "zero" V.O.C. paint.

When paint is mixed with color, the V.O.C. content can increase, because colorants typically contain V.O.C.'s; they do not count toward the limits.

The Greenback Effect

by: Bill McKibben 14 May 2008

Since I spend most of my time haplessly battling global warming, I encounter a fair number of climate-change skeptics. They're usually clutching some tattered study about tropospheric temperatures from six years back, or muttering about sunspots, but they're almost never carefully weighing the actual current science. The wellspring of their skepticism lies not in chemistry or in physics but in ideology, and their syllogism goes something like this:

Markets solve all problems;
Markets are not solving global warming;
QED, global warming is not a problem.

This proof has certain logical shortcomings, beginning with the fact that it's illogical. But it is emotionally comforting. For those who wanted to stop thinking about politics and responsibility and morality and science and all that stuff, the advent of Reagan-era market fundamentalism was a godsend, and anything that threatens to disrupt it is an identity-challenging tilt of the psychic pinball machine.

So what I tend to say to these people is, I hear you. Markets are powerful. Let's think about why they've failed here and how to make them work.

And there's a one-word answer: information.

Markets are impotent in fighting the greatest challenge our planet has ever faced because we've given them absolutely nothing to work with. They exist in childlike innocence about the crisis because carbon carries no required cost. And in fact almost everything that environmental campaigners are doing at the national and the international level is an effort to fix that problem—to feed information into markets so they can help slow the rise of carbon. That's right: If there are true believers (or at least true hopers) about markets right now, they tend to be green.

Let's take the widely touted proposal for an 80 percent cut in carbon emissions by 2050 via a "shrinking cap" on emissions that would cause the price of carbon to rise steadily for the next 40 years. (Full disclosure: I helped run a nationwide campaign last year calling on Congress to endorse that target.) Here's what the cap would mean in practice: If you were sitting down tomorrow to run the financials for your new power plant, there's no way you'd go with coal—the cost would make your spreadsheet shriek. Instead, you'd look much, much closer at solar-thermal power plants or banks of windmills. If you were a property developer whose clients had any ability to calculate, your next office building or subdivision would be closer to the trolley line (which you'd be pressuring the city to build), and all the walls would be stuffed with insulation. If you owned a car company, the rising price of carbon should be enough to prevent you from designing one more bulked-up suv—and so on.

The point is, markets are powerful precisely because they allow information to filter down quickly and thoroughly, creating new realities—a new medium in the economic petri dish. Given that solving global warming will require huge systemic change over a very short period, that's a useful mechanism.

Clearly global warming will carry enormous costs. Taller levees. Higher food prices. Treating malaria patients in New Delhi and maybe New York. One estimate put the tab higher than the combined cost of both World Wars and the Great Depression. What we need to do is make the markets foresee that cost and act accordingly.

Of course, as any economist will quickly point out, such action will also come with a cost. Since carbon is going to have to get more expensive for markets to do their thing, someone is going to get hurt. So the next part of the equation involves figuring out who should bear that price. And here, interestingly, is another place where economic orthodoxy works pretty well. Take that shrinking cap on carbon emissions: One way to make it work is to hand out permits to big carbon producers—oil companies, coal companies, and so on—and steadily shrink the availability of permits. Those permits would be very valuable, and their cost would be passed on to consumers, whose price at the pump or off the back of the fuel-oil truck would increase. But the question is, How do you award those permits? (Or how do you set tax rates for carbon, etc.—the logic is the same.)

The answer favored by big industry is, Give us the permits. For free. Because we've spent years getting rich burning coal; if you're going to interfere with the system, make sure you don't touch the profits. But the more logical alternative is for the government to auction the permits off; with the proceeds we could, if we wanted to, simply send a check for, say, $1,000 to every American, which would go a long way toward covering the increased costs we Americans would face. This so-called Cap and Dividend concept—pushed for years by Peter Barnes, a cofounder of the progressive phone company Working Assets—is actually gaining some traction: Barack Obama, for one, has endorsed the permit-auction idea.

You could also, of course, take the auction proceeds and subsidize the transition to new clean-energy technologies—solar-thermal plants or windmills or whatever. This method has real attractions too, especially given that the most compelling analogies for the change we need come from the industrial boom catalyzed by World War II or the technological vigor of the Apollo era, both prompted by massive government spending. And consider that World War II was a three-year crisis for the United States, not a four-decade transition, and the moon shot was almost the opposite of our current task—instead of focusing immense resources on one mission, we need to spread them widely on a range of projects. In essence, we need to put all of us into orbit.

The weakness of our current government-spending model can be summed up in one word: ethanol. That is to say, the process is so twisted by regional interest, vested interest, and lack of interest by anyone but lobbyists that even when the political will is there to provide substantial subsidies, the results can be ludicrous. We are now spending billions upon billions to subsidize the conversion of corn to ethanol, a practice that creates the scantest possible environmental benefit while driving up food prices enormously. The main beneficiaries are the biggest of industrial farmers, and the losers include people around the world who now have considerably less to eat (and are increasingly figuring out that we're to blame). Or take nuclear power: It's far from the lowest-cost (or lowest-risk) option for our energy future, but it has a dedicated band of lobbyists eager to win massive federal subsidies.

In the best of all possible worlds, a wise Congress would figure out just which technologies will work best, and how they can be implemented most efficiently. But that's asking an awful lot. There are days when I'd be willing to give up every penny of the wind and solar subsidies we desperately need if that meant we could also kill the subsidies for "clean coal" and atomic energy—a level playing field, with the cost of carbon entered accurately into the equation, might be just what we need.

None of this means Washington doesn't have additional work to do. For one thing, we don't all start on a level playing field. Government must make sure that those disadvantaged by history get a boost from the coming economic transformation, and that those who can't afford to insulate their homes get the help they need. And we need much higher levels of funding for basic research in energy conservation and generation—fundamental investigation of breakthrough technologies is not something business is good at. Oh, and buses, and subways. These are the reasons we pay taxes.

There's a deeper flaw to my argument: Continuing to rely on a growth economy for change keeps us locked into the wider damage an ever-more market-centered civilization causes—the constant "creative destruction" beloved by economists and hated by those of us who would like to, say, live in the same community for a long time.

Which is why, in my ideal world, we'd use the power of democracy to add even more pieces of information to a market system. Tariffs that encourage local economies, for instance, because the data now show that more self-reliant societies are also more durable and more satisfying. Perhaps we should work for some totally different economic system—I hear pretty regularly from a different breed of skeptic who insists we'll never solve our problems until we go "beyond capitalism." But that debate is going to take a while—for the atmospherically relevant time frame, we're not going to change our basic economic framework any more than we're going to sign on to some new nature religion that would turn protecting the planet into some kind of Eleventh Commandment. Given how fast the ice caps are melting, speed is of the essence. And markets are quick. Given some direction, they'll help.