Cancer is produced by commercial toxins introduced into the environment, according to a 2010 government cancer panel.
The very interesting tidbit in this short article is the public role the American Cancer Society takes on: In response to the government panel’s recommendation, the American Cancer Society’s director steps up to the microphone to maintain that cancer is only caused by individual sinful lifestyle choices, the sun, and hormones; he insists the government should stay out of supporting research into pollution’s effects on human health. Now we know the American Cancer Society is a psuedo-altruistic, distractionary front for polluter industries. Don’t support it. Don’t credit it.
The New York Times published an article about the health costs of Americans eating too much red meat.
Further, “Anyone who worries about global well-being has yet another reason to consume less red meat. Dr. Popkin, an epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina, said that a reduced dependence on livestock for food could help to save the planet from the ravaging effects of environmental pollution, global warming and the depletion of potable water.
‘In the United States,’ Dr. Popkin wrote, ‘livestock production accounts for 55 percent of the erosion process, 37 percent of pesticides applied, 50 percent of antibiotics consumed, and a third of total discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus to surface water.’”
Here is an article by Robert H. Frank on creating more happiness in a world without consumer excess.
Frank pioneered heterodox economic thought on “cost cascades”–how inequality leads to competitive social behavior that inflates the price of conspicuous necessary goods, such as houses and education, to the marked detriment of less-conspicuous necessary goods and services.
(This Frank article was published in the liberal American Prospect, which is hit or miss–not something I’d rely on for analysis, but occasionally offering up something thought-worthy. Kind of like liberalism.)