• Thanks to stlbites for the photo.

Maybe. The two movements go hand in hand. Check out this article snip from Time magazine:

Why has the food movement sprouted so rapidly, even as traditional environmentalism has stalled? Simple: it's about pleasure. Before the political games, before worries about dead zones and manure lagoons, before concerns about obesity and trans fat, the food movement arose around a simple principle: food should taste better. Like their environmental brethren, foodies could be accused of trying to force people to eat their vegetables — but these vegetables are more than metaphorical: they are from a local organic farm and they're sautéed to perfection. The food movement has also directly jacked into that other great American obsession — health — in a way that distant concerns about climate change have largely failed to do. And there's the simple fact that food is present in our lives in a way that endangered species or deforestation or Arctic melting simply aren't. We buy food, we cook food (though less and less frequently) and three times a day, we eat food — occasionally while watching cooking shows.

The challenge for the food movement will come as it matures and begins to take on established political interests. Even with all the growth and all the glossy magazine covers, sustainable food still makes up only a tiny portion of the overall American food system. Perhaps 1% of total U.S. cropland is farmed organically, and organic food and beverages still command less than 4% of the national market, even after years of growth. Slow Food USA — one of the most dynamic of the new food-movement groups — has perhaps 20,000 members nationwide, while the Sierra Club has more than 1.3 million. As foodies go from promoting the perfect heirloom tomato to tackling the country's entrenched agricultural practices, they'll need a new level of commitment, organization and energy. That challenge will only be tougher if the food movement is somehow seen as competing with environmentalism.

But here's the good news — the two sides aren't really competing. As the food movement matures and grows, it could end up being the best vehicle available for achieving environmental goals.

Read the entire article, by Bryan Walsh, here.

• Thanks to Chesi Fotos CC for the photo.

The University of California at Davis studied 4,000 middle schoolers in North Carolina and found that, to a large degree, bullying can make a kid more popular. But I think we knew that already, didn't we?

While experts often view aggressive behavior as a maladjusted reaction typical of social outcasts, a new University of California, Davis, study finds that it’s actually popular adolescents — but not the most popular ones — who are particularly likely to torment their peers.

“Our findings underscore the argument that — for the most part — attaining and maintaining a high social status likely involves some level of antagonistic behavior,” said Robert Faris, an assistant professor of sociology at UC Davis.

The Faris/Felmlee study relies on data from The Context of Adolescent Substance Use survey, a longitudinal survey of adolescents at 19 public schools in three counties in North Carolina that began in the spring of 2002. The Faris/Felmlee study is based on 3,722 eighth-, ninth- and 10th -grade students who participated during the 2004-5 school year.

While the study focuses on a sample of small-town and rural North Carolina students, Faris expects similar results in bigger cities.

“I would be surprised if kids in New York City or L.A. were radically different than kids in North Carolina,” Faris said.

As for policy implications of the study, Faris said interventions targeted specifically at aggressive kids or victims miss the point.

“I would start by focusing on the kids who are not involved and work on encouraging them to be less passive or approving of these sorts of antagonistic relationships,” he said. “It’s through these kids who are not involved that the aggressive kids get their power.”

Read the entire article here.

You've heard of Snopes.com, the Truth-o-Meter from PolitiFact and other sites intended to help people sort people's stories and claims from the truth, right? Well, the Raleigh News & Observer has the 'Claims Department.'

They do what journalists should be doing, refusing to take much — especially political rhetoric — at face value. Instead of being wowed by calculated speeches, they check the facts, point out what's truth, what's fiction and where the gray area lies.

Here's the bottom line from their post yesterday:

THE BOTTOM LINE: While Perdue's statement is technically true, it is also misleading. Those listening to her speech could think that the state has added thousands of jobs over the last two years. That is not the case.

Read the entire post here.

Rhiannon Fionn-Bowman is an independent journalist who contributes commentary on Creative Loafing's CLog blog four days a week in addition to writing for several other local media organizations. To learn more, click the links or follow Rhi on Twitter.

• Thanks to newbirth35 for the photo.

It's in your best interest. I swear. Don't believe me? Check out Tom Philpott's post on Grist.org:

When I wrote about diet soda and and its health effects last week, I didn't expect much of a reaction. I guess in the back of my mind, I was thinking, people still drink that stuff?

Well, they do -- by the bucketful. Overall, U.S. soda consumption is declining slowly, but Americans still drink more soda than than anyone else on the planet, by a wide margin. According to one reckoning, the average American drinks 736 "eight-ounce servings" each year (though "eight-ounce serving" seems like a quaint notion in the age of the Big Gulp). I can't find good figures on how much of that gusher is diet soda, but apparently it's a lot. According to AdBrands.net, four of the top 10 leading U.S. soda brands are diet versions of big names like Coke and Pepsi.

Tom goes on to discuss how aspartame, the sweetener in diet sodas, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Read his entire post here. And be sure to reference the one that came directly before it, too. Here's a snip:

In plain English, Diet Pepsi consists of artificially blackened water tarted up with synthetic chemicals. The references to "natural flavor" and (chemical-induced) "freshness" aside, what really gives Diet Pepsi its main flavor -- that special jolt of sweetness -- is aspartame, the famous calorie-free sugar substitute.

What aspartame lacks in calories it more than makes up for in baggage. Italian researchers recently added [PDF] to a long-standing and growing body of literature pointing to aspartame's possible role as a carcinogen. Their conclusion, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, was stark: "The results of this mega-experiment indicate that [aspartame] is a multipotential carcinogenic agent, even at a daily dose of 20 mg/kg body weight, much less than the current acceptable daily intake."

How did the FDA ever allow it into the food supply, where it now flourishes as the industry's go-to fake sweetener? Funny you should ask. The agency's decision to approve aspartame, which came down during the Reagan era, ranked as its most controversial ever at the time. The story is a lively one -- it involves Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush's famously gruff defense secretary, now making headlines as he pimps his newly published memoirs; and Monsanto, that ever-charming agrichemical giant.

Read the entire post here.

Rhiannon Fionn-Bowman is an independent journalist who contributes commentary on Creative Loafing's CLog blog four days a week in addition to writing for several other local media organizations. To learn more, click the links or follow Rhi on Twitter.