Here’s an excerpt:

A New York City subway train holds 1,200 people. This blog was viewed about 7,500 times in 2011. If it were a NYC subway train, it would take about 6 trips to carry that many people.

Click here to see the complete report.

The codependent pillars of sustainability (equity, environmental, economic) are typically not focused on as a whole, and therefore sustainable practices commonly fall short of their intentions or adversely affect another pillar. This concept of “sub-optimization” is a poisonous characteristic of haphazard attempts at being sustainable. People and organizations tend to focus on the environmental pillar of sustainability, with notions of the other less known pillars. In addition to this misconception, many systems of “sustainability” have been created, further “greenwashing” (having the appearance of sustainability without actually being sustainable) the public into thinking a specific set of actions will create an everlasting lifestyle that can be perpetuated for generations after.

This is a critical mistake for anyone to consider one pillar over another when making decisions about our lifestyle choices. Recycling electronics is simply a facet of sustainability, and the current definition needs to be reshaped in order to ensure that the goals of recycling are quantified, qualified, and are in common use to lead to the three-pillared version of sustainability. For example, since most of the measurement of recycling is implicated to reduce landfill use and not make the most of available resources (social equity aspect), and prevent harmful emissions (environmental), additional variables and metrics need be integrated into a system to evaluate progress (Atlee, et. al). When we as a people fail correctly to diagnose the underlying issue of a given problem, we end up “fighting fires.” In other words, we fix the next problem we foresee (landfill space), rather than the underlying issue (we waste too much). The clarity of evaluation of sustainability today is still quite elusive, but as whole society, we are narrowing in. While it is human nature to fix the most addressable problems first, eventually and with enough impetus we will come to the ultimate solution of actually changing our lifestyles.

Changing consumption and production habits is a “getting off on the right foot” strategy to get the unsustainable elements out of the picture when purchasing or selling electronics. Several initiatives have been proposed and implemented (such as the European Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE) and the UK’s Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (ROHS)), but need to be expanded and modified with time in order for the evolution of sustainability to proceed. In addition, as Conrad MacKerron states, companies must increase research and development towards acceptable alternatives[1]. Shareholders in companies are also responsible for sponsoring and initiating these changes. The hope is that as the concept of sustainability becomes embraced by the majority of the population, they will in turn put pressure on the shareholders of companies of which there is a considerable gain to introduce sustainable alternatives of their products. The responsibility of moving society away from unsustainable practices is dependent on three parties: the consumers, shareholders/companies, and government. The interactions of these groups towards sustainable goals is of equal importance to the three pillars of sustainability (equity, environment and economic).

The other factor worth noting here is that this does not necessarily need to be a consensus decision. If a system is implemented that incorporates the true cost of production (normal costs of production + all costs needed to correct any deviations from the Brundtlandian definition of sustainability) then even the least considerate of consumers will be left with no choice to live sustainably. Furthermore, if this type of system were to be implemented correctly there would be no reason to “greenwash” or to judge people who drive hummers. They can live however they want so long as they pay for the environmental aspect of their decisions. This may seem farfetched but it is already happening on a variety of other fronts. Most people don’t even realize it, but when they consume cigarettes, a portion of the tax they pay (that is hidden within the purchase price) goes to offsetting the costs associated with tobacco use (via lung cancer research, etc.). Any system whose proposed solution is dependent on a manipulating of people’s will is bound to fail. The only true solution to something this controversial or complex is to remove choice from the equation and make participation mandatory (much like speed limits or jury duty).

—-

[1] See, for example, http://www.asyousow.org/about/staff.shtml.

–

Our Growing Communities group is researching sustainability as it relates to local food systems, food bank gardens, permaculture and light pollution.

The idea of local food systems is a sustainability issue that is being addressed in society today, through such things as farmers markets, community gardens, and local fruit and vegetable delivery programs. However, the potential for sustainability from utilizing local food systems could be addressed much more extensively. Local food systems can provide fresh, healthy food options that make societies that utilize them more sustainable and more self-sufficient. Local food systems can also benefit communities by allowing them to see where their food is coming from and how important it is to take care of the earth that produces the food.

One component of a healthy food system are food bank gardens. There is little research available on food bank gardens, but community gardens are very similar Most peer-reviewed studies and news articles focus on the economic and social benefits of community gardens. Yet, as Brundtland stated, “The environment does not exist as a sphere separate from human actions, ambitions, and needed . . .” (Kates, 2005).

By gardening locally these groups are doing good things for the environment. Local gardens reduce the amount of processing and transportation needed to get food into the hands of consumers. Recipients gain fresher, naturally ripened and possibly more nutritious vegetables than they can provision elsewhere. Gardening sequesters carbon in the soil and reduces erosion (Okvat, 2011). If the garden is managed organically the soil is improved and the biodiversity within the soil is enhanced. This in turn supports the entire local food web. All of these benefits make food bank gardens environmentally sustainable.
Permaculture is an excellent way to bring the three pillars of sustainability together. Social equity is enhanced through its fundamental principle of supporting everyone equally and it encourages neighbors to help each other and build community. Economics is considered but it demands that we take responsibility for consumerism. Permaculture asks that people fund the local economy and businesses that are essential and are respectful of the three pillars of sustainability. The environment is protected through this practice by mimicking the patterns that are already found in nature. Permaculture is a practical solution for an ever changing climate and the decline of finite resources.

In contrast, the topics of light pollution and the affects of artificial light on human culture and physiology need to be studied in much greater depth. While there is ample amount of research into the affects of light pollution on other species, the human species, for the most part, has failed to receive an equal amount of study. Light pollution is no longer just a problem for astronomers, it is an issue that each individual within society should recognize. Light pollution is a multifaceted sustainability problem because of its detrimental effect on the structure of society, economic equality and the environment that we inhabit.

—-

Kates, Robert W., Thomas M. Parris, and Anthony A. Leiserowitz. “What is Sustainable Development?” Environment 47:3 (Apr. 2005), 8-21.

Okvat, Heather A. and Alex J. Zautura “Community Gardening: A Parsimonious Path to Individual, Community, and Environmental Resilience.” American Journal of Community Psychology 47 (Jan. 2011), 374-387.

–

Sustainability is not only defined in terms of how things should be done in order to reduce material consumption and waste, but practical in ways that are actually being put to use by various individuals and organizations. Speaking from a purely academic point of view, ideas about how to be sustainable are endless. People can dream up an infinite number of ways to reduce consumption and waste. Most definitions of sustainability are subjective, correlating to the perspective of individuals and their experiences. Moving beyond personal interpretation toward a common language would improve the general acceptance and commitment of individuals to further advance the cause of creating more sustainable behavior individually and by organizations. There are an equal number of infinite applied sustainability practices that could be placed into effect. The key component for sustainability in business operations is to strive for this common language and understanding about what is real and what is not. The last thing a start-up business needs is to commit to a sustainable idea that is not real, but is simply green washing. The costs for running a business are only magnified when considering the additional time; effort and money necessary to navigate a business with the additional layer that sustainability questions add to the endeavor.

The definition of a sustainable business today is not the same definition of a sustainable business ten or twenty years ago. Keeping an eye on the bottom line is no longer enough, for a company to thrive in our economy it must also keep an eye on what is now known as the “triple bottom line,” a measurement of performance based on human, natural, and financial resources [1]. Industry, manufacturing, and businesses are increasingly incorporating environmental responsibility and social equity, along with economic considerations, into their business plans. Many businesses in Oregon are leading the way in sustainable business practices while at the same time nurturing successful operations. Gone are the days when a company only had to answer to its shareholders. Also gone is the unsustainable model of consumerism and consumption. Modern day consumers and businesses share the responsibility to insure environmental, economic, and social needs are being met now and in the future. Younger consumers (according to the US Census Bureau, over half the world’s population is under the age of 30) are increasingly more influenced by their social networks than they are by advertisers. While consumers expect value and low cost, more than ever they demand the products they purchase be produced in a sustainable manner. Many modern consumers seem willing to do with less in order to insure the products they purchase are consistent with their overall personal values. In the same vein, many businesses are willing to do with less profit to ensure not only their own sustainability, but also that of the environment and the community. In this new environment, it is vital for businesses to balance economic concerns with environmental and social considerations if they are to remain solvent. Sustainable business practices such as lowering energy usage, recycling and net-zero practices (zero landfill waste), community food drives, and Adopt-a-Highway programs are just a few low to no cost options that have tangible returns.

Even if we get everyone to agree that a common language should be found for the term sustainability and everything that goes along with it is difficult to create union if there is discourse over the definition and what it should actually mean. Even if we crossed that bridge and had union with the definition we then have another challenge. The need to create a good evaluation system of sustainability. There is entirely too much green washing going on and not enough people know how to dig through the evidence to discover if the company is truly green or just green washing. There also needs to be room for improvement within the business relating to green and sustainability. These two terms will be ever changing as new ideas surface and increase our ability to be more sustainable in the future. There is much work to be done to bring sustainability as a system into our everyday lives. There will be much opposition in the world of business because of the cost the business must absorb to become more sustainable. Not everyone wants on board. There are many companies that are all about profit and don’t focus on environmental issues. We would be naive to think that all for profit businesses want to jump on the green bandwagon if the costs are too high. If sustainability is our universal goal then how do we show businesses that there is more to sustainability than just being green? That to be sustainable you should focus on the social and economic sides of sustainability? If sustainability is our plan then who will set the standards and investigate to uncover the truth? Do we focus on just the environmental sides of sustainability? Or is that our focus because businesses seem to understand and grasp the economic and societal sides of sustainability so environmental is what is left to be discussed?

—-

[1] Graeme Byrd, interview by Mason Walker. “[3BL]ooming Honcho: Graeme Byrd.” Sustainable Business Oregon, July 13, 2011.
http://www.sustainablebusinessoregon.com/columns/2011/07/3blooming-honcho-graeme-byrd.html.

–

One of the more common perceptions people have with regard to sustainability is that it is strictly an environmental issue. Many people believe that if they recycle, or if they plant one tree to replace each one they cut down, they are being sustainable. The truth is that sustainability has multiple components, and many of the behaviors people commonly associate with sustainability are not enough in and of themselves to qualify as truly sustainable.

The UN sponsored Brundtland commission helped to flesh out a more meaningful definition of sustainability. This definition discusses the environmental, social, and economical aspects of true sustainability. The logic behind this is explained in “Sustainable Development: Exploring the Ethics of Our Common Future”:

When the terms of reference of our commission were originally being discussed in 1982, there were those who wanted its considerations to be limited to “environmental issues only”. This would have been a grave mistake. The environment does not exist as a sphere separate from human actions, ambitions, and needs and attempts to defend it in isolation from human concerns have given the very word “environment” a connotation of naivety in some political circles.(1)

One of the first examples that comes to mind where “faux sustainability” is prevalent is the electric car industry. Often times, people assume that just because they replace something non-electric with something electric, then they are being sustainable. The first problem with this is that alternatives that have the appearance of sustainability can be misleading. For instance, electricity that is produced via coal has environmental ramifications that are much different than electricity produced via solar panels. An efficiency tradeoff may not necessarily mean true sustainability.

For instance, even when an alternative does have a legitimate environmentally sustainable characteristic it still may not be enough to be truly sustainable. For instance, something that is environmentally sustainable may not be economically sustainable, or socially sustainable. True sustainability upholds all three pillars of the “Brundtlandian” definition of sustainability.

In order for this fleshed out definition to have true meaning it is important that each component is explained in a fashion that relates it to the other components. Of the three pillars, the common notion of the environmental component seems to coincide the most closely with the Brundtlandian definition. People have a strong understanding and passion for social equity, but rarely do they correlate it with their definition of sustainability. The problem with people’s understanding of economical sustainability is that they constantly allow it to override the concerns of the other two pillars. In the case of business, this is commonly thought to be the ONLY goal, but that notion is becoming less common every day. As businesses strive to achieve positive public image, they put these concerns at the forefront of their strategy. Even though it is not ideal that businesses are “forced” into sustainability by the marketplace, the result is nonetheless beneficial to society as a whole. It causes us to take a step forward towards becoming a truly sustainable society.

—-

(1) Oluf Langhelle. “Sustainable Development: Exploring the Ethics of Our Common Future.” International Political Science Review 20: 2 (April 1999), 129-149.

–

What is sustainability? Is it a concept, a set of actions, or is it just the latest buzzword that companies and media groups are now using to bolster their rating and support from the “concerned” public masses? The truth, if there is a truth, is entirely debatable and far too complex to fully express in a single blog-post that is comprised of five hundred or so words; however, there are a few facts that we, a group of students involved in the study of sustainability, have agreed will help build a firm foundation for a working definition of sustainability in regards to issues that surround the topic.

First off, sustainability can no longer be defined as a uni-dimensional system. Sustainability issues are multidimensional problems; therefore, each individual, as stewards to the spaces which we inhabit, must understand that sustainability issues need to be conceptualized on at least three fronts: environmental, economic and social. These three pillars are, for the most part, equal. They rely on one another; and, in regards to all except the environment, would fail if not supported by the other two. Although sustainability requires a multidimensional system, it is difficult for most of us to imagine that system. It is too easy to remain stuck in our current paradigm and not see what is possible. Therefore, it might be most useful to this first blog post to help contextualize and define these other forms of sustainability so that we can then look at ways to maximize benefits and minimize waste within all three pillars.

Economically, it is important for not only the individual person to be concerned about sustainability, but it is also essential for organizations to be concerned with it. Organizations have a huge impact on the world socially, economically, and environmentally; however, more often than not, large corporations use a huge amount of resources and produce a huge amount of waste in a world with finite resources. This creates groups of people who cannot afford the products and who are negatively affected by waste. Although these companies can add to the problems that surround sustainability, organizations also have the power to affect change in society and in other businesses for the good. A company with sustainable values can help define what is acceptable and not acceptable in terms of practices throughout the world’s economies. Moreover, sustainable organizations can help create sustainable communities, both inside and out of the organization.

While sustainability is important economically, the social context and definition is equally as vital and arguably its most useful role. The structures that create social inequality are often built on systems that have supported a uni-dimensional or bi-dimensional system of sustainability. A new system that incorporates all three is a system that can engage issues of inequality.

Poly-dimensional systems of sustainability hold individuals accountable and help right many of the injustices that originated with the Enlightenment of Western society. Just as nature creates webs of interdependencies, we should mimic nature so that each element is supported by one another. It is vital that sustainable systems involve as many different elements as possible in order to support the system’s entirety and possibly establish it as a system with integrity. It truly is our nature.

–

In theory, sustainability practices seem straightforward. To put it simply, try to do what ever you are doing in a way that will allow it to continue on, hopefully forever. This applies to economic, social, and environmental factors. In this three part theory, as initially introduced by the Brundtland Commission in 1986, we see that each factor can be equally important to the goal of sustainability[1]. This seemingly simple theory, however, is difficult to put into practice, especially in today’s business world.

Current practices and cultural awareness of sustainability measures are a far cry from what they were 30 years ago. Yet, entry barriers for entrepreneurs seeking to start a new business ventures in a sustainable fashion are high and difficult surmount. Often business owners face the challenge of trying to prioritize sustainable operating practices over simply vetting out a business concept or proving the model will work . . . much less turning a profit.[2] There seems to be built-in obstacles for new sustainable businesses as demonstrated by the general absence of useful guidance from venture advisers and business coaches and support systems.[2] From a pure sustainability perspective, business itself is postured more for measuring and promoting unrestricted growth and development, not for efficiency in the use of resources and materials in order to accomplish a profitable endeavor. Likewise, economic measures used by corporate accountants and wall street analysts seem to unquestionably link the notion of prosperity with growth.[3] Addressing the larger problem of reducing material consumptions in day-to-day business activities has been largely unaddressed.

This scenario demonstrates how easy it is to focus solely on one part of sustainability. If a company tries to be environmentally sustainable and ignores the economic and social factors it is easy to see that they could find themselves very environmentally friendly but so over budget that the company goes out of business. Likewise, a company could be ecologically friendly and profitable but if it producing a product that is socially unacceptable or abuses their employees it will not be able to stay in business for very long with no one willing to be one of their employees. The same goes for individuals and society. It appears that the ultimate practice to the theory of sustainability is to simply try to be mindful of the decisions we all make and their impact in order to find a way to continue the good things for future generations.

—-

[1] Robert W. Kates, Thomas M. Parris, and Anthony A. Leiserowitz. “What is Sustainable Development?” Environment 47:3 (Apr. 2005), 8-21.

[2] Schick, Hildegard, Sandra Marxen, and Jurgen Freimann. 2002. “Sustainability Issues for Start-up Entrepreneurs.” Greener Management International 38, pp. 59-70.

[3] Jackson, Tim. Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet. London: Earthscan, 2009.

–

Jean Vollum Natural Capital Center

On June 30, 2011 our class conducted a self-guided of the Jean Vollum Natural Capital Center, also known as the Ecotrust Building, located at 721 NW 9th Avenue, in Portland. One of the building’s many ecofriendly features is its ecoroof. Unfortunately, we were unable to view the roof, but the information in our field guide piqued our interest. Ecoroofs are not only beautiful to look at but they also make real environmental and economic sense. Ecoroofs greatly extend the lifespan of a roof, reduce stormwater runoff, and also reduce energy consumption by decreasing rooftop heat loss. The vegetation planted on the ecoroof at the Jean Vollum Natural Capital Center was carefully selected from Pacific Northwest native plants and seeds. These native plants, a mix of grasses, wildflowers, and succulents, are drought tolerant and once established need very little watering and maintenance. The ecoroof is part of the sites stormwater management system that helps to minimize rainwater runoff, including pollutants and sediment, from flowing into the Willamette River. This stormwater system, which also includes bioswales, captures at least 90% of the rainwater falling at this location. The system is funded in part by the City of Portland’s Bureau of Environmental Services.

What is a green roof?

Green Roofs should probably be referred to more appropriately as eco-roofs as many are not “green” at all. To start this particular discussion it’s useful to run through a few items:

There are two generally accepted terms used to classify these roof systems

1. Intensive Roofs can support a complex variety of planting species and is characterized as having the need for additional structural support elements and a substrate depth of 20 cm (7.87 inches) or greater. These roofs often require irrigation support.

2. Extensive Roofs are generally planted with low growing, stress tolerant vegetation that requires little if any irrigation support. Characterized by the lack of addition support structure and substrate depths of less then 20 cm (7.87 inches).

However, other systems have been used to achieve some of the same end results that are not green at all, such as small pools and other water features. So it seems that the characterization of intended uses are more the determining factor. If you are creating a space such as a park or other recreational purposes than an intensive roof is going to probably be your best design selection. However if your looking to achieve some of the positive benefits but not create a habitat for human recreation than one might consider a more economically based solution of an extensive roof design.

What are the advantages?

The eco-roofs can have various advantages and we will attempt to list them with a brief explanation below:

• Reduction of the Heat Island Effect. Primarily the aspect in consideration is the ability for a rooftop to maintain some moisture content whether in pools of water, or moisture content in soils. This creates a heat sink during hot days and allows for passive work of solar energy to create vapor thus actually cooling the regional airspace.

• Reduction of impervious water run-off—a two fold prospect:

• In an area such as Portland, OR where the sewer and rain drain systems are not separated the increased water flow created by the impervious surface run-offs can overload our system causing the unwanted actions of deliberate dumping of untreated sewage directly into the river.

• In areas where system separation is in place there are still imposed harms done in areas of large urbanization where impervious surfaces cause higher levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. This is then carried to the streams and causes unwanted effects from urbanization commonly referred to as urban stream syndrome.

So why aren’t we doing this on every roof?

While there are certainly benefits to the use of said systems there are still many unknowns. Culturally we are a bit more aware of unintended consequences, and while we have studied the benefits, quantitative research of negative effects has not yet been completed. In places such as Switzerland and Germany where governance has been progressive in establishing required uses for such systems, they may have also been negligent in respect to establishing building code requirements, as there are still undetermined variables to be determined.

Some recent research one of us learned about at a PSU seminar on green roofs suggested that the micro-ecosystems varied by changes in substrate depths as little as 0.65 cm (1/4 inch). If confirmed than we could be looking a wide realm of impact possibilities not previously considered.

The study of topographical effects should also be considered as a factor as deviation from the natural surroundings could again cause unwanted or unpredicted influences. Further the couple between causes could manifest into larger upsets in the otherwise natural balance. One need not think back far to recall instances in our own culture both of agriculture and industrial to see the devastating effects of understudied breakthroughs in technology and materials.

Locality as well influences in implementation where the applicability of extensive roof designs are not practical in the southern hemisphere and thus create the need for the use of already short supply of potable water resources.

Ecoroofs at Portland State University

Upon further research, we discovered that Portland State University is home to five ecoroofs, including the largest ecoroof in Portland, located on the Broadway Housing Building (certified LEED Silver), which features an impressive 18,000 sq. ft. ecoroof. Another magnificent ecoroof is located on The Native American Student Center. The building highlights native plants on its rooftop gardens. There are also small ecoroofs located on Portland State University’s Natural Buildings. Two of these small ecoroofs can be found on Cob Oven, a community gathering space, and on a PSU informational kiosk between Smith Hall and Neuberger Hall. In 2005 PSU was awarded the BEST Award for the Broadway Housing Building’s ecoroof. Visit sustainability@pdx.edu to take a self-guided Sustainability Tour to see how and where PSU is incorporating sustainability into campus operations.

Sources:

Ecotrust. www.ecotrust.org (Accessed July 2011)
Sustainability at PSU. sustainability@pdx.edu (Accessed July2011)

–

In class today we watched three short videos that pertained to sustainability in three different aspects. The first video was Majora Carter‘s February 2006 TED presentation “Greening the Ghetto.” In this presentation, Carter explains the many benefits of turning industrial riverfront land into a public park. She came across this idea when she was walking her dog in a heavily industrialized neighborhood in South Bronx and discovered an old road that lead to the river. She was motivated to make a change. She brought up overwhelming statistics that show Blacks and Latinos being five times more likely to live in a neighborhood within walking distance to an industrial factory. People who live in these heavy-polluted neighborhoods are more likely to develop respiratory disorders and other health issues. She raises a great question: who would be motivated to go outside and exercise when one lives in area where the air is toxic?

What really struck us about her presentation was that she did not wait around for our government or local business leaders to do something about it, she took action herself. She started a riverfront city park—Hunts Point Riverside Park—that the neighborhood can take pride in. We found it fascinating how things like sustainable rooftops and green collar jobs resulted from the existence of the city park that Carter and her community had built. We find that Carter’s efforts fall under all three sustainability pillars: social sustainability, environmental, and the economics. It is socially sustainable because the community has formed an identity they can take pride in and there is now a greater sense of community; it falls under the environmental pillar because the people have further cleaned-up the area of pollution and expanded on it with things like “green” rooftops that grow plants and attract insects and birds. Finally, their new park plan falls under the economical pillar of sustainability because it has exposed people to sustainable “green collar” jobs that many were previously unaware of. The neatest thing of all is that this one woman took action on her own, got the community to support her and has since made her South Bronx neighborhood a better place to live.

The second video was Paul Stamets‘ March 2008 TED presentation, “6 Ways Mushrooms Can Save the World.” Stamets goes into great detail the benefits of mushrooms, and though at times he gets very technical, he still manages to explain information in a way that the audience can understand.

We learned a lot from this presentation, such as the fact that fungi have many medical benefits. Fungi are used for immunizations for all different types of flu viruses, and some of the best fungi for this purpose thrive in old growth forests. For us this is the best argument to save old growth forests. Stamets has even gotten the endorsement from the Department of Defense to conduct further research the medical benefits of fungi.

Stamets also points out the agricultural benefits of fungi and how they break simple things like rocks down to help make soil. Another great use for fungi is that they are able to pull toxins like oil and lead out of the ground. Fungi can be a natural way to remove oil from the ground so it does not end up in our ground water. Other interesting points were the use of fungi as a pest treatment in homes. Fungi are very effective in keeping carpenter ants and termites at bay; using fungi instead of harsh chemicals to keep pests away seems to us a fantastic idea.

The third short film was “Tabor Tilth,” a video from Starhawk featuring Connie Van Dyke’s home and urban agriculture project near Mt Tabor in Portland, Oregon. The point of the film was to demonstrate how make an urban property more sustainable using permaculture practices. She lives on a 1/5 acre lot and within the property she has a bee hive that helps pollinate her plants and rabbits that eat her weeds and spoiled fruits (and who also fertilize her garden). She has a pond that supplies water for her plants and a wood pile that offers shelter for animals to help aerate her compost. Everything on her property seems to work with the cycle of life and requires little human maintenance.

What we feel are the high points of her property is the different types of apple trees she plants which provide apples from a good part of spring through fall.

One of the low points is that also uses human feces and urine for her compost. This seems a little extreme for us but we have to hand it to her for being committed to having a sustainable property in the midst of an urban area. She demonstrates that anyone can do it.

-

The documentary Food Matters discusses the diet of most Americans and how unhealthy we are as a group. The ultimate message of this documentary is that if you eat well you will live well. It seems simple enough. It does seem simple enough, so why did the filmmakers spend thousands of dollars creating the film? Within ten minutes of watching the film, one of the premises of the filmmakers focus is clear—advocating for a raw food diet.

When one looks back to our hunter-and-gatherer ancestors, raw foods were a major staple of their diet. However, society today cannot hunt-and-gather as our ancestors did millennia ago. A point that the film brings to light is the importance of eating foods rich in antioxidants and vitamins. In spite of the billions and billions of potential profit in the diet and medical industry, most of the initial statements seem like common sense.

Yet, the documentary also goes into lengths explaining that our medical system is not diet-oriented. Many of our doctors are trained to treat medical problems with drugs rather than proper diet. The creators of the film bring up an important and fundamental point: With the proper diet, many illnesses can be avoided and even reversed. Our society relies too much on drugs for treatment which only relieve the patent of the symptoms they do not fix the problem. The creators of the film argue that cleaning your body of toxins and replenishing your body with antioxidants, vitamins, and good diet can lead to better health and fewer doctors’ visits.

This documentary shows a sustainable lifestyle that leads to fewer doctors’ visits and a better, longer, and happier life. Also this raises the question that if we as a society could have a healthier diet, would it lower our health costs? According to the film makers, we are facing a epidemic, and medication is not going to be the answer.

We have a few critiques and questions . . .

One critique that we have is that it seems to blame doctors and others for our individual eating habits. Should a doctor really need to tell a heart patient repeatedly to eat healthy foods and stay away from fried foods, high-sodium foods, etc.? We think not. However, we do know directly about a complicated situation involving a family members’ diet and his health. One of our family member’s doctors is intricately involved with his diet but his doctor has to repeatedly tell him to stop eating these foods or he will die; however, this family member is not always honest in reporting his diet to his doctor. It seems that one problem with the medical profession—regardless if one is a medical doctor, nutritionist, or a homeopathic doctor—is that patients lie about what they eat. Does this mean that the doctors and other medical professionals are corrupt?

The film points out the role that pharmaceutical companies play in medical practices, sometimes to the detriment of a person’s long-term health. However, if someone has a problem and there is a pill that will help, shouldn’t the doctor prescribe the pill?

Another aspect of this film that sticks with us and could work against the film’s message is when the raw food diet pioneer discusses his obese cousin who lost 150 pounds on the raw food diet. This person detoxified his body, which is great; he lost 150 pounds, which is phenomenal; in doing so, he had bowel movements twelve times a day . . . ewww. We would keep that aspect as fine print.

The film also does not take into account other aspects of healthy living such as exercise, reducing stress, or many other aspects that can have a tremendous impact on a person’s health. If food really matters, shouldn’t other aspects matter as well? The filmmakers never address this aspect of healthy people in the documentary and in our opinion that makes them as guilty as doctors not, as they claim, using nutrition to help cure patients.

In the end, we feel that it is important to arm one’s self with knowledge to make health-related decisions, even if making these decisions means going against what some people might promote.

-