Dr. Shawn Messonnier, DVM the host of the weekly award-winning radio show, "Dr. Shawn-The Natural Vet" on Martha Stewart Radio (Sirius 112 Tues 8-10 PM EST and Sat 9-11AM EST) sits on the advisory board of the Journal Veterinary Forum, and is a holistic pet columnist for Animal Wellness, Body + Soul, and Veterinary Forum. In addition to serving clients in his Paws & Claws Animal Hospital, he has written several books on the natural care of pets, including The Natural Health Bible for Dogs & Cats, The Allergy Solution for Dogs, 8 Weeks to a Healthy Dog, and most recently Preventing and Treating Cancer In Dogs.

Shawn Messonnier--

In any discussion of holistic, integrative medicine, it’s not unusual to hear the term "evidence-based" medicine thrown around. Usually, this term is used by opponents of a holistic/ integrative approach to health care. One method the fans of a strictly conventional approach use to try to shut down any rational discussion of using holistic therapies is to ask, "Where’s the evidence (proof) these therapies work?"

One of my goals is to start an integrative medicine course at my alma mater, for Texas A&M University College of Veterinary Medicine. A friend of mine, a proponent of integrative medicine, had the opportunity to discuss my proposal with the dean of the veterinary school. His response was that while some of the students and a few faculty members had shown an interest in integrative medicine, most of the faculty was opposed to the idea. He stated that they were a conservative school and only wanted to teach "evidence-based" medicine.

The astounding thing about his response is that there is a large amount of evidence behind the therapies we use in integrative medicine. For example, there are many years of research showing the benefits of joint supplements such as glucosamine for people and pets with arthritis. Not only do the studies show the positive benefits that can be achieved when the proper joint supplements are used correctly, but we have cellular evidence showing exactly how the supplements work in the body.

Omega-3 fatty acids have been recommended for use in pets for over 30 years. Originally proposed to help pets with allergic skin disease, we now know from the evidence obtained through research exactly how omega-3 fatty acids work, and that they bring positive benefits to patients with a number of diseases, including heart disease, joint disease, kidney disease, and even cancer.

I’ve had the pleasure of writing 12 books on the topic of integrative medicine for pets, and have contributed to countless other books and articles on the topic. These books came about after carefully researching the evidence-based medicine that supports the therapies I described. I regularly read textbooks and medical journals in both the human and veterinary medical fields describing evidence-based natural therapies that can be used in place of or in conjunction with conventional medical therapies.

For a dean of a prestigious veterinary school to state that there is no evidence for integrative medicine is illogical and ignores the large amount of proof that exists for the therapies we use every day. If we are going to take the "high and mighty" approach that we will only teach or use therapies based on "evidence," then to be fair we must be consistent in our approach.

There are many conventional therapies that have been used in both human and veterinary medicine before a full understanding of how they worked was known. Even today, certain medications are rushed to market an attempt to help severely ill patients before a full body of "evidence" is obtained.

For those whose veterinarians are opposed to using an integrative approach to health care, citing that they only use "evidence-based" medicine, I would suggest you pose the following question to them:

"Where is the "evidence-based" medicine that
supports the common practice of annual vaccination?"

Of course if you ask your veterinarian this, you may upset him or her so much that you’ll soon be looking for a new veterinarian (which is not necessarily a bad thing if he or she still practices the outdated suggestion that pets need annual vaccinations!)

The easy answer to this important question is that there is no "evidence-based" medicine to support the worn out and dangerous practice of annual vaccination for pets. There is no research proving that pets require annual vaccination for every infectious disease.

Did you ever stop to wander the following: if annual vaccinations are so important for dogs and cats, why we don’t vaccinate people every year against infectious diseases? Shouldn’t we too be protected annually against infectious diseases?

Well there are really two reasons we people do not receive annual vaccinations. The first is that most vaccines produce long-lasting immunity in people (and in pets!) Annual vaccination is not necessary, and would actually constitute malpractice in human medical practices. Based upon years of research we know the approximate duration of immunity each vaccine will produce in a given human patient.

The second reason for not administering vaccinations to people on an annual basis is to prevent serious and possibly fatal side effects. These can include serum sickness (a severe allergic reaction to the vaccine components,) immune diseases of the blood and other organs, and even cancers.

Knowing this, it is tempting to ask ourselves why we vaccinate pets every year.

Research done over the last 10 years shows that the high quality vaccines we use every day in practice produce long-lasting immunity in pets, similar to what is found in people. At this point we don’t know the maximum duration of immunity for each vaccine. Studies have shown that some of our vaccines can produce immunity for five or ten years, and possibly even for the life of the pet.

As is true with people, we see a number of diseases in pets who are vaccinated too frequently.

While current recommendations from veterinary vaccine experts recommend vaccinations every three years, integrative doctors, including me, recommend only vaccinating healthy pets based upon the results of inexpensive blood titer tests.

The other question that’s tempting to ask ourselves is what constitutes "evidence?" How do we know that a therapy works or doesn’t work? How do doctors gather evidence?

Whether we’re talking about a drug or natural therapy, evidence is only obtained by using the therapy in patients. We know for example that ibuprofen works well in people to control headaches, inflammation, and mild pain because millions of people have used many doses of the medication. We know that the NSAID Metacam works well in dogs and cats to minimize inflammation and pain seen with musculoskeletal problems and following surgical procedures. Likewise we know the nutritional supplement choline works very well to help prevent and treat cognitive disorder in pets, and glucosamine, chondroitin, and hyaluronic acid are great therapies to relieve arthritis pain. We have evidence of the effectiveness of these therapies because someone thought they might work, then the therapies were tried in a small number of patients and showed effectiveness and safety, and finally many doses were used which confirmed the initial findings of safety and effectiveness.

So when a conventional doctor with a bias against integrative medicine states that he only supports "evidence-based" medicine, he’s not being honest or fair. He only supports conventional medicine, even when (in the case of annual vaccinations for dogs and cats for example) there is evidence-based medicine showing that this conventional practice is no longer needed!

Finally, keep in mind that medicine is part "art" as well as part "science." While it’s great to have a lot of "science" behind what we do, integrative medicine appreciates the "art" of medicine. There is no one "cookie cutter" approach to treating every patient. Experience obtained by treating large numbers of patients, and being open to trying whatever therapy might help the patient, constitute the "art" of medicine. So often the "art" is what is missing from the strictly conventional approach. Most of what I and my holistic colleagues do is try to find the best therapy for each patient based upon historical and examination data. While I have science to back up everything I do, it’s my application of the science (which is the "art" of medicine,) which determines the outcome of each case.

"Evidence-based" medicine is important, but integrative medicine is "evidence-based" and should be accepted as freely as "evidence-based" conventional medicine.

Keep that in mind the next time someone tries to convince you that only "proven" (conventional) therapies can help you or your pet!

Another Recall: Pet Food--What's Really In It?

7 Things Your Pet Wants To Stay Healthy

Sally Kneidel, PhD, is the author of eleven books on nature, conservation, and science topics. Two books from Fulcrum co-authored by Sally and Sadie Kneidel are Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet (May, 2008) and Veggie Revolution: Smart Choices for a Healthy Body and A Healthy Planet (Nov, 2005). Contact the author at skneidel@earthlink.net.

Sally Kneidel-

China has received kudos worldwide for a green Olympics. They've used the latest innovations in sustainable architecture, energy and landscaping for the 2008 Olympic Village in Beijing.

Given the media coverage of the Olympics, such efforts will go a long way in improving the world's impressions of China's environmental scorecard. China's choices for the Olympic Village are commendable, in that they've set a precedent for future Olympic Villages and other major construction projects, and they've also publicly validated that "green" is a goal to be proud of, for all of us.

But the green Olympic Village is a bit of smoke screen for China. The reality is that China is the world's most polluted nation.

According to Peter Navarro of UC-Irvine, 70 percent of China's major rivers are severely polluted, 80 percent of its rivers fail to meet standards for fishing, and 90 percent of its cities suffer from water pollution. As a result, over half of China's people drink foul water of a quality well below World Health Organization standards. Not surprisingly, liver and stomach cancers are leading causes of death in the Chinese countryside.

The widespread water-pollution problem was evident even in the Olympics, although not widely publicized. One third of the Olympic sailing course was closed for sailing practice due to massive algal blooms which the Chinese scrambled to contain. Algal blooms are a rampant problem from China's overuse of fertilizers, which flood into rivers and streams. When the algae decay, the bacteria use all the oxygen in rivers and lakes, killing fish and other aquatic life, while the high nitrogen levels from fertilizers are dangerous and can be lethal to humans.

China's pollution of its waters is only one aspect of its frightening environmental performance. According to Worldwatch Institute, worldwide carbon emissions increased 22% between 2000 and 2007, and China accounted for a whopping 57% of that growth.

China's recent industrialization has been explosive and unprecedented. Because of their huge human populations, the coal-dependent development of China and India is the biggest driver of growth in global carbon emissions. China's fossil-fuel emissions passed those of the United States this year, reports the United Nations Environmental Program.

Stabilizing our global climate will require that industrialized and heavily polluting countries like the United States move to low-carbon energy sources, and that rapidly expanding nations like China and India pursue cleaner energy development.

But China's economy will grow faster if its industries are allowed to minimize costs and maximize profits; in other words, if they're allowed to burn the cheapest fuels, such as coal, and skip the expensive scrubbers that can remove pollutants from smokestack emissions. And just like the United States, China prefers the prosperity of rapid economic growth. I wonder if China's motivation for hosting the Olympics was, at least in part, the opportunity to divert attention from their growing contributions to our planet's climatic plight. With a population more than 4 times that of the U.S., their potential for future damage dwarfs our own.

On the bright side, international action to protect our climate is intensifying. In December 2007, the 192 parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed to establish a new global climate change agreement by 2009. This will build on the existing Kyoto Protocol, which commits industrial countries to reduce green­house gas emissions to 6-8 percent below their 1990 levels. The current Kyoto Protocol has not been adopted by dev­eloping countries such as China or by the United States. We must all work toward the compliance of these biggest offenders with the new agreement of 2009, starting with the candidates we choose in November. Perhaps one day the green face that countries present to the world stage will truly represent a greener way of guarding our rivers, our air, our future. Maybe we'll celebrate our Olympics of the year 2052 in a world where carbon emissions have stabilized and lakes aren't clogged with algae.

Beijing's Sustainable Olympic Village Provides Competition for Vancouver And London

China's Growing Appetite For Meat Will Strain World Water Supplies

Author, journalist and public speaker Nancy S. Grant’s newest book, The Pocket Idiot’s™ Guide to Your Carbon Footprint, offers clear explanations of the science and technology behind today’s energy headlines, concise definitions of energy terms, plus practical tips for using energy more wisely in all activities, whether at home, school, work, or play.

A freelance journalist since 1986, Nancy S. Grant researches, writes and speaks about a full range of energy issues, from electricity generation, distribution and reliability, to emerging energy technology, environmental impacts and the carbon cycle, as well as global access to energy supplies and changes in demand for all forms of energy.

Since 2002, Grant’s written the monthly “Future of Electricity” column for Kentucky Living magazine, a publication of the Kentucky Association of Electric Cooperatives. Her energy columns recently received 2^nd place honors at the 2008 Cooperative Communicators Association Institute in Portland, Maine. 

Nancy Grant--

Some kinds of energy supplies are easier to measure and predict than others.

This morning, my car’s fuel gauge was at the halfway mark, which is roughly ten gallons left in the tank. At 19 mpg, that means I can drive about another 175 miles or so, depending on how many times I get stuck in idling traffic jams, before I really, really need to buy some more gas. But that would be cutting things a bit close.

Here on my laptop computer a little icon tells me I have about 1.3 hours’ worth of electrical charge left in my battery. I might not be able to keep on working until lunchtime without hearing that annoying “beep” that means my system is going to shut itself down. Instead of working straight through, I might need to move to a spot indoors where I can plug in my power cord to an electrical outlet to recharge. Or I might have to switch to old-fashioned pencil on paper.

When I do recharge, that electricity will come from the nation’s power grid.

But how can anyone measure and predict how much power is available in the grid? What’s in there to recharge a laptop battery or a cell phone, provide power for the lights, the air conditioning, the conventional desktop computer and printer, plus the microwave in the kitchen? 

How can anyone predict if that’s enough power in the grid for what I need to do today? What about all the other people who’re busy at their jobs, or at school, or at home doing the chores or watching TV? How much electricity will all of us need?

Is the supply of electricity today equal to the amount of power millions of people will demand?

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) monitors the supply of electricity in the United States and Canada. Originally a voluntary association of electric utility entities involved in the nation’s bulk power supply (the electricity that goes into the grid), NERC’s role changed in 2007. Now many of NERC’s carefully developed protocols for measurement and standards for operations have became mandatory, backed by the force of law.

Now, what does all this have to do with me -- recharging the batteries on my laptop -- or with you -- recharging the battery in your cell phone?

There isn’t some great big grid gauge anywhere, something like the fancy ball sliding down the pole at Times Square on New Year’s Eve, to tell us if we’re running out of electricity. No two-minute warning signal like in the fourth quarter of a football game, either. And no “beep” on our household electric meters to tell us that we’re running low on electricity coming through the wires.

Courtesy Kentucky Living/NRECA

But we are getting dangerously close to a big mismatch between the amount of electricity people want during any particular hour and what we have the capacity to generate. We could run out of electricity very soon. We could have more brownouts and blackouts as early as next year in certain regions.

Why? Three big reasons.

First, as we shift away from the megawatt capacity generating plants fired by fossil fuels (such as coal and natural gas) to smaller kilowatt capacity renewable fuel sources (such as solar and wind), we may decrease the total amount of electricity available during any particular hour in any particular region.

Second, we’re not adding enough transmission lines to connect various kinds of generating stations to bring the electricity we generate from all sources to the areas where people need it.

Third, the demand for electricity just keeps growing.

That last one is something you can do something about right now.

As you adjust your energy habits to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, keep this thought in mind: Every “green” step you take to lower the size of your carbon footprint --- by using less electricity ---could also help prevent brownouts and blackouts in the future. That’s the kind of multi-tasking I like.

Some energy terms defined:

Demand --- the amount of electricity drawn from an electric system at any given time.

Load --- another way to describe the amount of electricity drawn from an electric system at any give time.

Peak load is the amount of power drawn at the time of highest demand.

What it all means to you: On a hot humid summer afternoon, when air conditioners are cycling on all over the place in your region, demand for electricity can reach a peak. If your utility doesn’t have enough generating capacity to meet that demand, the system may not function correctly. Power may need to be shifted from one section to another, or the voltage may need to be reduced temporarily.

Brownout --- a small reduction in the voltage flowing through a section of the electric grid to manage the amount of power available during a time of peak demand; the opposite of a power surge (when voltage increases)

Blackout --- a total power failure over a large area, usually caused by major equipment failure

What it all means to you : Transmission lines, transformers, and other parts of the electric grid can overheat when demand is high, causing temporary brownouts or triggering outages that lead to blackouts.

Green power sources such as wind, which often are not steady, make operating the grid a bit more complicated. When wind power generation isn’t contributing kilowatts to the system, it can put too much strain on the other generating sources, leading to brownouts or blackouts.

Your greenest option: Shift the times of day you use electricity away from peak demand hours.

I run my dishwasher at midnight, and try to have the day’s laundry finished by ten in the morning. I usually cook roasts and soups in my slow cooker overnight, not during the daytime. Many evenings I never use my conventional oven or range to prepare supper, and simply re-heat foods for a minute or two in the microwave.

And as often as practical, I re-charge my laptop, cell phone and digital camera overnight, not during peak demand daylight hours.

Extras:
Look at a map prepared in 2007 that shows, region by region, when electricity demand might be greater than supply on page 11.

Read an overview of the issues at North American Electric Reliability Corporation.

One section of a very comprehensive report from the US Energy Information Agency’s takes a look at predictions about changes in the nation’s electricity system. Peering into the future up to the year 2030, this report devotes just a few paragraphs to electricity demand, then treats electricity supplies separately, breaking out such things as how much hydro generation there might be, how much wind, and how much coal-fired. A key element of the report is various “what if” scenarios, based on things such as changing prices or various tax incentives or penalties.

To Drill Or Not To Drill

It's Green To Stay Married

Should We Give Up On Renewable Fuels?

Dr. Jonathan Harrington is an associate professor of international relations at Troy University. An experienced teacher and expert on environmental politics and policy, Jonathan has been educating students and the public about environmental issues for more than 15 years. He has published numerous articles and book chapters on environment and development related topics. Fluent in Mandarin Chinese, Dr. Harrington has spent many years living and working in East Asia and has travelled to more than 35 countries. He has hosted, organized and spoken at international conferences in Japan, New Zealand, Hong Kong and the United States.

His most recent book, The Climate Diet (Earthscan 2008), presents a compelling case for the proposition that global warming is in our back yard, is a clear and present danger and will bring even greater suffering to our families, communities and world if we do not take action now. Drawing from his own personal experiences, both at home and overseas, he directly confronts tough questions about how this problem came about and what we can do to overcome it. He offers an optimistic, easy to understand and engaging message; that individuals, organizations and communities can empower themselves to decrease their impact on the climate (and save money). His love for nature and overriding concern about the future of all the “backyards” that he has lived in over the years; Shanghai, London, Hyderabad, Taipei, Tokyo, Honolulu, and Utah among others, are vividly expressed in his book.

Jonathan Harrington--

(Seattle, WA) Not a day goes by without the release of some new study about the threat of global warming. Indeed, the world’s scientists are pretty much in agreement that human activities contribute to the problem. Less known is the fact that the food we eat also affects our climate. But I have good news. Some of the most nutritious, high fiber and low fat foods long advocated by diet gurus are also better for our atmosphere. Eating right not only reduces the size of your waist line, but can also cut your ‘carbon footprint,’ or your personal contribution to the growth of greenhouse gasses that are warming our world.

A group of Danish scientists (www.lcafood.dk) recently came up with a new and exciting way to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the production, distribution, storage, packaging and transport of different types of food. Did you know that producing 1 kg (2.2 pounds) of beef results in more than 11.4 kg (25.2 pounds) of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent emissions (CO₂e) vs. only 2.95 kg (CO₂e) for the same amount of chicken?

Chicken definitely beats out beef when it comes to your carbon footprint. It is also generally lower in calories and fat. But most vegetables and grains are even better. Let’s take a look at a few more examples.

Food item	Kg CO2e emissions per kg product produced
Eggs (1 kg)	2
Dairy (1 kg)	1,2
Rice (1 kg)	1.0
Beef (1 kg) (live unprocessed)	11.6
Pork (1 kg ham shank)	2.95
Poultry (1 kg retail)	3.16
Fresh veg. (1 kg fresh)	.150

Source: Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) (2006) “LCA Food Database,” Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen, which can be accessed at www.lcafood.dk.

One more thing to keep in mind is that the farther our food has to travel to get to our plates, the more energy it takes to transport and store. So, when possible, try to buy food produced closer to home. It is not only good for the climate, but it also helps the local economy by stimulating jobs and investment in your own community.

Overall, Americans produce about 20 tonnes of CO₂ per person per year, one of the highest rates in the world. Food is a big contributor to this legacy. For a family of four, food consumption can have as big an effect on the climate as driving a small car for a year (and this does not even include impacts from cooking). So, the next time you hear a story about the threat of global climate change, don’t just sit on your duff and shake your head in frustration. Do something about it. Cooks of the world unite, now is the time to rise up and join the fight against global warming!

CO2 e=Carbon dioxide equivalent is determined by adding up the relative contribution of different greenhouse gases to global warming (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) as measured in carbon dioxide units.

Copyright by Dr. Jonathan Harrington (2008)

All rights reserved

The End of Food

Aussies Move Toward Eating More Kangaroo To Combat Greenhouse Emissions

China's Growing Appetite For Meat Will Strain World Water Supplies

Juliana Sloane is a freelance writer with an MA in Gender Studies from Central European University in Budapest, Hungary. With varied interests ranging from gender in the post-state socialist context to community media to natural foods and sustainability issues, Sloane has has found herself in a variety of occupations. Previous incarnations have included development assistant and host of weekend programming with NPR affiliate 88.5 WFDD in North Carolina and assistant to the Executive Director of San Francisco's Institute For Unpopular Culture. She has recently moved back to North Carolina from Hungary and spends her time working at a local natural foods co-op and pining for good espresso.

Juliana Sloane--

Despite its official opening against a thick backdrop of smog several weeks ago, the Beijing Olympic Village has become iconic of the city's efforts to embody a "Green Olympics." With features such as a 6,000 square meter rooftop solar heating system designed to provide hot bath water for the 17,200 competing athletes, as well as a "near-zero energy" welcome center that takes advantage of both solar and geothermal power, the Village makes the most of the latest innovations in sustainable architecture, energy, and landscaping.

Receiving glowing reviews all-around, could the Beijing Olympic Village be an indicator of a new category of Olympic competition? Could a race not for Gold medals, but for greener, more sustainable development within host-cities be afoot?

The buzz of enthusiasm centered on the Olympic Village culminated in the green building industry's own variety of Gold medal- the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Gold Award- which was presented to the Village's head, Chen Zhili, last Wednesday. This is the first residential building in Beijing to win a LEED Gold; further increasing the prestige of the Village which is slated to be transformed into luxury apartments after the Games.

Perhaps hoping to best Beijing's work towards going green for the Olympics, plans are already being set into motion for the Winter 2010 Games in Vancouver, B.C., and the Summer 2012 Games in London.

In Vancouver, two Olympic villages will be built in compliance with LEED gold (and according to planners, hopefully platinum) standards. Afterward, both sites will be developed as "model sustainable communities this time with the focus shifting more toward reasonably priced housing. Of the 1,100 residential units, 250 will be slated as "affordable housing" and 110 more will be deemed "modest market" housing.

While fewer concrete decisions have been made about the next summer games in London, there is a push by groups such as Carfree UK to keep the Olympic Village a car-free zone after the games. With housing, shops, and other attractions located within distances easily managed on foot or by bike, London's Olympic Village is expected to play a role in larger revitalization plan for the Stratford City area. The 3,300 new homes anticipated to follow the 2012 games will also include a mix of affordable sale and rental housing, all with green features.

If these developments are any indication, green building enthusiasts may have as much to look forward to in future Olympic Games as sports fans as Beijing raises the bar for eco-friendly Olympic architecture.

Will The Olympics In China Be Doomed By Smog?

CARBS!  It's What Fuels Michael Phelps's Olympic Fire