We're all best served to take these bits of "advice" with a grain of salt. What galls me is the extremes "experts" like Joy Bauer and Jillian Michaels seem to preach; they're too obsessed with size, and not true health.

Mind you, I'm a fan of "The Biggest Loser." It's inspired me to take a more active approach in my health and fitness. But I'll seek guidance from my own personal trainer and nutritionists that from those who have books and merchandise to sell.

I agree- here's to "eating food," as Pollan frequently counsels. It sucks that convenience food often seems cheaper and easier.

Great post. Very well-written. I agree that we must learn to enjoy food and learn how to make fresh, good food. If we focused on the enjoying and not on counting the calories, then we'd be happier and healthier. But that would kill the diet industry, wouldn't it?

My wife and kids are avid watchers of The Biggest Loser - and I watch it with one eye.

It strikes me that with each successive season it becomes less about getting healthy and more about entertainment. Because seriously - the people on the show and the way they lose weight has very little semblance to the rest of us. Most of us aren't 200 pounds overweight and we also aren't hunkered down in a controlled environment for months on end where we work with personal trainers constantly, have the luxury of exercising 5-10 hours per day - and lose 10% of our body weight EVERY WEEK!. That's not realistic and it's not healthy either.

Yes the product placements are a joke and I'm guessing that outside of the show neither Bob nor Jillian would recommend the same stuff they do on the show.

And it annoys me how formulamatic the show has gotten - 1st week Bob and Jillian yell and swear at contestants...eventually Jillian shrinks each person so we get their sobbing back story...and the cameras happen to catch the same assortment of conniving and snivelling and sobbing and fat people falling off treadmills every season while they and us all have to pretend that it's not staged at all.

And of course there are the obligatory "surprise" visits by previous contestants, those doctors informing them they're going to die if they don't change, someone being rushed to the hospital, the pool nobody every swims in, makeover week, Alison's 10-per-show wardrobe changes and stupid prodding and questions (Do you feel like you've let your team down and that you're less than a peeled zero? Do you, do you?), the contestants acting surprised when faced with the same surprises that happen every season, those ridiculous food cases with the lights that go out, ...

So...if someone takes all of that as legitimate weight loss advice and nutritional counselling, well....

Eatting at home, cooking your own meals, there's nothing more delicious and enjoyable than homecooking. I mentioned the other day, at my health club, that I wasn't into eatting fake food, only real food and some people asked me what I was talking about. Food education, consumer awareness of the food industry, and all the traps that consumers can fall into by eatting convenience food are all areas where shows like the Biggest Loser could actually serve a community good. I am not a fan of the show because showing weight loss as a difficult and tortuous endeavor just isn't real. I wish people would learn to read labels and value the quality and kind of food they eat. Weightloss and maintenance can be much more fun. Less masochism and more ahimsa.

The following quotes, facts, figures, and statistics are excerpted from Please Don't Eat the Animals (2007) by Jennifer Horsman and Jaime Flowers:

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."

---Albert Einstein

"Each year, the meat industrial complex abuses and butchers nearly 9 billion cows, pigs, sheep, turkeys, chickens, and other innocent, feeling animals just for the enjoyment of consumers. Each year, nearly 1.5 million of these consumers are crippled and killed prematurely by heart failure, cancer, stroke, and other chronic diseases that have been linked conclusively with the consumption of these animals. Each year, millions of other animals are abused and sacrificed in a vain search for a 'magic pill' that would vanquish these largely self-inflicted diseases."

---Alex Hershaft, PhD, president, Farm Animal Reform Movement

When analyzing 8,300 deaths in the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany among 76,000 men and women in five different, large studies, researchers concluded that vegetarians have a 24 percent reduction in death from heart disease.

Similarly, in the famous Oxford Vegetarian Study, where 6,000 vegetarians were compared with 5,000 meat-eaters over nearly two decades, scientists found that the rate of death from heart disease was 28 percent lower in vegetarians than in meat-eaters.

One study analyzed eighty scientific studies in leading medical journals. The analysis found that vegetarians had lower blood pressure, and were less likely to suffer from stroke, heart attack, and kidney failure.

A large German study of nearly 2,000 vegetarians found that deaths from heart disease were reduced by over one-third, and that heart disease itself was far less than that of the general population.

Another large study examined the coronary artery disease risk of young adults ages 18 to 30 and vegetarians were found to have much higher levels of cardiovascular fitness and a greatly reduced risk of heart disease.

"The process of gradual blocking of the coronary arteries begins not in adulthood but in childhood...and the main cause of this arteriosclerosis is the steadily increasing amount of fat in the American diet, particularly saturated animal fats such as those found in meat, chicken, milk and cheeses. If there was another disease that caused half a million deaths a year, you can be sure that the public would be acutely aware of the danger, and that the cure or prevention would be universally practiced."

---Dr. Benjamin Spock, author, child expert

"I don't understand why asking people to eat a well-balanced vegetarian diet is considered drastic, while it is medically conservative to cut people open and put them on powerful cholesterol-lowering drugs for the rest of their lives."

---Dr. Dean Ornish, author, Reversing Heart Disease

Stroke is the third leading cause of death behind heart disease and cancer. Vegetarians have a 20 to 30 percent reduced risk of having a stroke. Stroke, like heart disease, is associated with diets high in saturated fats, and the vegetarian diet is naturally low in these fats.

The Oxford Vegetarian Study found cancer mortality to be 39 percent lower among vegetarians when compared with meat-eaters. The European Prospective Investigation of Cancer found vegetarians suffer 40 percent fewer cancers than the general population.

Studies have shown that decreasing a woman's animal fat intake can reduce the chances that she will die from breast cancer. A large-scale, long-term study in the Netherlands found a powerful connection between the amount of animal fat consumed and the rate of prostate cancer. A review of a dozen studies found dietary fat strongly correlated with prostate cancer.

Ovarian, uterine, and endometrial cancers have all been shown to be strongly correlated to the amount of animal fat in one's diet, and vegetarian women have significantly lower rates of these cancers.

"The beef industry has contributed to more American deaths than all the wars of this century, all the natural disasters, and all automobile accidents combined."

---Dr. Neal Barnard, Executive Director, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

"Vegetarians have the best diet. They have the lowest rate of coronary disease of any group in the country. They have a fraction of our heart attack rate and they have only 40 percent of our cancer rate."

---William Castelli, MD, Director, Framingham Heart Study

"Human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."

---Dr. William Roberts, editor-in-chief, American Journal of Cardiology

The health advantages of a vegetarian diet are well-known in the American medical community, but are just beginning to gain acceptance in the popular culture. The ethical, nutritional and environmental arguments in favor of vegetarianism have been well documented by author John Robbins in his 1987 Pulitzer Prize nominated book, Diet for a New America, which makes ethical vegetarianism seem as mainstream as recycling.

It’s healthier to be a vegetarian. During the period of October 1917 to October 1918, war rationing forced the Danish government to put its citizens on a vegetarian diet. This was a “mass experiment in vegetarianism,” with over three million subjects. The results were astonishing. The mortality rate dropped by 34 percent. The very same phenomenon was observed in occupied Norway during the Second World War. After the war, heavy consumption of meat resumed, and the mortality rate shot back up.

Studies done at Yale University by Professor Irving Fisher demonstrated that flesh-eaters have less endurance than vegetarians. A similar study done by Dr. J. Ioteyko of the Academie de Medicine in Paris found that vegetarians have two to three times more stamina than flesh-eaters and they take only one-fifth the time to recover from exhaustion.

In recent years, there has been widespread concern about osteoporosis, which is epidemic in America, especially among older women. The popular myth has been to solve the problem by consuming more calcium. Yet this doesn’t attack the root of the problem.

Osteoporosis is caused by excess consumption of protein. Americans overdose on protein, getting 1.5 to 2 times more protein than their bodies can handle. The body can’t store excess protein, so the kidneys are forced to excrete it. In doing so, they must draw upon calcium from the bloodstream. This negative calcium balance in the blood is compensated for by calcium loss from the bones: osteoporosis. The calcium lost in the bones of flesh-eaters is 5 to 6 times greater than that lost in the bones of vegetarians.

Excessive protein intake also taxes the kidneys; in America, it is not uncommon to find many over 45 with kidney problems. A strong correlation between excessive protein intake and cancer of the breast, prostate, pancreas and colon has even been observed.

It must be pointed out that meat, fish, and eggs are the most acidic forming foods; heavy consumption of these foods will cause the body to draw upon calcium to restore its pH balance. The calcium lost from the bones gets into one’s urine and often crystallizes into kidney stones, which are found in far greater frequency among flesh-eaters than among vegetarians. Studies have found that vegetarians in the United States have less than half the kidney stones of the general population.

The high consumption of saturated fats and cholesterol leads to artherosclerosis—more popularly known as “hardening of the arteries.” Plant foods contain zero cholesterol and only palm oil, coconuts and chocolate contain saturated fats. Lowering the cholesterol and fat intake in one’s diet lowers the risk of heart disease—America’s biggest killer.

As far back as 1961, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that “A vegetarian diet can prevent 97% of our coronary occlusions.” Much has been said about the advantage of polyunsaturated fats as a means of lowering cholesterol in the blood. Unfortunately, this also has the adverse side effect of driving the cholesterol out of the blood and into the colon; contributing to colon cancer. The best way to prevent heart disease is to avoid foods high in fat and cholesterol.

Up to 50 percent of all cancers are caused by diet. Meat and fat intake are primarily responsible. The incidence of colon cancer is high in regions where meat consumption is high and low where meat consumption is minimal. A lack of fiber in the diet also contributes significantly to colon cancer.

It’s important to note that unprocessed plant foods are high in fiber and carbohydrates, while animal flesh has none. The highest incidence of breast cancer occurs among flesh-eating populations; meat eating women have a four times greater risk of developing breast cancer than do vegetarian women. There is also a greater risk of cervical, uterine, and ovarian cancer—all linked to diets high in fat. Men who consume large quantities of animal fat also have a 3.6 times greater risk of getting prostate cancer.

Diabetes is known to be treatable on a low fat, high fiber diet. Incidence of diabetes balloons among populations eating a rich, meat-based diet. Hypoglycemia is caused by the excessive consumption of meats, sugar and fat. Multiple Sclerosis is also treatable on a low-fat diet. MS is prevalent among populations where consumption of animal fats is high and is least common where such consumption is low. A brain tissue analysis of people with MS found a high saturated fat content.

Ulcers occur most frequently in diets which are acid forming, low in fiber and high in fats. Meat, fish, and eggs are the most acid forming of all foods, and animal flesh has no fiber and excess fat. Low fiber, high-fat diets are the principle cause of hemorrhoids and also diverticulosis—which affects 75 percent of Americans over the age of 75. Similarly, 35 percent of Americans are afflicted with some form of arthritis by the age of 35. Over 85 percent of all Americans over age 70 have arthritis, yet it is treatable on a fat free diet.

Excess cholesterol forms gallstones. Gallstones, as well as gallbladder disease and gallbladder cancer are usually found in people with low-fiber, high cholesterol, high fat diets. Hypertension is virtually unknown in countries where the intake of salt, fat and cholesterol is low. At the University Hospital in Linkoping, Sweden, even severe asthma patients were found to be treatable on a vegetarian diet. Flesh foods in America are also contaminated with coliform bacteria and salmonella. Much healthier alternatives exist.

William S. Collens and Gerald B. Dobkens conclude: “Examination of the dental structure of modern man reveals that he possesses all the features of a strictly herbivorous animal. While designed to subsist on vegetarian foods, he has perverted his dietary habits to accept food of the carnivore. It is postulated that man cannot handle carnivorous foods like the carnivore. Herein may lie the basis for the high incidence of arteriosclerotic disease.”

The Ladrone Islands were discovered by the Spaniards around 1620. There were no animals on the islands except birds, which the natives did not eat. The natives had never seen fire, and they lived entirely on plant foods—fruits and roots in their natural state. They were found to be vigorous, active, and of good longevity.

Dr. Gordon Latto notes that carnivorous and omnivorous animals can only move their jaws up and down, and that omnivores “have a blunt tooth, a sharp tooth, a blunt tooth, a sharp tooth—showing that they were destined to deal both with flesh foods from the animal kingdom and foods from the vegetable kingdom...

“Carnivorous mammals and omnivorous mammals cannot perspire except at the extremity of the limbs and the tip of the nose; man perspires all over the body. Finally, our instincts; the carnivorous mammal (which first of all has claws and canine teeth) is capable of tearing flesh asunder, whereas man only partakes of flesh foods after they have been camouflaged by cooking and by condiments.

“Man instinctively is not carnivorous,” explains Dr. Latto. “...he takes the flesh food after somebody else has killed it, and after it has been cooked and camouflaged with certain condiments. Whereas to pick an apple off a tree or eat some grain or a carrot is a natural thing to do: people enjoy doing it; they don’t feel disturbed by it. But to see these animals being slaughtered does affect people; it offends them. Even the toughest of people are affected by the sights in the slaughterhouse.

“I remember taking some medical students into a slaughterhouse. They were about as hardened people as you could meet. After seeing the animals slaughtered that day in the slaughterhouse, not one of them could eat the meat that evening.”

Author R.H. Wheldon writes in No Animal Food:

“The gorge of a cat, for instance, will rise at the smell of a mouse or a piece of raw flesh, but not at the aroma of fruit. If a man can take delight in pouncing upon a bird, tear its still living body apart with his teeth, sucking the warm blood, one might infer that Nature had provided him with carnivorous instinct, but the very thought of doing such a thing makes him shudder. On the other hand, a bunch of luscious grapes makes his mouth water, and even in the absence of hunger, he will eat fruit to gratify taste.”

Some argue that human intelligence has enabled man to transcend his physical limitations and function as a “natural” flesh-eater. If this is true, then we must also classify napalm, poison gas, and nuclear weapons as “natural,” too, because they are also products of (misused!) human intelligence. Agriculture , cookery, transportation, refrigeration, etc. aren’t found in nature, either. One might therefore argue if human technology is “natural,” then human ethical behavior is equally natural.

“I am the very opposite of an anthropomorphizer,” said writer Brigid Brophy. “I don’t hold animals superior or even equal to humans. The whole case for behaving decently towards animals rests on the fact that we are the superior species. We are the species uniquely capable of rationality, imagination and moral choice, and that is precisely why we are under obligation to respect the rights of other creatures.”

The fact that predators exist in the wild does not imply man must automatically imitate them. Cannibalism and rape also occur in nature. Robert Louis Stevenson, in his book, In the South Seas, wrote that there was no difference between the “civilized” Europeans and the “savages” of the Cannibal Islands: “We consume the carcasses of creatures with like appetites, passions, and organs as our own. We feed on babes, though not our own, and fill the slaughterhouses daily with screams of pain and fear.”

Keith Akers in A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983), responds to the argument that killing animals for food is natural:

"The main problem with this argument is that it does not justify the practice of meat-eating or animal husbandry as we know it today; it justifies hunting. The distinction between hunting and animal husbandry probably seems rather fine to the man in the street, or even to your typical rule-utilitarian moral philosopher. The distinction, however, is obvious to an ecologist. If one defends killing on the grounds that it occurs in nature, then one is defending the practice as it occurs in nature.

"When one species of animal preys on another in nature, it only preys on a very small proportion of the total species population. Obviously, the predator species relies on its prey for its continued survival. Therefore, to wipe the prey species out through overhunting would be fatal. In practice, members of such predator species rely on such strategies as territoriality to restrict overhunting and to insure the continued existence of its food supply.

"Moreover, only the weakest members of the prey species are the predator's victims: the feeble, the sick, the lame, or the young accidentally separated from the fold. The life of the typical zebra is usuallly placid, even in lion country; this kind of violence is the exception in nature, not the rule.

"As it exists in the wild, hunting is the preying upon isolated members of an animal herd. Animal husbandry is the nearly complete annihilation of an animal herd. In nature, this kind of slaughter does not exist. The philosopher is free to argue that there is no moral difference between hunting and slaughter, but he cannot invoke nature as a defense of this idea.

"Why are hunters, not butchers, most frequently taken to task by the larger community for their killing of animals? Hunters usually react to such criticism by replying that if hunting is wrong, then meat-hunting must be wrong as well. The hunter is certainly right on one point--the larger community is hypocritical to object to hunting when it consumes the flesh of domesticated animals. If any form of meat-eating is justified, it would be meat from a hunted animal."

I am convinced that the fast food industry (especially many restaurants) exist solely to provide more patients for the drugs that are prescribed more than any other. The Lipitors and the many others and ED is linked to obesity and diabetes and smoking.

It's all linked and the links are strong. One of the hallmarks of intelligence is supposed to be choosing better things to do and better things to eat yet our brain dead country is hooked on total crap! McDonald's (who is more of a real estate company than any thing else) and Wendy's with their triple and quad patty burgers and Outback Snakepit and their flagrant disdain for nutrition exposure laws. That blooming onion is a cardiac surgeon's wet dream! That and the chili cheese fries!

I gave up all red meat and started using that exercise equipment and bikes that I purchased decades ago with the grand idea to use them 'sometime' and actually lost 65 pounds! Now I eat granola and yogurt for breakfast and salads and fish, beans, fruit and other foods. As much of it organic as I can get, but I still fight my demons: Diet Pepsi, nuts, chocolate, ice cream, etc... BUT I've been able to keep the weight off and in a very good range.

IT IS POSSIBLE! I did it! It can be done!

My wife began reading Jillian Michaels book while we were on vacation this summer. My kids were soon attempting to hide it. Now even they have gotten on the bandwagon. I do not have a chance!

It would be even less appetizing if Bob had said, "Here! Have this congealed cow hoof, covered with corn syrup and oil! YUM!!"

ew.

The berries look delicious. I laughed aloud at the sugar free gum thing, and changed the channel.

My advice, become your own nutritionist. What path you take in terms of diet depends heavily (pardon the pun) on your own physical make-up. By that I mean in my independent case, I am borderline diabetic and have to watch sugar and carbohydrates closely. Some others may need more carbs to give them the energy to burn more energy along with fat.

For some, drinking red wine each day is great for their heart. For me, alcohol reeks havoc on my metabolism. Until we all learn that there is no magic pill or panacea to weight loss we will wallow in despair. The internet holds an endless amount of "varied" (the important word) information and it's all just a mouse click away. If we are posting on Open Salon, we most certainly know how to navigate the world wide web and well.

All I can say in response is that you are right, and we all need to take it upon ourselves, as well as a doctor's advice and learn what our diet should consistent of (and not) and what exercise is safe and appropriate for us.

Rated

Well written.

There have been studies suggesting that diet foods can cause overeating the brain makes a connection between sweet taste and lots of calories coming in and makes you feel like you've had enough.
When you eat lots of sweet, sugar-free foods the brain learns that sweet doesn't equal lots of calories and then when you eat something calorifically sweet, it won't tell you when to stop.

In short, sugar-free Jello will make it harder for a dieter to avoid overeating real food.

As a side point, you should have chosen green or cubed jello for the jello pictures. That red stuff looked like a nice glass of wine to me.

This is a great article... thanks for writing it.

I've had a messed up relationship with food all my life which was born out of a teenager wanting my huge Germanic body to be wafer thin. Had I been smart enough to just accept myself as larger than the usual, I wouldn't have a history of yo-yo dieting and would probably be thinner than I am today.

But this whole country has a messed up relationship with food starting with huge agribusiness: they pump antibiotics and hormones into the meat supply, or they pick produce long before it's ripe so that it can be shipped across country. No wonder nothing tastes right in this country. Local produce is definitely easier to find these days, so that helps.

The second problem is the lack of cooking skills. I'm trying to eat less meat, more veggies and beans, which will help in the long run, but I really like to cook and try new recipes. What can non-cooks do? I learned cooking from my mom (an excellent cook) and taking a Home Ed class in 8th grade. Do schools even offer cooking classes in middle or high school? (fwiw, the second half of the semester was Shop Class, so all boys and girls had to go through both.)

Anyway, you and Pollen are 100% correct... real food means real enjoyment!

Excellent message--thank you. As Pollen says: "Eat real food. Mostly plants. And not too much." That about sums it up, as far as I'm concerned. (I wish I could follow that advice, by the way. I'm one of the "bad eaters." Still, I love to be reminded by posts like yours. :)

Excellent message--thank you. As Pollan says: "Eat real food. Mostly plants. And not too much." That about sums it up, as far as I'm concerned. (I wish I could follow that advice, by the way. I'm one of the "bad eaters." Still, I love to be reminded by posts like yours. :)

Hey Sarah, sorry about the double posting. I made a quick change to correct Pollan's spelling and hoped it hadn't already started to send. In case you get rid of one, the first has his name misspelled. And now of course, you can get rid of this one too! Best not to clutter up your thread with nonsense like this. :)

I haven't watched TBL regularly in several seasons...hadn't put my finger on why I lost interest, but you hit the nail on the head. The one thing I do credit the show with is showing what people who weigh over 120 pounds LOOK like. For as long as I can remember, most of the women's weights that were ever admitted in print were in the low 100s, implying that anything over 140 or 150 was unhealthy and unattractive. Along the TBL journey, people are able to see what a healthy 190 pound, or even 220+ pound, person looks like, and I think that can go a long way toward helping people have realistic expectations and not tying attractiveness/desirability/worth to a number on the scale.

That said, I'm in the lower weight range of some of the contestants (I "carry it well") and commented last night to my boyfriend (while serving homemade food from the crockpot after swimming laps) that I could never be on TBL because I actually cook and exercise.

I think about the topics you raise often. On the one hand, I'm involved in farmers' market/Slow Food/eat local efforts, have read the books and seen the films. I love to cook, but am not above the occasional drive-thru or convenience food. It can be hard for me not to judge other people for what they eat...comparing carts in the grocery store, refraining from comment when the people I work with go on and on about their diets and/or "healthy" frozen meals and/or eat Chick Fil A from the food court for two meals every day.

People forget that food should be nourishing and make you feel good. After watching the segment in "Food Inc" where they followed the family in the grocery store (broccoli was too expensive, Doritos - I think - went in the cart), I feel a pull to do some sort of outreach on grocery shopping - showing people how they can redirect their usual grocery dollars to foods that provide satisying, nutritious meals within their cooking comfort level, and do so realistically, allowing for a certain amount of favorite snack foods, etc.

Anyway, thanks for a great post!

(Sorry - that was long and a little disjointed due to many cubicle interruptions. Stopping now.)

Yes! Well said.

Miss V:
Yes! In Jr. High, I absorbed the message that over 120 was fat, fat, fat for a woman. I never admitted my weight, which was well over that. It was only when I was underweight (135), slightly gaunt, and finding I couldn't hike as far as I used to without getting tired that I realized my ideal weight is 140 and that at 140, I am not fat. I am slender and fit, but my peasant bone structure is never going to as narrow as a model's, even if I were dying of starvation.

Wow! Thanks, all, for your many wonderful, thoughtful, and funny comments. I'm thrilled that this post touched a chord with people. So much to think about...women continue to be held to a ridiculous standard of thinness (and then, when they "achieve" it and die like Brittany Murphy, the media scandal-mill gets going portraying them as screwed up for being so thin). One of my huge pet peeves of late is all of the dieting commercials that feature women who are not by any means overweight (one that comes to mind is the Yoplait commercial with the woman on the phone talking about how she "already lost some weight" by eating Yoplait), yet are acting like they are in the midst of some diet. I hate commercials like that for two reasons, one being the message they send that you can never be thin enough, especially if you're a woman, and two because they perpetuate this idea that all women are constantly talking about dieting to their friends. I'm a 35 year old woman, and I don't think I've ever had a conversation with someone about "dieting" (though my friends and I do talk about food and health, but not as it relates to the size of our waistlines).

Meanwhile, I echo the sentiments of everyone here who expresses disgust with the many ways our food system is run at a detriment to our own health, the health of our environment, and the health of the animals we raise for food.

And, of course, the "experts" who give us advice seem merely to be in the role of selling something--be it a book, a DVD, or television airtime. I think Pollan is quite right about the fact that when you put yourself in charge of what you will buy and consume, you are being an activist, acting on behalf of yourself, your environment, and the well-being of everyone around you. I remember seeing a documentary awhile back about global warming, and one of the women interviewed made a comment about how Americans think that "voting" is what we do when we got to the ballot box at election time, but that in fact, we vote every time we buy something, and when we but it, we are in essence saying, "I approve of this product and how it was made and the effects it will have on the environment." I think that's true, and in a world so big that it often feels like one person can't make a difference, when we really think about all of the things we buy in a week, a month, years at a time, well...that's when I think you can see that one person making informed choices can have a big impact, whether by buying less, or at least buying with a thought to the ethics and costs involved in that item's production.

Thanks again to all of you. Your comments were wonderful to read and I appreciate them so much.