This skew toward bland means we’re missing out on a lot more than just good-tasting food. “There are unique phytochemicals, or plant chemicals, that vary from color to color. These various compounds all do different things to protect your health. If you’re eating only red bell peppers, you’re going to be limited as far as health benefits because you’re not getting all those other colors,” says David Grotto, R.D., author of 101 Optimal Life Foods.

When it comes to selecting produce, there’s no one tint that rises above the rest. “We need the full spectrum. That’s why we’re omnivores,” Grotto says. Here’s what each hue brings you.

Green

Artichokes (Peak: March to May): Seek out deep-green, heavy artichokes with tightly closed leaves that squeak when pinched. Storage: In the fridge, in a plastic bag, up to five days.

Asparagus (Peak: February to June): Buy vibrant green spears with tight, purple-tinged buds. Thin spears are sweet and tender. Storage: Trim the woody ends. Stand the spears in a bit of water in a tall container; cover tops with a plastic bag. Cook within a few days.

Avocados (Peak: Year-round): Find firm ones with no sunken, mushy spots, and a waxy rather than shiny appearance. Shake it—a rattle means the pit has pulled away from the flesh. Not good. Storage: To ripen, place in a paper bag and store at room temp for two to four days. Ripe ones can go in the fridge for up to a week.

Broccoli (Peak: October to April): Look for rigid stems with tight floret clusters that are deep green or tinged purple. Pass on any with yellowing heads—they’re too bitter. Storage: Refrigerate in a plastic bag for up to one week.

Green Beans (Peak: May to October): Good beans have vibrant, smooth surfaces. The best are thin, young, and velvety and will snap when you bend them gently. Storage: Refrigerate unwashed in an unsealed bag for up to one week.

Kiwis (Peak: Year-round): A ripe kiwi will be slightly yielding to the touch. Avoid mushy or wrinkled ones with an “off” smell. Storage: Let kiwis ripen at room temperature. To speed up the process, place them in a paper bag with an apple or a ripe banana. Once ripe, refrigerate kiwis in a plastic bag for up to a week.

Romaine Lettuce (Peak: Year-round): Look for crisp leaves that are free of browning edges and rust spots. Storage: Refrigerate for five to seven days in a plastic bag.

Yellow

Pears (Peak: August to March): You want a pleasant fragrance and a little softness at the stem end. Some brown discoloration is fine. Storage: If not yet ready to eat, ripen at room temperature in a loosely closed paper bag.

Pineapples (Peak: March to July): Look for vibrant green leaves, a bit of softness to the fruit, and a sweet fragrance at the stem end. Avoid ones that feel spongy. Storage: If it’s unripe, keep it at room temp for three or four days until it softens and gives off a pineapple aroma. Refrigerate for up to five days.

Orange

Peaches (Peak: May to October): Good peaches have a fruity aroma and a yellow or warm cream background color, without green shoulders. They’re ready when they yield to gentle pressure on the seams, but skip if mushy. Storage: Leave unripe ones out at room temperature. Ripe ones can go in the refrigerator, but eat within two or three days.

Red

Bell Peppers (Peak: Year-round): These should have lots of heft for their size, and brightly colored, wrinkle-free exteriors. The stems should be a vivid green. Storage: Refrigerate in the crisper for up to two weeks.

Strawberries (Peak: April to September): Seek out unblemished berries that have a bright red color extending to the stem and a strong fruity smell. The best are neither hard nor mushy. Storage: Place unwashed berries in a single layer on a paper towel in a covered container.

Tomatoes (Peak: June to September): Go for heavy ones with rich color and no wrinkles, cracks, bruises, or soft spots. The best tomatoes aren’t rock hard and have some give. Storage: Never in a fridge; cold destroys flavor and texture. Keep them on a countertop but out of direct sunlight for up to a week.

Watermelons (Peak: June to August): Pick it up; you want a dense melon free of cuts and sunken areas. The rind should be dull, with a creamy yellow underside. A slap produces a hollow thump. If buying a cut watermelon, check that the flesh is not dried out and pale. Storage: Keep whole in the fridge for up to a week to prevent flesh from drying out and turning fibrous.

Blue and Purple

Blueberries (Peak: May to October): You want plump, uniform, indigo berries with taut skin, covered with a dull white frost. Storage: Transfer them unwashed to an airtight container and refrigerate for five to seven days.

Grapes (Peak: May to October): Find plump, wrinkle-free grapes that are firmly attached to stems. A silvery white powder (“bloom”) means they’ll stay fresher longer. Storage: Keep unwashed in a shallow bowl in the refrigerator for up to one week.

Read More @ MSN.COM

Research conducted at the University of Barcelona showed that obese mice living on a diet enriched with omega-3s displayed improved sensitivity to insulin. If the finding holds true for humans, this insulin response could translate to a reduced risk of diabetes. Other scientists are garnering evidence for the anecdotal claims that fish oils improve cognitive functioning. Last fall an American and Canadian team reported on three studies in which infants were randomly fed standard or high-omega-3 formulas; those who consumed the latter performed better on a problem-solving test. An independent, large-scale study in Sweden found that teenage males who eat fish weekly have intelligence scores 7 percent higher than do those who eat fish less often. Consuming fish more than once per week correlated with intelligence scores that were 12 percent higher than those of infrequent fish eaters.

Meanwhile, an international team has tracked how one of the omega-3 fatty acids in fish oil, docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), carries out its protective functions. The scientists determined that the body converts DHA to a compound called resolvin D2, which prevents neutrophils (a type of white blood cell) from sticking to the walls of blood vessels and initiating an inflammation response. In mice with sepsis, resolvin D2 reduced the widespread swelling that usually accompanies the condition without impairing the immune system’s ability to fight the underlying infection. A similar mechanism may be behind fish oil’s cardiovascular benefits, since inflammation is associated with increased risk of heart attack and stroke. “Resolvin D2 is an excellent prototype for a new anti-inflammatory drug,” says pharmacologist Mauro Perretti of Queen Mary University of London, one of the study’s authors. A Massachusetts-based company, Resolvyx Pharmaceuticals, is already conducting clinical trials of resolvins for the treatment of inflammatory problems, including asthma and dry eyes.

Read More @ DISCOVERMAGAZINE.COM

Hot dogs contain sodium nitrite, of course — a cancer-causing ingredient that’s been widely linked to pancreatic cancer and colorectal cancer. People who eat hot dogs and other processed meats have a 67% increased risk of pancreatic cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/007024.html).

Processed meats no doubt contribute to a large number of childhood cancers. According to the National Cancer Institute, over 1,500 children die each year in the United States from childhood cancer (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/…).

How many children actually die from choking on hot dogs, anyway? I’ll bet you it’s a fraction of the number of children who die from leukemia or brain cancer each year.

That the AAP would be so concerned about the shape of hot dogs while remaining silent about the health harm caused by hot dog ingredients isn’t all that surprising, actually: These are physicians who often focus on treating children with yet more chemicals such as ADHD drugs, antibiotics and antidepressants. One such pediatrician just got arrested for sexually assaulting over one hundred children in his medical practice (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor…).

Of course, that whacko doesn’t represent all pediatricians. Most pediatric physicians are caring human beings who really want to help children. And that’s where this advice about changing the shape of hot dogs comes from: These doctors genuinely want to prevent children from choking on these processed meat products.

So what should the new shape be… rectangular? Should hot dogs be made into long rectangle shapes so they resemble pink lumber? It would certainly prevent them from rolling out of the buns, wouldn’t it?

Then again, we might have to redesign the buns, too. Square hot dogs, you see, don’t fit right in round buns. So we’d have to recalibrate the entire chain of processed junk food just to prevent children from choking on the dogs.

Personally, I think we should engage a little truth in advertising and just mandate that hot dogs be reshaped into fleshy cancer tumors. That way, you really know what you’re eating. If these dogs resembled the diseased animals they’re sometimes made from, choking would no longer be a problem at all because no one would eat them in the first place!

Check out my mystery meat macrophotography to see actual pictures of hot dogs, salami and other processed meats up close and personal: http://www.naturalnews.com/PhotoTou…

What’s really in hot dogs

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 60 percent of all infant choking emergency room visits are caused by food. Another one-third are caused by non-food items such as coins, buttons and marbles, and 9 percent of choking incidents are caused by “undetermined” objects. As in, “What the heck does little Joey have in his mouth?”

If he’s choking on a hot dog, then what he has in his mouth should be quite frightening: Ground-up bits of meat scraps gathered from thousands of different carcasses from animals that were pumped full of hormones, fed chicken litter as part of their diet, treated inhumanely and slaughtered in a highly fearful environment that releases even more “terror” hormones into the meat at the moment of death.

Read More @ NATURALNEWS.COM

It is important for everyone to be aware of the types of chemicals and food additives they are consuming. I have selected merely a few chemical food additives listed below as examples, but recommend you use the internet resources to research the myriad of chemicals and food additives inundating our modern food supply.

CSPI REPORTS Food Additives to Avoid (listed alphabetically)

Acesulfame K

Known commercially as Sunette or Sweet One, acesulfame is a sugar substitute sold in packet or tablet form, in chewing gum, dry mixes for beverages, instant coffee and tea, gelatin desserts, puddings and non-dairy creamers. Tests show that the additive causes cancer in animals, which means it may increase cancer in humans. Avoid acesulfame K and products containing it. Your sweet tooth isn’t worth it.

Artificial colorings

The great bulk of artificial colorings used in food are synthetic dyes. For decades synthetic food dyes have been suspected of being toxic or carcinogenic and many have been banned. Whenever possible, choose foods without dyes. They’re mostly used in foods of questionable nutritional worth anyway. Natural ingredients should provide all the color your food needs.

Aspartame

This sugar substitute, sold commercially as Equal and NutraSweet, was hailed as the savior for dieters who for decades had put up with saccharine’s unpleasant after taste. There are quite a few problems with aspartame. The first is phenylketonuria (PKU). One out of 20,000 babies is born without the ability to metabolize phenylalanine, one of the two amino acids in aspartame. Toxic levels of this substance in the blood can result in mental retardation. Beyond PKU several scientists believe that aspartame might cause altered brain function and behavior changes in consumers. And many people (though a minuscule fraction) have reported dizziness, headaches, epileptic-like seizures, and menstrual problems after ingesting aspartame.

Avoid aspartame if you are pregnant, suffer from PKU, or think that you experience side affects from using it. If you consume more than a couple of servings a day consider cutting back. And, to be on the safe side, don’t give aspartame to infants.

BHA & BHT

These two closely related chemicals are added to oil-containing foods to prevent oxidation and retard rancidity. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, consider BHA to be possibly carcinogenic to humans, and the State of California has listed it as a carcinogen. Some studies show the same cancer causing possibilities for BHT.

BHT and BHA are totally unnecessary. To avoid them read the label. Because of the possibility that BHT and BHA might cause cancer, both should be phased out of our food supply. To play it safe, phase them out of your diet.

Caffeine

Caffeine is found naturally in tea, coffee, and cocoa. It is also added to many soft drinks. It is one of the few drugs — a stimulant — added to foods. Caffeine promotes stomach-acid secretion (possibly increasing the symptoms of peptic ulcers), temporarily raises blood pressure, and dialates some blood vessels while constricting others. Excessive caffeine intake results in “caffeinism,” with symptoms ranging from nervousness to insomnia. These problems also affect children who drink between 2 to 7 cans of soda a day. Caffeine may also interfere with reproduction and affect developing fetuses. Experiments on lab animals link caffeine to birth defects such as cleft palates, missing fingers and toes, and skull malformations.

Caffeine is mildly addictive, which is why some people experience headaches when they stop drinking it. While small amounts of caffeine don’t pose a problem for everyone, avoid it if you are trying to become or are pregnant. And try to keep caffeine out of you child’s diet.

Note: Caffeine can be ingested in cases of severe migraine headaches to quickly relieve pain due to its dilating effects.

Monosodium Glutamate (MSG)

Early in this century a Japanese chemist identified MSG as the substance in certain seasonings that added to the flavor of protein-containing foods. Unfortunately, too much MSG can lead to headaches, tightness in the chest, and a burning sensation in the forearms an the back of the neck. If you think you are sensitive to MSG, look at ingredient listings. Also, avoid hydrolyzed vegetable protein, or HVP, which may contain MSG.

Nitrite and Nitrate

Sodium nitrite and sodium nitrate are two closely related chemicals used for centuries to preserve meat. While nitrate itself is harmless, it is readily converted to nitrite. When nitrite combines with compounds called secondary amines, it forms nitrosamines, extremely powerful cancer-causing chemicals. The chemical reaction occurs most readily at the high temperatures of frying. Nitrite has long been suspected as being a cause of stomach cancer. Look for nitrite-free processed meats — some of which are frozen, refrigeration reduces the need for nitrites — at some health food and grocery stores. But regardless of the presence of nitrite or nitrosamines, the high-fat, high-sodium content of most processed meats should be enough to discourage you from choosing them. And don’t cook with bacon drippings.

Olestra

Olestra, the fake fat recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is both dangerous and unnecessary. Olestra was approved over the objection of dozens of leading scientists.

The additive may be fat-free but it has a fatal side-effect: it attaches to valuable nutrients and flushes them out of the body. Some of these nutrients — called carotenoids — appear to protect us from such diseases as lung cancer, prostate cancer, heart disease, and macular degeneration. The Harvard School of Public Health states that “the long-term consumption of olestra snack foods might therefore result in several thousand unnecessary deaths each year from lung and ,prostate cancers and heart disease, and hundreds of additional cases of blindness in the elderly due to macular degeneration. Besides contributing to disease, olestra causes diarrhea and other serious gastrointestinal problems, even at low doses.”

FDA certified olestra despite the fact that there are safe low-fat snacks already on the market. There is no evidence to show that olestra will have any significant effect on reducing obesity in America.

Despite being approved as safe by the FDA, all snacks containing olestra must carry a warning label (similar to one found on cigarettes) that states:

This Product Contains Olestra. Olestra may cause abdominal cramping and loose stools. Olestra inhibits the absorption of some vitamins and other nutrients. Vitamins A, D, E, and K have been added.

CSPI advises consumers to avoid all olestra foods, and urges major food manufacturers not to make olestra-containing products.

Potassium Bromate

This additive has long been used to increase the volume of bread and to produce bread with a fine crumb (the non-crust part of bread) structure. Most bromate rapidly breaks down to form innocuous bromide. However, bromate itself causes cancer in animals. The tiny amounts of bromate that may remain in bread pose a small risk to consumers. Bromate has been banned virtually worldwide except in Japan and the United States. It is rarely used in California because a cancer warning is required on the label.

Sulfites

Sulfites are a class of chemicals that can keep cut fruits and vegetables looking fresh. They also prevent discoloration in apricots, raisins, and other dried fruits; control “black spot” in freshly caught shrimp; and prevent discoloration, bacterial growth, and fermentation in wine. Until the early 80’s they were considered safe, but CSPI found six scientific studies proving that sulfites could provoke sometimes severe allergic reactions. CSPI and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) identified at least a dozen fatalities linked to sulfites. All of the deaths occurred among asthmatics. In 1985 Congress finally forced FDA to ban sulfites from most fruits and vegetables. Especially if you have asthma, be sure to consider whether your attacks might be related to sulfites. The ban does not cover fresh-cut potatoes, dried fruits, and wine.

Organic food continues to gain market share, despite troubles in the economy as a whole. This is especially true in Europe and in environmentally conscious enclaves like college towns — but what is perhaps most exciting to some observers is that organic foods have also penetrated much of mainstream culture, appearing in force at major supermarkets, big box retailers and at fast food joints. Most everyone is at least somewhat familiar with the USDA organic label now, but what’s really behind that iconic seal?

Here we take a look at some of the myths and surprising facts about organic foods:

Organic Isn’t Always the Smartest Choice

As food writer Mark Bittman recently wrote in the New York Times, to some, organic “seems to have become the magic cure-all, synonymous with eating well, healthfully, sanely, even ethically.” However, according to Bittman, “eating organic offers no guarantee of any of that. And the truth is that most Americans eat so badly — we get 7% of our calories from soft drinks, more than we do from vegetables; the top food group by caloric intake is ’sweets’; and one-third of [the] nation’s adults are now obese.”

To some observers, the most eco-friendly, and healthy, option is to eat lower on the food chain, since meat has a disproportionate impact on the planet and can contribute to health problems. Simply eating more plants and whole grains can also be a cheaper option than buying organic foods, which, we know, can often be more expensive than conventional alternatives. Eating less processed and prepared foods, and cooking more at home, can provide similar benefits.

It’s also true that an organic label provides no information about where an item was produced, leading some critics to complain that it would be greener for them to buy an apple from the orchard up the street than to get an organic one at a grocery that has been flown in from New Zealand. Sometimes eating locally and in season can be the greenest option, although some also warn that the “food miles” debate can be overstated, particularly when it comes to the high production resources needed for meat. (According to research from Cornell University, beef production requires a ratio of energy expended to protein content of 54:1, compared with just 4:1 for chicken.)

For us at The Daily Green, the takeaway message is that we don’t have to be organic purists to eat better. We try to eat local, seasonal and organic foods, choosing each product as it makes sense for us and falls within our budget. We relish the fact that more choices are becoming available, and we vote with our food dollars for tastier, greener fare.

Many of Your Favorite Organic Brands Are Owned by Huge Conglomerates

Like many movements, the modern organic food revolution has experienced some growing pains. It’s no secret that raising food sans industrial pesticides and genetic engineering started as a hippie notion, an outgrowth of the back-to-the-land movement and the countercultural 60’s. But organic food has become much more popular and mainstream in recent years, accounting for 3 to 4% of U.S. food sales and climbing. One can now find organic products in practically every venue coast to coast. In Europe organic products are even more popular. In the UK, for example, 40% of baby food consumed is now organic.

Before the Green Revolution transformed agribusiness with the promise of greater automation and efficiency, of course, everything was de facto organic. But today’s organic foods are much more sophisticated than what your grandparents planted. The movement isn’t just about what farmers don’t use, it also is supported with a growing body of research and scientific knowledge. Today’s organic farmers don’t just beg for mercy from pests and disease, they have an increasing arsenal of soil-building, pest-deterring techniques that are far from backwards or anti-scientific.

And organic products are being marketed and sold by some of the world’s largest companies. According to a handy chart made (and last updated in June) by Professor Phil Howard at Michigan State University, Hershey’s bought organic chocolate maker Dagoba in 2006. Pepsi bought Naked Juice in 2006; Coke picked up Odwalla in 2001; Nestle owns Tribe Mediterranean Foods; Kellogg owns Morningstar Farms, Kashi, Gardenburger and Bear Naked; and ConAgra owns Lightlife. General Mills, Cargill, Kraft, Cadbury, M&M Mars and others also own a host of natural brands. The conglomerate Hain Celestial Group is a major player in the sector.

A number of consumers have cried fowl after big company Dean Foods took over Silk soymilk, and then quietly changed the product from organic to conventional. Dean’s move was symbolic to those who resent what they feel has been a corporate takeover of their ideals. Still, others praise the fact that organic foods are now more available and mainstream-friendly. Some argue that organic should become more affordable as a result, while some skeptics question the real benefits for consumers in an age of business consolidation.

The Daily Green’s founder, Deborah Barrow, argued that mergers and acquisitions are the natural progression of a sector’s growth, and said some consolidation is probably necessary in a world still dominated by Wal-Mart and Nestle. Business critics challenge that it seems unlikely for profit-motivated, multinational organizations to stay focused on core organic principles.

What do you think?

Some Small Holistic Farmers Oppose Organic Rules

At a recent tour of Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture in Westchester County, New York, a guide told us that the fresh produce grown on the picturesque show farm isn’t certified organic. “We go beyond the organic standards here, and have a more holistic approach to raising the best, freshest food possible,” she explained. When asked about the organic program, she said, “We have some issues with it.”

It is perhaps not surprising that some farmers would have problems with the USDA organic standards, even those who are committed to sustainable production. Farming is complicated, difficult work, and there is a lot of variability in terms of climate, geography and local issues. So some people believe USDA organic is too “one size fits all.” Still, to its credit, the organic rules weren’t developed overnight — they were hashed out by a diverse array of stakeholders in a process that took roughly ten years. The goal was a program that works for producers as well as consumers, though not everyone is totally satisfied.

To some small farmers, the costs of getting certified organic are too high. Others complain that it takes too much bureaucratic red tape. “If I was to get certified organic I’d spend all my time doing paperwork and no time actually farming,” one local farmer told me at a New York City farmers’ market. Other critics argue that organic isn’t inclusive enough in measuring food miles, seasonality or animal welfare, or they don’t trust government agencies or certifiers.

Grace Gershuny if GAIA Services in Vermont criticizes the organic program as too focused on chasing fickle consumer attitudes, instead of working for farmers on the ground who are trying to do the right thing. She disparages it as a “marketing program,” and argues, “Established players want to tighten their standards to limit competition by potential new entrants. It has nothing to do with protecting consumer interests, and works against consumers by maintaining high prices and limited supply for products that may not be demonstrably superior.”

Joan Shaffer, a spokesperson for the U.S. Agriculture Department, confirmed to the New York Times that the organic system “is a marketing program that sets standards for what can be certified as organic. Neither the enabling legislation nor the regulations address food safety or nutrition.”

So what’s a consumer to think? Visit a co-op in Berkeley or Vermont and you might hear some “dark green” folk turning their studded noses up at USDA certified organic. The label might not please everyone, but it is one of the more rigorous consumer programs out there in any category. It certainly is no rubber stamp, either.

Organic Foods Can Contain Some Non-Organic Ingredients

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture standards, a food product can be labeled as “100% Organic,” “Organic,” or “made with organic ingredients.” To be 100% Organic, the item can only contain organically produced ingredients. “Organic” means that 95% of the ingredients listed must be organically grown.

Except… a few years ago the USDA formalized their list of ingredients that are exempt from the above, as a result of petitions from suppliers alleging that they are too difficult to source in organic forms. So there is a list of 38 ingredients that don’t have to be organic even if a food is labeled as such. These include celery powder, sausage casings, some colorings, fish oils, hops and others. The ultimate goal is to have all these ingredients sourced organically, although we are currently in a transition period.

In addition, there is still heated debate about how, and if, organic rules should be applied to other products besides food. The program is overseen by the USDA, which does not have jurisdiction over cosmetics (that’s the FDA) or clothing. There are a number of other certification systems that touch on these areas, including fair trade and sweatshop-free, but currently it isn’t clear how manufacturers can apply the term “organic” to other things (some have gone so far as to voluntarily meet the food-grade standards, while others argue that different sectors need different rules).

Organic Food Could Actually Feed the World

Supporters of the big agribusiness status quo routinely attack organic foods by trotting out old arguments that they couldn’t possibly feed the whole world. This is a particular favorite of Alex and Dennis Avery of the conservative Hudson Institute (which is funded by Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Chemical, Novartis and others in the sector). However, there are a number of problems with this argument.

For one thing, agribusiness is in business to make money, not to “feed the world.” If they really wanted to “feed the world,” all it would take is $13 billion, according to some estimates. That’s the amount Americans and Europeans spend on perfume every year. Monsanto alone made $4.23 billion in profits in 2007 and expects to make roughly $10 billion in profits in 2012. If their primary goal was to “feed the world,” it would certainly be easier to divert some of their considerable profit to strategies we know work (you know, like giving people food), than developing some purported silver bullets that might not turn out to be so great. In secret. Without the input of the folks you supposedly want to help.

Further, some experts have estimated that half the food grown in the world is wasted. Most of the rest is unfairly distributed. Given that we do such a poor job on these fronts it seems a bit irresponsible to assume that improving yields in the short term will somehow make hunger go away. In real numbers, there are more hungry people now in the world than there were before the start of the Industrial Revolution, so technology does not always equal more full bellies.

But a fundamental thing that people often miss in this argument, and one that’s hard to stress enough, is that organic agriculture is not anti-technology. Author Michael Pollan made this point recently, arguing that “we wouldn’t be doing developing nations a favor by exporting a fossil fuel-dependent ag system when it’s clear that fossil fuels are only going to become more scarce and expensive.” Instead, today’s organic farmers are taking advantage of the latest knowledge on fighting pests and improving soil, and as the fruits of such labors become more popular, R&D budgets will swell, further improving organic technology.

In 2007, scientists at the University of Michigan published research that concluded: “Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food on individual farms in developing countries, as low-intensive methods on the same land.” The scientists said this “refute[s] the long-standing claim that organic farming methods cannot produce enough food to feed the global population.”

An ongoing long-term study at the University of California at Davis has shown that yields of organic systems have been comparable, and in some cases, higher than conventional systems for all crops tested – tomato, safflower, corn and beans. Interestingly, organic corn has shown higher variability than conventional, with lower yields some years and higher in others. However, over 15 years, soil fertility was enhanced in the organic systems, while it degraded considerably in conventional systems. In a serious drought in 1999, according to the Rodale Institute, yields of organic soybeans were 30 bushels/acre, compared to only 16 bushels/acre for conventional. This suggests that the healthy, holistic approach of organics may help plants become better able to survive challenges.

According to a review of a large number of studies across several decades (published by the Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture as “The Economics of Organic Grain and Soybean Production in the Midwestern United States”), in all cases organic production was equivalent to, and in many cases better than, conventional.

The more we learn about organic agriculture, which is evolving rapidly, the more a picture of abundance — not sacrifice — emerges.

Several Studies Actually Do Suggest Organic May Be Healthier

The controversy over whether organic foods are better for You The Consumer than conventional alternatives recently got stirred up by a British Food Standards Agency report, which argued that there isn’t enough evidence to make a determination. Critics have pointed out that there are many problems with that British review, however.

For one thing, the study did actually find a significant difference in three of thirteen nutrients they looked at that favored organic, and none that favored conventionally grown produce — yet they still reported that there were no differences between the two types of food. The Brits also included studies from the 1950’s, 60’s, and 70’s on crop varieties that are no longer grown, and — strangely –failed to include 15 studies published since 2008 that all found important nutritional advantages for organic food.

The British study also did not look at total antioxidant content, and it made no mention of pesticides, hormones, antibiotics and other nasty stuff that can appear in conventional food, and which is one of the main reasons why people buy organic: so they will get less of this toxic stuff. (The study also made no mention of animal welfare or environmental effects, though this post is about nutrition.)

A March 2008 review of more than 100 studies in the scientific literature, conducted by “The Organic Center, confirmed the “nutritional superiority of plant-based organic foods.” The review concluded that organic foods were nutritionally superior in 145 matched pairs, or in 61% of the cases, while conventional foods were more nutrient dense in 87 matched pairs, or 37%. There were no differences in 2% of the matched pairs. Further, the organic samples contained higher concentrations of important polyphenols and antioxidants in about three-quarters of the 59 matched pairs representing those four phytonutrients.

Meanwhile, a study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences recently found that Monsanto’s genetically modified corn is linked to organ damage in rats.

Clearly, we need more research on the possible health benefits of organic foods. That’s not the only reason why people are buying them, but it is an important one, and we need more data. Still, we think it’s fair to say that critics are clearly wrong when they try to argue that there is “no evidence whatsoever” that organics are better than conventional foods. We need more evidence, but there are some early signs that organic supporters may have been right all along.

What do you think?

Growers saw prices plunge after a 1989 television report led to widespread fears apples were coated in a cancer-causing chemical called Alar, used to enhance crunch and color. The public outcry led the government to ban some chemicals and increase oversight, while growers adopted new approaches to spraying apples and reduced the use of harsh chemicals.

But in 2005, the last year results were available, the U.S. Department of Agriculture found pesticide residues on 98 percent of the apples it tested. All the residue was at levels within federal guidelines.

Such statistics leave consumer groups and health experts conflicted.

“The mix of pesticides today is less toxic than it was 20 years ago,” said Richard Wiles, senior vice president for policy at the Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Working Group. “But we still have a lot of pesticides left over. I think we’re due for another look at whether we’re doing the best we can to protect the public from pesticides in food.”

Few apple growers will forget the February 1989 “60 Minutes” episode that opened with a story about Alar, featuring an apple marked with a skull and crossbones. The report stemmed from a Natural Resources Defense Council study that concluded Alar posed a cancer danger, particularly to children.

Public outcry was immediate and some parents panicked — reports circulated about apple juice being poured down the drain and a mother sending police to stop her child’s school bus to retrieve her lunch. Actress Meryl Streep took up the cause, demanding Alar be banned.

Some still question the science behind the report, arguing that consumers would have to eat many more apples than normal to get sick.

Dr. Lynn Goldman, a pediatrician who was one of the scientific reviewers for the 1989 study, declined to sign off on it, fearing in part that consumers could confuse long-term effects with immediate danger.

“I actually agreed with them that the Alar was probably breaking down into a carcinogen,” said Goldman, who headed the Environmental Protection Agency’s toxics program under the Clinton administration and is now a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

“I didn’t agree with the way they were communicating the risk,” she said, “and I was worried that what they were doing was more alarmist than it needed to be.”

Another reviewer, Frederica Perera, professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University, signed off on the findings.

“I think the report was a reasonable report,” she said.

The EPA had already labeled Alar a probable carcinogen and its maker, Uniroyal Chemical Co., voluntarily withdrew it for use on U.S. food crops. EPA studies later showed Alar, while still a carcinogen, was only one-twentieth as potent as estimates in the report.

Today, Alar is applied only to nonedible, ornamental plants such as flowers in the U.S., but it is still approved for food crops in some countries.

Wendy Gordon, who co-chaired NRDC’s Mothers and Others group with Streep, said the report’s breakthrough was in improving pesticide standards for young children.

“The original standard was based on a healthy young adult male. Many years later, the regulation was changed, and the standard was changed to account for these more vulnerable populations,” she said.

At the time of the report, red delicious and McIntosh apples were the most common varieties in the U.S., and growers applied Alar to both. The going price for a 42-pound box of red delicious applies fell from $15.46 in February 1989 to $8.29 by June that year.

Apple growers were shocked by the 1989 report, and for many, the Alar dispute still burns, said George Allan of Allan Bros. apple growers in Naches, Wash. Some growers still won’t watch a Meryl Streep movie, he said, although he acknowledged enjoying her recent hit “Julie and Julia.”

But growers learned from the experience, he said: “In the past 20 years, we’ve basically reinvented ourselves.”

They worked with scientists to better understand pests and develop alternatives for controlling them. Federal regulations now require farm workers to wait longer before re-entering orchards where chemicals have been applied. The federal government also banned many harsh chemicals and limited the application of others before harvest.

“I don’t know whether there are more or fewer pesticides in use today than there were 20 years ago,” said Bill Jordan, the EPA’s senior policy adviser for the Office of Pesticide Programs. “But the pesticide residues that are on apples today are safer.”

Many growers also have planted new apple varieties that require less harsh chemicals to control pests or improve the fruit’s quality. Red delicious apples, which required heavy treatment, now make up 30 percent of the crop, down from 70 percent in 1989.

Elisa Odabashian, West Coast director of Consumers Union, eats an apple a day. She grew up in Cashmere, a small river town surrounded by apple orchards near Wenatchee, a central Washington city billed as the Apple Capital of the World. She hesitates to criticize an industry that has supported family and friends, remarking on the strides made to improve safety.

“Is an apple with pesticide residue an unsafe product? I wouldn’t call it that,” she said. “We have advised that on products like apples, where you tend to eat the skin, that’s a good candidate for buying organic.”

The compounds include resveratrol, a much-touted component of red wine that is thought to prevent the cellular damage that underlies ageing. Also under test are several chemicals intended to mimic resveratrol’s effects by activating SIRT1, a protein implicated in ageing. Experiments have led some to conclude that these drugs ramp up the protein’s activity, but the new studies suggest that those experiments suffered from errors.

“I think it’s a setback because there’s been a lot of optimism about these resveratrol-like compounds,” says Matt Kaeberlein, a biochemist at the University of Washington in Seattle who was not involved in either study and has no link with any company developing anti-ageing drugs.

Sirtris, a drug development firm based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is hoping these and similar drugs will treat age-related disorders such as type 2 diabetes and cancer, and has numerous clinical trials already under way. The company was bought by pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) for $720 million in 2008.

Bone of contention

The bone of contention in the new studies is a laboratory test meant to measure how far a drug boosts activity of SIRT1. Separate teams led by researchers at the drugs companies Amgen in Thousand Oaks, California, and Pfizer in Groton, Connecticut, contend that tests linking resveratrol to certain aspects of longevity turned up false positives.

As part of its own quest for anti-ageing drugs, the Pfizer team tested resveratrol and three Sirtris compounds using several more sensitive methods, and none of the compounds worked as expected. Furthermore, the drugs seemed to have unintended side effects that could undermine their usefulness to humans.

One of the most promising of the resveratrol-like drugs did not improve the health of mice fed a high-fat diet – the opposite of what a Sirtris team reported in 2007. The Amgen team also conclude that resveratrol doesn’t activate SIRT1.

GSK questions the validity of the Pfizer team’s findings. The researchers “set out to prove a negative and fall short of achieving that objective while adding little scientific insight to a complicated and emerging area of biology”, a representative wrote in an email to New Scientist.

Don’t give up yet

Even if resveratrol and the Sirtris compounds don’t combat ageing, this doesn’t make them worthless – far from it, Kaeberlein and others say.

It is already known that high doses of resveratrol can limit the toll of a high-fat diet on mice, although the compound doesn’t seem to extend the lifespan of healthy rodents. “It may be that resveratrol-like compounds are going to be therapeutically useful in people,” Kaeberlein says.

If they aren’t, Kaeberlein worries that enthusiasm and investment in longevity-boosting drugs could dry up. That would be a shame, he says, given the promise of another age-hacking drug: rapamycin.

Last year, a group led by David Harrison at the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine, revealed that aged mice given rapamycin, a transplant druglived 10 per cent longer than other mice.

Rapamycin, Harrison says, blocks a pathway called TOR that responds to nutrients in the environment which may be fundamental to ageing, and a furious search is under way to find chemicals that work in a similar way without dampening the immune system. “Right now everybody and his uncle are trying to find something that acts like rapamycin.”

Read More @ NEWSCIENTIST.COM

The ‘elixir of life’ discovery was made in heart disease patients, who are already advised to increase their fish intake to ward off repeat heart attacks.  Scientists from the University of California, San Francisco, looked at the effect of omega-3 fatty acids on 608 outpatients with heart disease.  They found higher levels of omega-3 slowed down damage to DNA contained in telomeres – tiny ‘caps’ on the ends of chromosomes which help protect against inflammation and other ageing processes.

Having longer telomeres is a sign of being biologically younger and also of being healthier.  As people age, their telomeres get shorter and they become more susceptible to certain illnesses.  Scientists believe this process is at the heart of many age-related diseases, and may even place a final limit on human lifespan.

Nutritionist Dr Carrie Ruxton, speaking on behalf of the Health Supplements Information Service, said: ‘If this link between high omega-3 fatty acid levels and reduced ageing is confirmed in other studies, this has important implications for intakes of omega 3 fatty acids.’  At the start of the study, measurements were taken of the length of telomeres in the patients’ white blood cells.

The tests were carried out again after five years, and showed a clear link with omega-3 intake, says a report in the Journal of the American Medical Association.  Patients consuming the least omega-3 had the fastest rate of telomere shortening while those in the top 25 per cent of consumption levels had the slowest rate.  Lead researcher Dr Ramin Farzaneh-Far said animal research has shown that rodents live a third longer when given a diet enriched with fish-derived omega-3.

He said the latest study demonstrated ‘a potentially novel pathway for the anti-ageing effects of omega-3 fatty acids’.  Omega-3 fatty acids are found in oily fish such as mackerel, herring, salmon, sardines or trout – and fish oil supplements – as well as soya beans, rapeseed oil, flaxseed, pumpkin seeds and walnuts.  White fish is also a healthy food although it contains lower levels of essential fatty acids.  But, said Dr Ruxton, Britons fail to consume recommended minimum levels of two fish portions each week, one of which must be oily.

Read More @ DAILYMAIL.CO.UK

Dodge the Draft(s)

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, drafts can waste 5% to 30% of your energy use. Start simple and adopt that old Great Depression fixture — the draft snake, which you can easily make yourself. Just place a rolled bath towel under a drafty door, or make a more attractive DIY draft snake with googly eyes, felt tongues and the like. You can use any scraps of fabric — even neckties — and fill with sand or kitty litter for heft.

Make sure drafts aren’t giving your thermostat a false reading too, and read on for more advanced solutions.

Change Furnace Filters

Yes it’s easy to forget, but it’s important to replace or clean furnace filters once a month during the heating season. Dirty filters restrict airflow and increase energy demand. Here’s a worry-saving tip: mark a monthly check on your calendar.

Better, consider switching to a permanent filter, which will reduce waste and hassle. Did you know that disposable fiberglass filters trap a measly 10 to 40% of debris? Electostatic filters trap around 88%, and are much better at controlling the bacteria, mold, viruses and pollen that cause illness and irritation. They cost $50 to $1,000 or more. Another good choice is a genuine HEPA filter (like the one pictured), which can remove at least 99.97% of airborne particles. HEPA filters are based on Department of Energy standards. But avoid “HEPA-like” filters, which can be vastly less effective.

If your entire furnace is in need of replacement, it will cost a lot more — but replacing an inefficient burner for a modern machine will save you every month through the heating season. Be sure to take advantage of federal tax credits for new furnaces, which can cover 30% of the cost, up to $1,500.

Run Fans in Reverse

Most people think of fans only when they want to be cool, but many ceiling units come with a handy switch that reverses the direction of the blades. Counterclockwise rotation produces cooling breezes while switching to clockwise makes it warmer: air pooled near the ceiling is circulated back into the living space – cutting your heating costs as much as 10%!

Winterize Your A/C and Water Lines

This one’s really easy, and it will even save you a few pennies next summer, too: Simply drain any hoses and air conditioner pipes, and make sure you don’t have excess water pooled in equipment. If your a/c has a water shutoff valve, go ahead and turn that off.

Similarly, make sure any hoses are drained and stowed away neatly. Turn off exterior water spigots. It’s also a good idea to seal any water leaks around the place — and don’t forget to remove any window A/C units and store them so you don’t invite cold drafts all winter.

If you’re in the market for a new air conditioner, the federal government will reimburse 30% of the cost for an efficient central air system, up to $1,500.

Turn Down Your Water Heater

While many conventional water heaters are set to 140 degrees F by installers, most households don’t need that much steam, and end up paying for it — in dollars and the occasional scalding burn. Lowering the temperature to 120 degrees F (or lower) would reduce your water heating costs by 6% to 10%.

If you start to wonder why you need a tank at all, then you may be ready for a tankless water heater, or to go solar. If you are in the market for a new water heater, take advantage of the federal tax credit, which pays 30% of the cost for solar water heaters, or up to $1,500 for conventional systems.

Install Storm Doors and Windows

The simple act of installing a storm door can increase energy efficiency by 45%, by sealing drafts and reducing air flow. Storm doors also offer greater flexibility for letting light and ventilation enter your home. Look for Energy Star-certified models.

Similarly, storm windows can make a huge difference when the cold wind starts blowing. It may be a pain, but it is well worth it to get them out of the shed or attic and install them for the season. (Make sure each is securely shut — they don’t do much good if you leave them in the up position by mistake!)

Efficient doors, windows and skylights qualify for a federal tax credit covering 30% of the cost, up to $1,500.

Give Your Heating System a Tune-Up

You probably already know that cars need periodic tune-ups in order to run their best. Well the same is true for heating equipment. Keeping your furnace clean, lubricated and properly adjusted will reduce energy use, saving up to 5% of heating costs.

The good news is many utilities offer free annual checkups by qualified technicians — but you often have to call early, as HVAC crews get backed up once heating season starts. Some furnace manufacturers and dealers also offer free or discounted inspections.

If your entire furnace is in need of replacement, it will cost a lot more — but replacing an inefficient burner for a modern machine will save you every month through the heating season. Be sure to take advantage of federal tax credits for new furnaces, which can cover 30% of the cost, up to $1,500.

Mind That Thermostat

It’s easy to forget to turn down the heat when you leave the building, but doing so is one of the surest ways to save money. Most households shell out 50 to 70% of their energy budgets on heating and cooling, so why pay for what no one uses?

For every degree you lower the thermostat during heating season, you’ll save between 1 and 3% of your heating bill. Make it easier with a programmable thermostat; they are widely available for as little as $50, and the average family will save $180 a year with one.

Go a step further and ask your local utility if it’s making smart meters available in your area, as part of recent federal smart grid investments.

Put Up Some Plastic

For just a few dollars, pick up a window insulation kit at your local hardware or discount store. Don’t worry — properly installed, window plastic is essentially invisible. Adding a buffer against drafts and extra still air space can give a nice boost to your home’s ability to hold heat.

Save even more by hiring a pro to install a high-tech “low-e” film directly to the window glass.

If your windows are old, consider investing in a set of efficient windows — which qualify for a federal tax credit covering 30% of the cost, up to $1,500.

Use an Energy Monitor

Measure your way to savings with an energy monitor (pictured is the TED, The Energy Detective, which starts at $139). Such a device indicates household electrical usage in real time and projects your monthly bill. Research has found that such info leads consumers to reduce their electricity consumption significantly.

In fact, according to the company you’ll save 15%-20% on each bill, which would amount to hundreds of dollars a year. By seeing exactly how much each appliance or activity costs, you’ll start seeing easy ways to cut waste.

Go a step further and ask your local utility if it’s making smart meters available in your area, as part of recent federal smart grid investments.

Use Caulking and Weatherstriping

Simple leaks can sap home energy efficiency by 5% to 30% a year, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. That means it pays to seal up gaps with caulking and weatherstripping.

Take a close look at places where two different building materials meet, such as corners, around chimneys, where pipes or wires exit and along the foundation. Use the incense test: carefully (avoiding drapes and other flammables) move a lit stick along walls; where the smoke wavers, you have air sneaking in. And heating or cooling sneaking out.

In another method, have someone on the outside blow a hair dryer around each window while you hold a lighted candle inside. If the candle flickers or goes out, you need to caulk or weather strip around the frame.

Low-income households can qualify for an average of $6,500 worth of weatherization improvements to their homes through government programs administered by each state. Find out about your state’s program by contacting local energy agencies.

Put on a Sweater

Make like Jimmy Carter and dress warmer for winter, even inside. Gone are the days (for most of us at least) when we can afford to lounge around in our underwear while it’s frosty outside. Remember what we said about each degree on the thermostat costing you money?

Roughly speaking, a light long-sleeved sweater is worth about 2 degrees in added warmth, while a heavy sweater (even the ugliest of ugly sweaters) adds about 4 degrees. So cozy up and start saving.

Boost Insulation

It may not seem sexy, but insulation is one of the best ways to save energy and money at home. It can make a big difference to add more insulation between walls, and make sure your attic floor and basement ceiling are well covered.

The federal government will reimburse you for 30% of the cost, up to $1,500 for highly efficient insulation. Additionally, low-income households can qualify for an average of $6,500 worth of weatherization improvements to their homes through government programs administered by each state. Find out about your state’s program by contacting local energy agencies.

Insulate Your Pipes

Pay less for hot water by insulating pipes. That can also help decrease the chance of pipes freezing, which can be disastrous. Check to see if your pipes are warm to the touch. If so, they are good candidates for insulation. (Use the same method to determine if your hot water heater would benefit from some insulation.)

You can get pre-slit pipe foam at most hardware stores. Cut it to size and fasten in place with duct tape. Ideally, choose the insulation with the highest R-value practical, which is a measure of its heat-blocking power. Pipe insulation is often R-3 or, for batt styles that you wrap around, a stronger R-7.

The federal government will reimburse you for 30% of the cost, up to $1,500 for highly efficient insulation. Additionally, low-income households can qualify for an average of $6,500 worth of weatherization improvements to their homes through government programs administered by each state. Find out about your state’s program by contacting contacting local agencies and utilities.

Seal Those Ducts

Moving even deeper into your home’s infrastructure … one encounters ductwork. Studies show 10% to 30% of heated (or cooled) air in an average system escapes from ducts.

Therefore, it could pay to hire a professional technician to come out and test your duct system, and fix any problems. Properly sealing ducts can save the average home up to $140 annually, according to the American Solar Energy Society. Plus, you’ll have better protection against mold and dust.

Many utilities offer incentive programs for duct improvement. Be wary of “duct cleaning” services, however; absent an air quality problem, most homes don’t need their ducts cleaned.

Additionally, low-income households can qualify for an average of $6,500 worth of weatherization improvements to their homes through government programs administered by each state. Find out about your state’s program by contacting local energy agencies.

Take Advantage of Tax Credits

A host of lucrative tax credits can help homeowners install renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.

Various local, state and federal incentives exist to encourage the use of efficient windows and doors, insulation, roofing, HVAC (including geothermal ground source heat pumps) water heaters (including solar water heaters) and alternative energy technologies, like solar power, geothermal heating and cooling, biomass stoves, small wind turbines and even fuel cells.

Learn about local incentives by searching this Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency.

Choose the Right Contractor

To choose which project to tackle first, it may help to try perform your own energy audit, or, if some of these improvements prove to be a little ambitious for you, hire an expert. But how do you get someone who shares your values?

Green building pros are setting up shop all across the country, so they’re getting easier to find. The Department of Energy certifies Energy Star home performance contractors, who are trained to improve energy efficiency in residential homes. (Be careful: many state and federal incentives require that the work be done by a certified contractor — so check the rules before hiring anyone.) Ask potential contractors about their interest in and experience with going green, and find out if they are approved for work that qualifies for a green home label.

Get Creative and Go Alternative

Various local, state and federal incentives exist to encourage the use of alternative energy technologies, like solar panels, geothermal heating and cooling, biomass stoves, small wind turbines and even fuel cells — all of which require a front-end investment that typically pays itself off in energy savings over a number of years.

Whereas most incentives for energy efficiency improvements are capped at $1,500 — incentives for most household alternative energies cover fully 30% of the cost of, with no cap. (Learn more about geothermal heating and cooling from Climate Master, one of The Daily Green’s sponsors.)

Or, you can get creative. Tired of paying to chill food when it’s cold outside? Take advantage of natural cool air by rigging up an ambient air refrigerator (pictured here) on the side of your dwelling. The process is more simple than you might think. You just need some wood, insulation and a couple of computer fans. Get all the details for your own super fridge here.

Upgrade to an Efficient Furnace

Thankfully it’s not something you have to do every year (or even every decade), but if your furnace is old you could save a lot of money in the long run (and improve your home’s value) by upgrading to a new unit.

Make it an Energy Star-certified furnace and you’ll save 15% to 20% versus standard new models. You could save 50% or more compared with many old furnaces still in operation. Be sure to take advantage offederal tax credits for new furnaces, which can cover 30% of the cost, up to $1,500.

Get an Energy Audit

Measure twice, cut once. A professional home energy audit can help you target the most critical fixes first, or do your own energy audit to identify the most cost-effective fixes. Before you do the work, check this database of state incentives, so you’re sure to take advantage of the full range of credits, which in some states require energy audits or installation by accredited professionals.

Re-Insulate

One of the most cost-effective home improvements, good insulation can save up to 30% on heating and cooling costs, since you won’t be paying for heating or cooling air that slips out through poorly insulated walls, floors and ceilings. If you choose approved insulation (meeting International Energy Conservation Code standards), you can have 30% of the cost, up to $1,500, taken off your 2010 income tax bill. If you have the wherewithal, install the insulation yourself, because the cost of labor does not qualify for the tax credit.

Replace Old Windows

If your home has old windows and doors, you’re paying a premium for them as hot air in the winter, and cool air in the summer, escapes to the outdoors. But replacing doors and, especially, windows, is an expensive fix that won’t pay itself off in energy savings for years. If you do the work in 2010, though, you can get 30% of the cost reimbursed at tax time, up to $1,500. You just have to choose energy efficient equipment that meets standards. Be aware that the federal government will not reimburse for any of the cost of labor.

Replace an Old Appliance

Whether it’s a refrigerator, a furnace or an A/C unit, chances are good that 2010 will be the best year to replace an old clunker with a new efficient model. Efficient furnaces, central air conditioners, water heaters and other HVAC standbys qualify for a tax credit equal to 30% of the cost, up to $1,500.
A home “cash for clunkers” program is also gearing up at the state level, so look for local incentives to defray the cost of buying certain Energy Star appliances like clothes washers, dishwashers, freezers, refrigerators and small A/C units). Furnaces and water heaters are the biggest energy users overall, while refrigerators are typically the biggest electricity hogs.

Re-Roof

Both Energy Star-rated metal roofs with “pigmented coatings” and asphalt roofs with “cooling granules” will cut down on cooling costs in the summer by reflecting more of the sun’s heat. It’s also a dark horse solution to global warming, since cities absorb so much heat through dark roofing materials. If your roof is ready for a replacement, then go with one of these materials, and the government will reimburse 30% of your material costs, up to $1,500. Sorry, labor not included.

Plan to Install a Solar Water Heater

Unlike the energy efficiency projects, home solar tax credits extend beyond 2010, to 2016. So plan now to take advantage of generous tax credits that will pay 30% of the cost of home solar projects, including solar water heaters. Unlike other credits, these credits are not capped at $1,500. Additionally, communities in at least 15 states are beginning to offer so-called PACE loans that are paid off incrementally at tax time by whomever owns the house. The annual cost — typically less than the energy savings provided by the investment — is shared by successive owners of the home.

Install a Smart Meter

A smart meter makes realtime energy usage data available so you can easily cut out waste. Before long, the meters will automatically cut waste by flipping on appliances to run only when the cost of electricity is low. Ask your local utility if it’s offering smart meters, and look for government incentives soon. The Obama Administration has set a goal of increasing the use of smart meters five-fold to 40 million American homes by 2015.