[email protected]     (970) 819-8684


Agribusiness: Why did humans abandon their job to protect Nature? By: Shannon Connell

Agribusiness: Why did humans abandon their job to protect Nature? By: Shannon Connell


The unethical practices of food production and its transportation, packaging, and sales are the major contributors to the environmental and health crisis humans now face (Lappe, 2010). This becomes evident as the U.S. Federal government offers only 3% of annual funding to public health interventions in disease prevention and community health education (Schneider, 2006). The depletion of soil, water, and air along with the production of low nutritionally content foods and their consumption are major contributors to environmental pollution and to the current chronic disease epidemic, known as Syndrome X (Monat, Lazarus, & Reevy, 2007). Corporate control of our food supply has not only created a disconnection to Earth and Spirit, but has created a capitalistic overtaking which is inconsiderate of human and environmental well being (Hammers, 2002). There is interconnection between stress and cortisol levels, eating behavior and food choices, human health and environmental health (Epel, Lapidus, McEwen, & Brownell, 2001). Understanding the interconnectedness between all beings and all things is a vital realization for conflict resolution.

From an evolutionary perspective, human food supply was once unpredictable and often inconsistent (Pinel, 2009). Having the ability to eat large quantities of food and to store fat was at times critical to survival (Pinel, 2009). Agribusiness and nano-technologies have increased the availability of food and the variety of foods that are low in nutritional content, resulting in increased consumption due to lack of satiety (Brannon & Feist, 2010, Pinel, 2009). Today, most Americans are increasing food intake as a reaction to stress (Adam & Epel, 2007). Serving sizes have increased and nutritional whole foods are less accessible and more expensive. Technological advancements are also leading to more sedentary lifestyles, more stress, increases in obesity and disconnection to spirit (Monat, Lazarus, & Reevy, 2007). This is perhaps the root issue of our health and environmental crisis.

The environmental and health effects of our food production, such as chronic and infectious disease, pollution, disconnection to nature and spirit, racism, population increases, and corporate greed influence the increasing levels of human stress which U.S. contemporary culture expresses (Takeda, 2004). Our food supply is run by capitalism with the goal of profit (Hammers, 2002). Insurance companies and the medical industry are in on the profit making potential of our unethical food production practices (Hammers, 2009).

One predominant aspect of contemporary food production is nanotechnology, which is the science of agribusiness that seeks to manipulate nature and living organisms through laboratory processed foods (Scrinis & Lyons, 2007). There is little evidence about the safety or hazards of nano-particles in food yet nano-particle foods are on our corporate supermarket shelves (Scrinis & Lyons, 2007). Nano-agriculture seeks to gain greater control of the food supply through patenting seeds, surveillance of food, and land control (Scrinis & Lyons, 2007). Nano-agriculture is interested in the mechanistic and laboratory production and manipulation of food, thus decreasing the need for traditional farming and agricultural jobs (Miller & Kinnear, 2007). Monocropping, dependence on synthetic chemicals for “pest control,” factory farming practices, hormones, nanotechnology, and genetically modified foods are effecting the health of Earth, contributing to global warming, and contributing to our human psychological, spiritual, physiological and societal crisis.

Problem Statement

We have come to a point of instability. Our environment is under siege and our human population is increasing at an unsustainable rate (Lappe, 2010). The greatest paradox in our environmental, food and health crisis is that it is of human origin (Briggs, 2003). The United States invests more money than any other global country towards medical care yet has the highest incidence rate of morbidity and mortality (Schneider, 2006). Eating a healthy diet is not easy in America. People like the freedom of choice as it helps them to perceive that they have control. Blind obedience due to conditioning can lead to a weak sense approach to thinking and behavior (Browne & Kelley, 2010). The desire for more convenient foods and food production practices are appealing as humans are racing to keep up with the advancements of technology and science. We have created more changes in our lifestyles over the last century than in all of human history and this can be related to the shifts in patterns of death and disease from infectious to chronic (Brannon & Feist, 2010). The pattern of disease has experienced a shift since the early 20th century (Yach, 2004). In the early 1900’s infectious diseases, such as pneumonia, tuberculosis, and enteritis were the leading causes of death (Brannon & Feist, 2010).   Today, chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes are the leading causes of death (Yach, et al., 2004, Brannon & Feist, 2010, Zimmet, 2000). Chronic disease can be related to excessive stress and processed food addiction. Processed foods were thought to assist in making life easier, faster and better. The current challenge is that both industries and individuals resist change (Schneider, 2010). People assume that their prepared food, water and environment are safe (Schneider, 2010), however processed foods are proving to be toxic and addictive (Adams & Epel, 2007).

The Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP) describes how human beings have distorted their true nature of being interconnected with all beings, all things, and spirit (Roberts & Bacon, 1997). It is a paradigm that believes that we are the doers and that Earth was created for our control, just as in man’s misinterpretation of the Book of Genesis, believing that man has dominion over nature (Roberts & Bacon, 1997). Such misconceptions have lead to the abandonment of nature and spirit and to humans playing the role of victim. Although there are complex political and ethical issues when it comes to human and environmental health (Schneider, 2006), we can no longer be bystanders or expect to be saved by scientific, technological and medical miracles.

There are study correlations between environmental pollution and cardiovascular disease (Brook, Franklin, Cascio, Hong, & Tager, 2011), breast cancer (Wolf & Toniolo, 1995), Lung cancer (Page, Petrie, & Wessely, 2006), birth defects (Brook, et al., 2011), respiratory disease (Frampton, Samet, & Utell, 1991), anxiety, depression, and fear (Page, et al., 2006). One of the greatest challenges to environmental disease theories is that it takes time for a disease to develop and time for critical levels of exposure (Briggs, 2003). There is also the challenge of individual freedom versus policy change (Schneider, 2006). Many people still believe that environmental protection is up to the government and don’t pay attention to how their actions can contribute to environmental pollution, or protection (Schneider, 2006). Education, research credibility, self-reflection, emotional healing and policy change are some necessary actions that need to be implemented.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) formed as an activist group to protect the scientific integrity of research from political manipulation especially when it comes to the subject of environment, agribusiness, environmental degradation, pollution and the severity of their consequences, climate change (Schneider, 2006). The lack of policy and governmental protection has resulted in increasing public distrust and fear (Page, et al., 2006). The hope is that there will be a cooperative and collaborative shift in consciousness, as most people still perceive environmental pollution and chronic disease as involuntary consequences of human growth and genetics (Page, et al., 2006).

Integrated Literature Review

Homeostasis is the body’s ability to maintain a stable physiological internal environment (Schneiderman, Ironson, & Siegel, 2005). Stress is any sudden or intense disturbance, or disharmony of homeostasis balance (Lekander, 2002). Stress affects our entire being, nerves, cells, tissues and systems of our bodies (McCall, 2007). Our survival depends on our adaptability with stress. Stress if held, can disrupt nervous, endocrine, and immune system functioning resulting in “dis-ease” of body, mind, and spirit (Lekander, 2002).

Recent studies into psychoneuroimmunology, and the allostasis of stress and eating suggest that increases in cortisol are related to greater food consumption and more unhealthy food choices (Epel, Lapidus, McEwen, & Brownell, 2001). Stress can be correlated with the increase in the hormone cortisol (Schneiderman, 2005). Cortisol is a hormone that is released as the physiological response to stress (Schneiderman, Ironson, & Siegel, 2005). Studies have also shown that dysfunction of the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal (HPA) axis relates to food addiction and binge eating behavior (Adams & Epel, 2007). The HPA axis is responsible for regulating growth, reproduction, thyroid function, sleep and appetite (Schneiderman, Ironson, & Siegel, 2005).

Cortisol and the HPA axis are both influential in stimulating eating, food choice, increased caloric intake, and visceral fat development (Adam & Epel, 2007). Glucocorticoids are hormones associated with the pleasurable effects of eating behaviors and influential in the current food addiction epidemic of western culture, as processed foods disrupt homeostasis, cortisol and glucocorticoid levels (Adam & Epel, 2007). Glucocorticoids are also associated with weight gain (Takeda, Terao, Nakaya, Miyamoto, & Rokutan, 2004), can disrupt metabolic functioning, and increase insulin resistence (Adam & Epel, 2007). Thus, we now face the current Syndrome X epidemic. Metabolic syndrome or Syndrome X is the combination of obesity, insulin resistance, oxidative stress, free radicals, inflammation, and hypertension (Robert, Barnard, Sindhu, Jurczak, & Vaziri, 2006). Syndrome X is the medical identification and causation for chronic diseases such as diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc. It is believed that we are facing the first generation where the children are susceptible to shorter life spans then their parents (Roberts, et al., 2006).

Diet and nutrition are important aspects in brain functioning, biochemistry, and hormone regulation (Takeda, et al., 2004, Monat, Lazarus, & Reevy, 2007).   Food is necessary for the body’s survival, and provides the systems of the body energy to sustain functioning and immune health (Takeda, et al., 2004). Studies have shown that stress and diet are interconnected. Macht, Haupt, & Ellgring (2005) conducted a study on the changes in eating behaviors of college students during examinations. Results showed that students who reported high emotional stress ate more to relieve stress and for distraction (Macht, Haupt, & Ellgring, 2005). This study has strong implications into the increasing of emotional eating as a stress response, and how eating behaviors are commonly changed with the experience of stress. The distraction hypothesis was explored in this study as many students reported to eat as a means to distract themselves from their stress prior to examinations (Macht, Haupt, & Ellgring, 2005).

In a laboratory study, women between the ages of 30 to 45, eating behaviors and food choices were observed after they were exposed to stressful testing (Epel, Lapidus, McEwen, & Brownell, 2001). Results showed that women with increased cortisol levels were more likely to eat larger quantities of food and choose sweet, salty, high fat, low nutritional content and processed foods over healthy alternatives (Epel, et al., 2001). This study is significant as it shows how increases in cortisol lead to increases in food intake and effects food choices.

Animal studies have been conducted that observe the link between stress and eating behaviors and health outcomes (Miller, Buehner, Chang, Harper, Sigler & Smith-Wheelock, 2005). Miller, et al. (2005) conducted an animal laboratory study with rats demonstrating that caloric restriction extended life span and slowed the aging process. The set point theory communicates that hunger and eating are triggered when the body needs more energy (Pinel, 2009). The increasing obesity epidemic signifies that the set point theory is over ridden. Just because a person may feel that they have a low level of energy does not mean that their body requires more food. With the rise of low nutritional content foods the body is still not getting the essential nutrients and amino acids necessary for proper and healthy functioning, therefore it triggers and alters the biochemistry of the brain, disrupts energy metabolism, and produces more hunger signals (Pinel, 2009). The positive-incentive theory states that humans and animals demonstrate eating to have pleasurable results and often eat for pleasure rather than energy deficit (Pinel, 2009).

Today over 2/3 of adults and 1/3 of children are overweight or obese (Wang & Beydoun, 2007). Our political leaders and scientists know that there is a relationship between stress and eating, food choices and disordered eating behaviors, yet continue to capitalize on it (Roberts, Barnard, Sindhu, & Vaziri, 2006). The redefining and increases in weight charts over the last century (Brannon & Feist, 2010) are examples of the government’s cover up attempts and its support and promotion of agribusiness and nanotechnologies. Syndrome X is correlated with industrialism and globalization, in which diet is increasing in high fat and high sugar processed foods (Roberts, et al., 2006) and the environment is being polluted (Roberts & Bacon, 1997).

Processed foods have the same biological responses in our bodies as most narcotic drugs and “activate the brain reward system” (Adam & Epel, 2007, p. 455). The growing obesity epidemic is the resulting consequence of the western culture’s addiction to food and sedentary lifestyle. The paradox is that we have become addicted to the very behaviors we need for survival in our current culture: eating, sex, and money. Since processed foods can alter our hormones and even alter our serotonin levels (Takeda, 2005), there should at least be the surgeon general warning on processed food packaging and mindfulness in media and product advertising.

Billions, soon to be trillions of global dollars have been invested into nano-technology’s research and development (Roco, 2003). Nano-technology has been politically explored for decades yet the public has been unaware, even though they have been purchasing and consuming products with nano-particles and are now becoming sick (Scrinis & Lyons, 2007). Nano-technology presents huge moral considerations and needs re-evaluation. Social psychologists have not always used good intentions and have a history of being influenced while working with economic and political institutions (Roco, 2003). For example, social psychologists are influential in media and advertising, victimizing the population starting during childhood, establishing social norms that are unhealthy and corrupt (Roco, 2003). There is an egotistical force in the individual human consciousness that has become addicted to power and greed, at the cost of our health and Earth’s health. The trillions of dollars being spent on scientific exploration may be of more sustainable benefit if it were offered to environmental and humanitarian restoration (Schneider, 2006).

The history of science has neglected the ethics and values in public policy and has silenced the voice of community (Brulle & Pellow, 2006). “The paradox of health is that although we have increased technology and medicine, people today are feeling less well, experience more illness, and are more fearful of environmental pollution and the future” (Page, Petrie, & Wessley, 2006, p. 414). Environmental pollution, food poisoning, toxic exposures and injustice are more likely to occur in lower socioeconomic communities (Elliot & Watenbery, 2004), as all of the above have strong influences in health disparity (Brulle & Pellow, 2006).

Critical Analysis

It is unfortunate, but obvious, that society has been functioning under an “individualistic rather than collectivist vision” (Roco, 2003, p. 518). With all the technological and media distractions and cultural conditioning, individuals are getting further away from their true selves, just as technology and agribusiness is supporting the separation from nature. It is now time to evaluate the social implications of nano-technology and question why the population was formally left out of the decision process, yet now suffers the consequences. In an Internet survey on the public perception of nano-technology, over half of those surveyed in Europe and the US were skeptical (Roco, 2003). This survey may not be a valid representation of the population as many humans do not have access to the Internet, or involvement, interest, and opportunity to even take a survey on nano-technology and public perception. This proposes the question of, is the sample population representative of the global population (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2009)? Most people have been programmed through learned behaviors, influenced by media, environment, socioeconomic status, social and cultural norms (Weiten, 2008). There is a large time delay between scientific exploration, experimentation, implementation, and public announcement (Roco, 2003). This is another ethical violation.

Man’s perception that the earth is here for us to control, weak environmental legislation (Briggs, 2003), lack of policy, and conflicts of interest between corporate economic growth and environmental and human health protection (Jaffe, Newell, & Stavins, 2004) has led to our increasing risks, especially in developing countries (Briggs, 2003). Spatial epidemiology research has shown that more people in poverty and of color live near environmentally hazardous facilities and have greater risks for toxic exposures (Brulle & Pellow, 2006). Economic disparity increases risk for unhealthy food choices, eating behavior, and increased stress (Brulle & Pellow, 2006). Stressors, such as injustice, racism and health disparity, that are believed uncontrollable may become resistant to coping and behavior modification, resulting in continued elevation of stress hormones and chronic stress responses (Glaser, 2005). Technological advancements are also leading people to more sedentary lifestyles and more stress, resulting in a major epidemic in chronic diseases, known as Syndrome X (Jung, 1997, Monat, Lazarus, & Reevy, 2007). The steady increase in health disparities are associated with environmental and food injustice, racism (Brulle & Pellow, 2006) and the public’s mistrust of government (Roberts & Bacon, 1997). Health has become a stigma of wealth.

Studies have shown that environmental pollution, such as pest pollutants, industrial chemicals, synthetic hormones and nano-particles can change the way genes express themselves (Edwards & Meyers, 2008). Epigenetics is the field of research that is interested in how man made toxins, lifestyles, diet and nutrition, thoughts and behaviors, can alter our DNA (Edwards & Meyer, 2008). Research supports that if pollutants were decreased there would be a decrease in human illness and diseases such as cancer, diabetes, infertility, asthma, respiratory, cardiovascular, and psychological diseases (Edwards & Meyers, 2008). One of the greatest challenges to environmental disease theories is that it takes time for a disease to develop and time for critical levels of exposure (Briggs, 2003). There is also the challenge of individual freedom versus policy change (Schneider, 2006). Many people still believe that environmental protection is up to the government and don’t pay attention to how their actions contribute to environmental and human health, pollution or protection (Briggs, 2003). People are resistant to change their unhealthy behaviors. They have become addicts, and social conditioning is the bully or dealer.

Scientific evidence supports the conclusion that carbon dioxide has reached an “eight-hundred-thousand-year high” (Lappe, 2010, p. 14). Human behaviors such as factory farming and agribusiness are responsible for the greatest percentage of environmental toxins and pollution, more so than transportation and industry combined (Lappe, 2 010). Industrialization and westernization has been quiet about their detrimental environmental outcome (Brulle & Pellow, 2006). The desire to create more wealth and the behavior towards creating more wealth has put a large amount of society at risk, especially the poor and people of color (Brulle & Pellow, 2006). Nano-technology has many global, social, environmental, spiritual, and societal implications (Roco, 2003).

The previous and current beliefs held by humans that there are unlimited resources, that private property is a right, growth is necessary, living in harmony with nature threatens economic growth, and that science will be able to solve all environmental and human health problems is perhaps the greatest human misconduct, and misconception (Roberts & Bacon, 1997).

Environmental pollution and its chronic health effects, Syndrome X, are capable of healing, especially when it comes to our food choices and food cultivation (Briggs, 2003). A conscious and compassionate way of eating and cultivating food can reduce global warming as much as 75% (Lappe, 2010). Science has violated ethics and values in public policy, and has silenced the community voice (Brulle & Pellow, 2006), often with threats and actions of violence. The law of karma, cause and effect, states that all of our actions will have a reaction and that it is the intention of our actions that will create the end result (Gannon & Life, 2002).

Problem Resolution

There is a current paradigm shift from the Dominant Social Paradigm to the New Environmental Paradigm, which states that we can no longer be bystanders to the environmental and human health crisis (Roberts & Bacon, 1997). The New Environmental Paradigm supports the human beliefs that resources are limited, growth needs to be restricted, the environment needs to be protected, and nature needs to be respected (Roberts & Bacon, 1997). In a study to measure environmental concern through Ecologically Conscious Consumer Behavior (ECCB) over 1,500 adults were surveyed (Roberts & Bacon, 1997). Results showed that those who measured environmentally aware and more sensitive were also more mindful in their purchasing behaviors (Roberts & Bacon, 1997). This study suggests that people must be educated on the consequences of their behaviors and consumption, and become advocates and stewards for protecting our environment. “We are not bystanders and our choices will ripple” (Lappe, 2010, p. 251).

Albert Einstein showed us that the universe is curved (Gannon & Life, 2002), meaning that everything we do, say, or even think will eventually, and inevitably come back to us. The law of karma states that every action has a re-action, every behavior, word, or even thought will have an effect (Gannon & Life, 2002). Karma states that it is our intentions that will determine the effects of our actions (Gannon & Life, 2002). It is understandable that humans have become allured to the exciting opportunities and recognition that scientific and technological exploration offers. It is necessary to understand the current effects of our previous actions, to honor truth and integrity, to learn, and to become advocates remembering that our present actions will have future consequences. “The external can be seen as a reflection of the internal” (Gannon & Life, 2002, p.27). The social norms protecting industrialization and globalization have supported the acceptance, and addiction to unhealthy individual human behavior, especially when it comes to food production, and consumption. Disordered eating behavior, addiction, chronic disease, fear, insecurity, internal and environmental pollution, racism and health disparities can all be synthesized and correlated with the economic and political agenda in agribusiness and nano-technology.

Nano-technology promises to be a solution to the rapidly changing dynamics of our world. It is hoped to be a form of National Security (The Industrial College of the Armed Forces, 2006), yet with the current protests it is proving that its intentions may be the possible cause for a civil revolution. The people of the Earth are hoping to reassert sovereign control of the land. The public is now aware of the environmental and health consequences of agribusiness actions, they are aware of the racism in health care, food sales, and spatial epidemiology. The potential for violence may be inevitable, as many emotionally wounded people are angry, scared, hungry, sick, and no longer trust their current government. Surveys reveal that some people perceive disease as an inherited trait and that environmental pollution as an involuntary consequence, therefore have an increased fear factor (Page, Petrie, & Wessely, 2006). It is now a time for re-education, teaching individuals to become “response-able” to their current life situations and to surrender the ego to the heart for healing. Will our society evolve into a collectivist nation supporting each other to heal through and fight our internal battles, or will we fight to maintain individual isolation, property rights and the imbalance of wealth? Will people begin to take responsibility for the control of the internal world or will they continue to manipulate and control the external world for fear of their own healing and health?

The “invisible” psychologists are now beginning to see the ripple effects and adverse consequences of their attempts to convince societies through advertising that animal foods are healthy for strong bones and protein, sugary foods are fun, alcoholic beverages are sexy, and processed foods are convenient and safe (Koocher, 2009). It is now time for ethical psychology and scientific integrity, as we are facing the effects of our previous actions. It is time for appropriate and sustainable use of science and technology (Roozitalab & Chair, 2006). The globalization of our world has strived for market integration and has over rode many local and national interests, now the world is suffering dwindling natural resources due to exploitation, weak legislation, economic gain, and destructive technologies (Briggs, 2003).

Social changes are necessary when it comes to environmental pollution, cultivation of food, and health (Jaffe, Newell, & Stavins, 2004), as we have become addicted to processed foods and technological advancements that make life more sedentary. Many people still believe that environmental protection and food production is up to the government, and don’t pay attention to how their actions, behavior, and consumption contribute to our current environmental and health crisis (Schneider, 2006). There is a war between individual freedom and policy change (Schneider, 2006). Rather than getting angry at the current situation it is now time to cultivate mindfulness. Mindfulness is the practice of increasing mindfulness, and decreasing mindlessness (Langer & Molodoveanu, 2000). Mindfulness theory teaches acceptance for the ever-changing world (Langer & Molodoveanu, 2000), with the goal to increase cognitive flexibility, unconditional self-acceptance and forgiveness, decrease self-evaluation, social comparison, and rigidity (Carson & Langer, 2006). Mindfulness interventions are proven successful in cognitive-behavior change (Carson & Langer, 2006).

In a study of a group of obese women suffering with binge eating disorder (BED) a, 6-week MM (mindfulness meditation) intervention resulted in reports of less binge eating behavior and greater self-awareness and self-acceptance (Kristeller, 1999). In a study of women with bulimia nervosa, MM training resulted in less extreme behavior (Ludwig, 2008). The results imply that MM may be an effective treatment for disordered eating behaviors and addictions.

We have become a culture that supports the zeitgeist of addiction, addicted to processed foods, technology, social networking, consumption, and blaming everything and everyone else for our problems. Addiction is the inability to accept the present moment. It is an impulse to seek the next illusion or high, or to cover up or hide from the underlying root of the behavior (Baer, 2003). MM helps addicts to observe their urges and cope with them. It assists the addict in recognizing and reprogramming the patterns that keep them addicted, and helps them to develop a new vision and means to act (Baer, 2003, Gannon, 2002).   MM helps the addict to see and understand the consequences of their behavior, which may assist the addict in behavioral change (Baer, 2003). MM has also been used as a beneficial practice in relapse prevention (Baer, 2003).

A positive result from our current crisis is the need for community, and healing through active responsibility.   Perhaps the most important aspect of mindfulness and cognitive-behavioral theories is that the individual becomes “response able” for their state of being, actions, decisions, perceptions, and addictions. This self-awareness and integrity evolves into human growth and development, wisdom, and self-confidence. Mindfulness theory creates a participatory science, as through self-reflection, observation, and compassionate research comes social change.

Critical thinking is a reflective, and interactive way of thinking that allows a person to evaluate a situation before jumping to conclusions and actions (Browne & Kelley, 2010). Critical thinking can support solutions, inductive theories, and conclusions (Ruscio, 2007). It is important now to become reflective, to learn from our past, and remember that our actions today will have future consequences. MM can assist the practitioner in recognizing the patterns of thought that may hinder their health and inspire “response able” action and change. MM increases coping skills and reduces negativity (Grossman, 2003), reduces stress (Jain, 2007), creates change in thought patterns and attitudes (Baer, 2003), and increases tolerance and acceptance (Kabat-Zinn, 1982).

Life is stressful. MM is a tool to deal with stress as it arises. If Mindfulness and humility are adopted within our political and economic leaderships we may prevent more violence. Nano-technology could potentially be a positive solution for some things such as spinal cord injury recovery or organ cloning. Its potential for becoming a solution for environmental collapse and food security is not yet convincing, as it’s experimentations with processed foods are proving to cause chronic disease and human disconnection to cultivating and working in relationship with the Earth. An ethical psychology is needed to aid in our Global transition. What is needed is a paradigm shift in human consciousness where we no longer are bystanders to the environmental crisis and health crisis, where we remember our connection to the earth, and begin to heal ourselves and our environment through compassionate agriculture, not agribusiness and manipulation of nature. Science needs to be held to the morals and ethics of natural laws. We are facing a major public and environmental health crisis and the solution lies in community, reconnection and respect for Earth. Increases in public health funding, studies into yoga and mindfulness theories, policy change and stronger environmental regulations are potential resolutions. Perhaps the greatest resolution is the individual resolution.


Agribusiness and nano-technology are a major public health concern (Brulle & Pellow, 2006). Perhaps the most effective means towards positive solution is to support humans in their re-adaptation to Nature and to themselves, as the true self is not separate from Nature (Roberts & Bacon, 1997). Perhaps the reason humans abandoned their job to protect Nature, is because they believe themselves to be separate. New systems of “Be-ing” need to be developed. Environmental and health concerns are multilayered constructs and are not separate from the individual human “Be-ing.” It is scientifically observed and recorded that environmental pollution, and processed foods can alter molecular functioning and ultimately lead to illness, and disease.

Environmental inequality needs to be integrated into awareness, supported and understood through collaborative efforts with the effected populations, and healed. Environmental pollution inequality is a reflection of our current social belief system (Brulle & Pellow, 2006). There is an interconnection between social systems and behavior, desire and creation, technology and environmental pollution, self-doubt and fear, environmental degradation and food, misconception and addiction. All of our actions are associated with a level of consciousness, mindful or mindless. When mindless, our actions are influenced by emotion. Let us now step into the path of the peaceful warrior, who conquers and controls the internal world. Industrialization and globalization have been inconsiderate and manipulative through attractive advertising. Unfortunately human beings have also been inconsiderate, as we fell for it. Brulle and Pellow (2006) discuss the concepts of capitalism, continued growth and consumption for the government’s capital gain with disregard for the well being of the people. Thus, the current “re-action” of agribusiness intentions are; health disparity, environmental injustice, pollution, human frustration, societal, governmental, and global chaos.

With the same consciousness, and desire for continued economic growth, companies are trying to create new technologies to control the public fear and awakening, and to continue with economic growth (Brulle & Pellow, 2006). This again will support an unstable environment for our future. If we continue to do what we have always done, we will continue to get what we have always gotten. When one attaches to a single perception they become rigid (Carson & Langer, 2006). The adaptation to new levels of consciousness and mindfulness are necessary, and the potential solutions of our current environmental and health crisis. Letting go of traditions, perspectives, and biases will create the space for the multiplicity of possibilities (Laureate Education, 2005). It is important to work towards solution by understanding and responding positively to cultural need (Johnson, Saha, Arbelaez, Beach, & Cooper, 2004).

Soul-u-tion needs to start at the individual level first. The external realities and problems of society are a reflection of internal conflicts and problems. Health psychologists are a necessary part of the solution, bringing to attention the psychological components of communication and adherence. Seeing and admitting the truth about ourselves, and our roles in creating our own personal and global problems is vital for healing. Inequalities in health care, economics, education, and opportunities greater reflect the barriers that exist. Recognizing the root of these problems, fear, arrogance, greed, etc. is important. Humility, respect, and understanding are key components to healing All relationship.



Adam, T. C., & Epel, E. S. (2007). Stress, eating and the reward system. Physiology and Behavior, 91(1), 449-458. doi: 10.1016/j.phybeh.2007.04.011

Baer, R. (2003). Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: A conceptual and empirical review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2), 125-143.  doi: 10.1093/clipsy/bpg015

Brannon, L., & Feist, J. (2010). Health psychology: An introduction to behavior and health (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Briggs, D. (2003). Environmental pollution and the global burden of disease. The British Medical Bulletin, 68(1), 1-24. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldg019

Brook, R. D., Franklin, B., Cascio, W., Hong, Y., & Tager, I. (2004). Air pollution and    cardiovascular disease: A statement for healthcare professionals from the expert panel on population and prevention science of the American Heart Association. Circulation, 109(1), 2655-2671. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000128587.30041.C8

Brown, M. N., & Keeley, S. M. (2010). Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson and Prentice Hall.

Brulle, R. J., & Pellow, D. N. (2006). Environmental justice: Human health and environmental   inequalities. Annu Rev. Public Health, 27(1), 103-124. doi:  10.1146/annurev.publichealth.27.021405.102124

Carson, S. H., & Langer, E. J. (2006). Mindfulness and self-acceptance. Journal of-Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 24(1), 29-43. doi: 10.1007/s10942-006-0022-5

Elliot, P., & Wartenbery, D. (2004). Spatial epidemiology: Current approaches and future challenges. Environmental Health Perspectives, 112(9), 998-1006.   doi: 10.1289/eph.6735

Epel, E., Lapidus, R., McEwen, B., & Brownell, K. (2001). Stress may add bite to appetite in    women: A laboratory study of stress-induced cortisol and eating behavior.   Psychoneuroendocrinology, 26(1), 37-49. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11070333

Frampton, M. W., Samet, J. M., & Utell, M. J. (1991). Environmental factors and atmospheric pollutants. Seminar Respiratory Infection, 6(4), 185-193. Retrieved from         http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1809997

Gannon, S., & Life, D. (2002). Jivamukti yoga: Practices for liberating body and soul.   New York, NY: Ballantine.

Glaser, R. (2005). Stress-associated immune dysregulation and its importance for human health:  A personal history of psychoneuroimmunology. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 19(1),           3-11. doi: 10.1016/j/bbi/2004.06.003

Edwards. T. M., & Myers, J. P. (2008). Environmental exposures and gene regulation in disease etiology. Cienc.saude coletiva, 13(1), 269-281.   doi: 10.1590/S1413-81232008000100030

Hammers, C. (2002). Hungry for profit: The agribusiness threat to farmers, food and the environment. Human Ecology Review, 9(2), 68-72. Retrieved from            http://www.humanecologyreview.org/pastissues/her92/92bookreviews.pdf

The Industrial College of Armed Forces. (2006). Spring 2006 Industry Study. Final report:  Agribusiness Industry. Retrieved from Google Scholar.

Jaffe, A. B., Newell, R. G., & Stavins, R. N. (2004). A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy. Ecological Economics, 54(2-3), 164-174.  doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.1

Johnson, R. L., Saha, S., Arbelaez, J. J., Beach, M. C., & Cooper, L. (2004). Racial and ethnic Differences in patient perceptions of bias and cultural competence in health care.  Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19(2), 101-110. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30262.x

Jung, R. T. (1997). Obesity as a disease. British Medical Bulletin, 53(2), 307-321. Retrieved from http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/2/307.full.pdf+html

Koocher, G. P. (2009). Ethics and the invisible psychologist. Psychological Services, 6(2), 97-  107. doi: 10.1037/a0013925

Kristeller, J., & Hallet, C. (1999). An exploratory study of a meditation-based intervention for   binge eating disorder. Journal of Health Psychology, 4(3), 357-363.  doi: 10.1177/135910539900400305

Langer, E. J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2000). Mindfulness research and the future. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 129-139. Retrieved from             http://mihneamoldoveanu.com/Publications/Mindfulness%20Research%20and%20Future .pdf

Lappe, A. (2010). Diet for a hot planet. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2005). History and Systems of Psychology. Baltimore: Author.

Ludwig, D., & Kabat-Zinn, J. (2008). Mindfulness in medicine. Jama, 300 (11), 1350-1352.  Retrieved from:             http://www.mindfulnesscds.com/Mindfulness_in_Medicine_JAMA_9-16-08.pdf

Macht, M., Haupt, C., & Ellgring, H. (2004). The perceived function of eating is changed during examination stress: A field study. Eating Behaviors, 6(1), 109-112. doi: 10.1016/j.eatbeh.2004.09.001

Marks, D. F., Murray, M., Evans, B., Willig, C., Woodall, C., & Sykes, C. M. (2005). Health psychology: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Miller, R. A., Buehner, G., Chang, Y., Harper, J. M., Sigler, R., & Smith-Wheelock, M. (2005). Methionine-deficient diet extends mouse lifespan, slows immune and lens aging, alters glucose, T4, IGF-I and insulin levels, and increases hepatocyte MIF levels and stress        resistance. Aging Cell, 4(1), 119-125. doi: 10.1111/j.1474-9726.200500152.x

Miller, G., & Kinnear, S. (2007). Nanotechnology: The new threat to food. Nexus, 37-40.  Retrieved from http://www.luminearth.com/wp-            content/uploads/2010/02/1601nanotech.pdf

Monat, A., Lazarus, R., & Reevy, G. (Eds.). (2007). The praeger handbook of stress and coping (vol. 1-2). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Page, L. A., Petrie, K. J., & Wessely, S. C. (2006). Psychosocial responses to environmental incidents: A review and a proposed typology. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 60(1), 413-422. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2005.11.008

Pinel, J. (2009). Biopsychology (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Roberts, J. A., & Bacon, D. R. (1997). Exploring the subtle relationships between environmental concern and ecologically conscious consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 40(1), 79-89. doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(96)00280-9

Roberts, C. K., Barnard, J., Sindhu, R. K., Jurczack, M., Ehdaie, A., & Vaziri, N. D. (2006).  Oxidative stress and dysregulation of NAD(P)H oxidase and antioxidant enzymes in diet induced metabolic syndrome. Metabolic Clinical and Experimental, 55(1), 928-934.  doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2006.02.022

Roco, M. C. (2003). Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanopartical Research, 5(1), 181-189. doi: 10.1023/A:1025548512438

Roozitalab, M. H., & Chair, GFAR. (2006). Responses to changing Agricultural Research for Development (ARD) needs of National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) in the context of globalization. Retrieved from             http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload/211104/ShortversionofGFARChaipresentation.pdf

Schneider, M. J. (2006). Introduction to public health (3rd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.

Schneiderman, N., Ironson, G., & Siegel, S. (2005). Stress and health: Psychological, behavioral, and biological determinants. Annu Rev Clin Psychology, 1, 607-628.   doi: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.144141

Scrinis, G., & Lyon, K. (2007). The emerging nano-corporate paradigm: Nanotechnology and     the transformation of nature, food and agri-food systems. International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture, 15(2), 22-44. Retrieved from    http://www.ijsaf.org/archive/15/2/scrinis-lyons.pdf

Takeda, E., Terao, J., Nakaya, Y., Miyamoto, K., Baba, Y., Chuman, H., Kaji, R., Ohmori, T., & Rokutan, K. (2004). Stress control and human nutrition. The Journal of Medical Investigation, 51(3-4). Retrieved from http://www.u.ac.jp/jmi/vol51/pdf/v51_n3-  4_p139.pdf

Wang, Y., & Beydoun, M. (2007). The obesity epidemic in the United States- Gender, age, socioeconomic, racial/ethnic, and geographical characteristics: A systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Epidemiological Review, 29(1), 6-28. doi:          10.1093/epirev/mxm007

Yach, D., Hawkes, C., Gould, L., & Hofman, K. (2004). The global burden of chronic disease: Overcoming impediments to prevention and control. The Journal of Medical Association, 291(21), 2616-2622. Retrieved from:  http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/291/21/2616

Zimmet, P. (2000). Globalization, coca-colonization and the chronic disease epidemic: can the doomsday scenario be averted? Journal of Internal Medicine, 247(1), 301-310.     Retrieved from: http://www.direct-   ms.org/pdf/NutritionNonAuto/Zimmet%20Diabetes.pdf

No Comments

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.