Organic vs. conventional produce for kids: You don't need to fear pesticides.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/the_kids/2014/01/organic_vs_conventional_produce_for_kids_you_don_t_need_to_fear_pesticides.html

So let’s focus on that other major claim about organic food—that is it’s healthier, particularly for kids, because it contains fewer pesticides. First, let’s start with the fact that organic does not mean pesticide-free. As scientist and writer Christie Wilcox explains in several eye-opening blog posts over at Scientific American, organic farmers can and often do use pesticides. The difference is that conventional farmers are allowed to use synthetic pesticides, whereas organic farmers are (mostly) limited to “natural” ones, chosen primarily because they break down easily in the environment and are less likely to pollute land and water. (I say “mostly” because several synthetic chemicals are approved for use in organic farming, too.)

The assumption, of course, is that these natural pesticides are safer than the synthetic ones. Many of them are, but there are some notable exceptions. Rotenone, a pesticide allowed in organic farming, is far more toxic by weight than many synthetic pesticides. The U.S Environmental Protection Agency sets exposure limits for the amount of a chemical that individuals (including kids) can be exposed to per day without any adverse effects. For Rotenone, the EPA has determined that people should be exposed to no more than 0.004 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day. Let’s compare this toxicity to that of some commonly used synthetic pesticides, like the organophosphate pesticide Malathion. The nonprofit Pesticide Action Network calls organophosphates “some of the most common and most toxic insecticides used today.” (Sarin, the nerve gas used in two Japanese terrorist attacks in the 1990s, is a potent organophosphate.) Yet the EPA has deemed it safe, based on animal tests, for humans to be exposed to 0.02 milligrams of Malathion per kilogram of body weight per day. This is five times more than the amount deemed safe for Rotenone. In other words, by weight, the natural pesticide Rotenone is considered five times more harmful than synthetic pesticide Malathion. The EPA’s recommended exposure limit for Glyphosate, another widely used synthetic pesticide—you might know it as Roundup—is 0.1 milligrams per kilogram per day, which means it’s 25 times less toxic by weight than Rotenone. The synthetic pesticide Captan is 32.5 times less toxic than Rotenone, and another one, Pyrimethanil, is 42.5 times less toxic than Rotenone. Rotenone is also not the only natural pesticide that out-ranks synthetic pesticides in terms of toxicity. The pyrethrins, a class of pesticides derived from chrysanthemums that are approved for use in organic farming, are more toxic by weight than Roundup, Captan, and Pyrimethanil, too.

Ah, but what about all those studies that suggest that organic fruits and veggies harbor fewer pesticide residues than conventionally farmed produce does? Those studies only tested for synthetic pesticides. In the few studies that have also looked for natural pesticides—the USDA’s Pesticide Data Program tested for them on organic lettuce in 2009, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation tested a handful of organic fruits and vegetables for certain natural and synthetic pesticides in 2010, and the USDA did an analysis of organic produce in 2010—scientists have found that between 15 and 43 percent of organic produce samples harbor measurable traces of either natural or synthetic pesticides or both. As far as I can tell, however, no one has published a comparison of the overall amounts of both types of pesticides on organic versus conventional produce, so it’s hard to conclude much from these findings other than that, yes, organic produce can be pesticide-tainted, too.

Can GMO corn cause allergies? Don’t believe Elle’s scary story. - Slate Magazine

Link: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/08/can_gmo_corn_cause_allergies_don_t_believe_elle_s_scary_story.single.html#pagebreak_anchor_3

Shetterly's narrative is emotionally compelling, but only that; it just doesn't withstand the critical scrutiny of science. Let's start with her central premise: Genetically modified foods, or more specifically genetic modified corn, can cause allergic reactions. Is that even possible? Can the process of genetic modification create allergies?
"Not likely," said Pamela Ronald, an internationally respected plant geneticist at the University of California, Davis and a pioneer in developing sustainable agricultural solutions. "After 16 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no documented adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops."

But what about the undeniable fact that the rise in autoimmune disorders tracks GMO consumption? The rise in such problems, including allergies, started long before GMOs were introduced. Incidences of these same conditions across U.K., Europe and in other countries where there is no consumption of GM foods match U.S. trends. To put this claim in perspective, the upward slope also tracks with the cumulative wins of the New England Patriots under Bill Belichick, the GDP of China, and indeed the increased consumption of organic foods over a similar period of time. In other words, the alarming connection that Shetterly alludes to in her piece is completely random.

Then there's the question of whether Shetterly's quoted sources stand by their quotes. Let's put ourselves in her shoes as she set out to make sense of her illness and recovery. She could have presented a broad range of opinions. She could have carefully portrayed the measured views of physicians and scientists whose research in this field has been vetted by the medical community. But that's not what happened.
Shetterly quotes a few experts who assert that genetically modified foods are safe, but the majority of her sources seem sympathetic to her plight and Mansmann's GMO-corn allergy theory. I talked to or exchanged emails with almost all of them. The feedback was consistent: Her article was variously described as "ridiculous" and "absurd." To a person, the sources I reached complained that Shetterly had misused their statements. 

Weekend Diversion: Fluoridated Water: Science, Scams and Society – Starts With A Bang

Link: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/04/21/weekend-diversion-fluoridated-water-science-scams-and-society/ (via shareaholic.com)

Another Reason Not To Fear Bacon

Another Reason Not To Fear Bacon

via Advice Goddess Blog on 10/8/12

Another Reason Not To Fear Bacon
I've written about this before -- the nitrate/nitrite myth. Chris Kresser takes it on on his blog:

The belief that nitrates and nitrates cause serious health problems has been entrenched in popular consciousness and media.
...In fact, the study that originally connected nitrates with cancer risk and caused the scare in the first place has since been discredited after being subjected to a peer review. There have been major reviews of the scientific literature that found no link between nitrates or nitrites and human cancers, or even evidence to suggest that they may be carcinogenic. Further, recent research suggests that nitrates and nitrites may not only be harmless, they may be beneficial, especially for immunity and heart health.
...It may surprise you to learn that the vast majority of nitrate/nitrite exposure comes not from food, but from endogenous sources within the body. (1) In fact, nitrites are produced by your own body in greater amounts than can be obtained from food, and salivary nitrite accounts for 70-90% of our total nitrite exposure. In other words, your spit contains far more nitrites than anything you could ever eat.
When it comes to food, vegetables are the primary source of nitrites. On average, about 93% of nitrites we get from food come from vegetables. It may shock you to learn that one serving of arugula, two servings of butter lettuce, and four servings of celery or beets all have more nitrite than 467 hot dogs. (2) And your own saliva has more nitrites than all of them! So before you eliminate cured meats from your diet, you might want to address your celery intake. And try not to swallow so frequently.
All humor aside, there's no reason to fear nitrites in your food, or saliva. Recent evidence suggests that nitrites are beneficial for immune and cardiovascular function; they are being studied as a potential treatment for hypertension, heart attacks, sickle cell and circulatory disorders. Even if nitrites were harmful, cured meats are not a significant source, as the USDA only allows 120 parts per million in hot dogs and bacon. Also, during the curing process, most of the nitrite forms nitric oxide, which binds to iron and gives hot dogs and bacon their characteristic pink color. Afterwards, the amount of nitrite left is only about 10 parts per million.
And if you think you can avoid nitrates and nitrites by eating so-called "nitrite- and nitrate-free" hot dogs and bacon, don't be fooled. These products use "natural" sources of the same chemical like celery and beet juice and sea salt, and are no more free from nitrates and nitrites than standard cured meats. In fact, they may even contain more nitrates and nitrites when cured using "natural" preservatives.

Health - Brian Wansink & David Just - How Bloomberg's Soft Drink Ban Will Backfire on NYC Public Health - The Atlantic

Link: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/06/how-bloombergs-soft-drink-ban-will-backfire-on-nyc-public-health/258501/ (via shareaholic.com)

The Top Ten Unfounded Health Scares of 2011 > News & Commentary > ACSH

The Top Ten Unfounded Health Scares of 2011 > News & Commentary > ACSH
(link fixed: 9/1/2014)

1. The HPV Vaccine
(autism)
2. Apple Juice
(arsenic)
3. Gulf Coast Fish
(oil spill chemicals)
4. Hydraulic Fracturing, or “Fracking”
(cylons contaminated everything)
5. Sunscreen
(carcinogens and hormone disruptors)
6. Fluoridated Water
(a whole laundry list)
7. Cell Phones
(non-ionizing radiation and cancer)
8. Genetically Modified Fish
(health problems from inserted genes)
9. Fragrances
(carcinogens)
10. Phthalates
(developmental risk)

A same-sex marriage thought

Six states now define "marriage" as including same-sex bonds.

The American Red Cross permanently defers from donating any man who has had sex with another man even once since 1977.

I suspect a man in a same-sex marriage would be automatically deferred, not the case for a woman in a same-sex marriage, or anyone in an opposite-sex marriage.

Which of the six states will feature the first anti discrimination lawsuit?

Just asking.......

Iodine

Iodine, and in particular potassium iodide tablets, have been very popular right now.

People are clearing drug stores of the stuff in anticipation of the need to ward off thyroid damage due to radioactivity from Japan.  I suspect anyone living more than 50 miles away from any of the affected plants doesn't need  to worry, but there is one thing I think deserves mention.

You don't need iodide tablets.

You can buy a bottle of tincture of iodine, 2%.  Keep it in your first aid kit for use in disinfecting wounds. 

You can also purify water with the stuff -- five to ten drops can be used to treat a liter of water.

Betadine (povidone) contains a higher concentration of iodine.  Use half the quantity you would of tincture (three to five drops per liter).

Also see here.

And if you anticipate radioactive fallout, paint a square inch of your skin with tincture of iodine. (Not sure what the absorbtion fraction of povidone is.)

And take note: If you're allergic to iodine, all bets are off.

More on the NY Salt Ban Bill

More on the NY Salt Ban Bill - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

The nanny state strikes again.

Last week, New York state assemblyman Felix Ortiz (D-Brooklyn) introduced a bill to ban the use of all salt in restaurant cooking and impose a fine of up to $1,000 on violators. Like all legislators who introduce absolutely insane legislation, he says he is trying to "make sure that we bring awareness."
Oddly, Ortiz seems to be raising awareness about someone else's bill. In an interview on Fox News today, he described the bill as offering consumers the choice "to ask the waitress and chef to don't put any additive sodium in their items." He further explained that "the bill clearly state that the consumer will have the right to ask whether that item is being prepared with sodium and also to either minimize or maximize [and] will allow the chef and the consumer to have a conversation about what we can add or no add."
That is not what his bill says. It says:
That's no salt, anywhere in the preparation of the food. Period.

Ortiz is right when he says that the bill doesn't prevent customers from adding salt after the fact. But any serious cook will tell you that sprinkling on salt at the end of the process isn't the same as using it in cooking. Pasta water must be salted, for instance, to flavor the noodles themselves. Salting onions at the right moment is key to successfullycaramelizing them. Salting eggplant before cooking reduces bitterness in the final dish. And then there's brining and pickling, not to mention the vital importance of salt in the science of baking.

Just say no

This piece, by Jim Yardley, at American Thinker Blog: Just trying to be a good neighbor

...the inescapable conclusion appears to be that those manufacturers and producers of food products that contain trans-fats, salt, sugar and so on, are acting in ways that our political class could never condone because they are so obviously not acting as good neighbors to the citizens of a few of the several states or to those poor folk who live in the People's Republic of San Francisco.

It seems obvious that the best way that these nefarious peddlers of toxic sugar and salt can make amends for their disgusting and inexcusable behavior would be for them to voluntarily cease selling their products in those jurisdictions that find them objectionable.

This does not mean that they should change the recipes for their products. No, that is the last thing that they should do. They should band together and cease providing Twinkies, or hot dogs, butter, cheese, eggs, cake, cookies, soda and other such vile things into states and municipalities where they are unwelcome. And do it immediately and suddenly. Say, tomorrow for instance.

Those states that are affected by this sudden shortage of food items would be forced to spend considerable effort and money to secure their borders lest any illicit smuggling of these dreaded and probably addictive products enter their jurisdictions. The vigorous enforcement of anti-food smuggling legislation will surely win the heartfelt approbation of all those citizens who would not otherwise be able to resist the siren call of a free-range Dunkin Donut.

Surely no health-conscious citizen, or illegal alien for that matter, could possible object to being stopped at the state border, or the city limits, and have their vehicles searched for contraband food items.

IQ, Parasites, and GDP

Steve Sailer looks at the paper, Parasite prevalence and the worldwide distribution of cognitive ability.

The Economist reports on the paper, from the perspective that the prevalence of parasites in different regions causes variations in population IQ. Energy used to fight off parasites isn't available to build brain cells.

But which is cart, and which is horse?

Could smarter people have moved to places with fewer parasites, or developed sanitation programs that reduce the number of infections?

ADHD

Peter Hitchens is not a believer in ADHD.

From time to time I point out that the complaint known as 'Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder' does not actually exist. Invariably, I then receive a wave of letters and e-mails from parents of children who have been 'diagnosed' as suffering from 'ADHD'. These letters are all remarkably similar, and many of them are bitterly personally abusive.
In this entry, I shall take, piece by piece, such a letter, and seek to answer it point by point.

Lead in Washington, DC water

From the Washington Post:

The nation's premier public health agency knowingly used flawed data to claim that high lead levels in the District's drinking water did not pose a health risk to the public, a congressional investigation has found. And, investigators determined, the agency has not publicized more thorough internal research showing that the problem harmed children across the city and continues to endanger thousands of D.C. residents.

....

The agency acknowledged, however, that its 2004 claim that no children had been found with lead poisoning was "misleading," because it referred to only one part of its study. Another part showed that children living in homes serviced by a lead pipes were more than twice as likely as other D.C. children to have unsafe lead in their blood.

Also:

The CDC, which is the nation's principal public health agency, made the confession in a "Notice to Readers" published in an official weekly bulletin Friday. It came a day after a scathing House subcommittee report said the agency knowingly used flawed and incomplete data when it assured D.C. residents in 2004 that their health hadn't been hurt by spikes in lead in the drinking water.

The events represented a full vindication for Edwards. He had embarked on the painstaking, solo investigation primarily because he was outraged that the CDC's original report was being used across the country as a reason to relax concern about lead in the water. Now he has the House report to back up his research.

The War on Salt

Salt, sugar, fat, our use of energy, our way of life. Jim Davidson ties it all together in The War on Salt.

The war on salt is just one aspect of this same, tired, ancient, boring, despicable, and horrid war—a war with billions of casualties, a war against human spirit, a war on possibility. It is the war that doesn't give you a walk-on role in the world, only a lead role in a cage.

What I'm talking about is the war on the future we were promised, with flying cars, much longer lives, colonies in space, hotels in the Moon, terraforming of Mars. It is the war which impoverishes nearly everyone, the war which enriches only the cronies of big government, the war which opposes cheap air travel, cheap space travel, food that tastes good, drugs that relieve pain, a free market, free choices, free love, free thought, free people.

Full Body Scanners

I was wondering when it would happen.
There's an obvious question whenever you bathe a body in radiation -- what are the health effects, if any?
From the "Big Government" blog:

Are Total Body Scanners Safe? The Jury Is Still Out

....

The TSA website represents the full body scanner as a safe method of screening. However, not only are we giving up our privacy, we are also playing Russian roulette with our safety. It is important to note:

1. No long term safety tests have been conducted on these scanners

2. The energy produced by T-rays gives off heat and lies close to the laser range.
Because of this, there is a question about how safe these machines would be in the hands of individuals who may not be as well trained as a radiology technician. (Theoretically there may be damage associated with prolonged thermal exposure.)

3. Alexandrov et al. at Los Alamos National Laboratory theorized that the thermal energy given off by T-rays can damage DNA by unwinding or unzipping the double helix strands of DNA. This could possibly lead to mutations as the DNA attempts to repair itself.

It is clear that the rush to deploy these machines may put the public at unacceptable risk. The questions about safety for pregnant women, children, and the possibility of increased cancer risk need to be answered before these machines are put into place. It simply is not clear whether the risks are outweighed by the stated benefits.

Infrared lasers are much safer than visible light lasers for a couple of reasons.  Being invisible, the eye is less likely to try and focus on them, so much less chance of burning the retina.  Also, the infrared wavelengths don't penetrate the eye quite as well as visible light does.

When I was in college, the going theory was that microwaves did their damage by heating tissue.  As long as the power level was low enough that you didn't cause too much heating, microwaves did no long-term damage.  But then again, there were Russian scientists who claimed microwaves could cause behavioral problems at levels a tenth of a percent of what US science considered safe.  We seem to have quit arguing over microwaves, possibly because shielding has improved, but other forms of radiation, including cell phone transmissions, are hotly contested.

In any event, once people start speculating about the health effects of millimeter wave radiation  -- um excuse me, make that *RAY-DEE-AAAAYYYY-SHUN* -- I suspect we won't have to worry about invasions of privacy.  They won't get FDA approval.

Gone too far?

Parent anger over lunchbox police

Rules on junk food in schools will be sent to all principals this week amid parent anger over teachers inspecting children's lunchboxes and confiscating items viewed as unhealthy. Education Department chief executive Chris Robinson told The Advertiser last night guidelines would be reissued to all state schools and preschools. This follows reports yesterday of several schools ordering teachers to search children's lunchboxes for "inappropriate" food. In some cases, confiscated items were not replaced, leaving children to go hungry.

Mr Robinson said the department's ban on junk food under the Right Bite strategy launched last year by Health Minister John Hill and Education Minister Jane Lomax-Smith, applied only to food and drinks sold in school canteens and vending machines. Birthday cakes and food or drinks from home are not covered by the ban. But according to a February 27 memo sent to principals and preschool directors by department deputy chief executive Jan Andrews, each school has discretion to ignore those instructions. "It is up to each school and preschool community and their governing council to decide how to use the guidelines to encourage healthier eating beyond the requirement that bans junk food in school canteens and vending machines," the memo said.

Opposition education spokesman David Pisoni said schools were confused by the "mixed message". "Parents are rightly angry - it should be about education and not confiscation, and kids should not go hungry because food is taken from lunchboxes," he said.

Mr Robinson, speaking yesterday on radio FIVEaa, said: "Teachers don't have any role in going through children's lunchboxes, that's entirely a matter for parents and the healthy eating guidelines don't cover (them)."

But Seaview Downs mother Cassandra Liebeknecht told The Advertiser that staff at her son's preschool had, over time, confiscated a small packet of potato chips and fruit bars. "Where do you draw the line? Is white bread with jam on it healthy," she asked.

Child psychologist Dr Michael Carr-Gregg said: "This is an abuse of power. "No school teacher has the right to go into a child's lunchbox and arbitrarily deem some food acceptable and some not. It is a blatant interference in the rights of parents and has to stop now."

This was taking place in Australia.  I think US schools would discover there are Constitutional issues. Not to mention angry parents showing up and confiscating the lunches of offending teachers.

Fluoridation

A review on the Efficacy and Safety of Fluoridation

Radiation and health

A mounting number of studies are coming to some surprising conclusions about the dangers of nuclear radiation. It might not be as deadly as is widely believed.

When I was studying the subject in graduate school, I encountered an article by T.D. Luckey in the Health Physics journal on the subject of "radiation hormesis". It was a review article, and the point it made was that it seems a little bit of radiation is actually healthier for most organisms than none at all. For humans, the optimum dose seemed to be around 5 rem/year (0.05 Gray/year). (Boy, did I just date myself there!) Now there's this piece in Der Spiegel:

There is no doubt that the workers at this plant east of the Ural Mountains performed dangerous work. Enveloped in a permanent atmosphere of fear -- with intelligence agents in black coats constantly hurrying through the hallways -- about 150 men would lift the warm, spent fuel elements from the reactors and carry them to the radiochemical plant.

There, in a long brick building, workers, including many women, sat in a dimly lit environment and placed the encrusted rods into nitric acid, triggering a process that allowed them to remove the weapons-grade plutonium. While the same work was performed with remote-controlled robotic arms in the West, the Soviet workers were not even given masks to wear. There was nothing to stop plutonium gases from entering their lungs.

And yet the amount of health damage sustained by these workers was astonishingly low. The GSF study has examined 6,293 men who worked at the chemical plant between 1948 and 1972. "So far 301 have died of lung cancer," says Jacob. "But only 100 cases were caused by radiation. The others were attributed to cigarettes."

the Japanese and the Americans launched a giant epidemiological study after the war. The study included all residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who had survived the atomic explosion within a 10-kilometer (6.2-mile) radius. Investigators questioned the residents to obtain their precise locations when the bomb exploded, and used this information to calculate a personal radiation dose for each resident. Data was collected for 86,572 people.

Today, 60 years later, the study's results are clear. More than 700 people eventually died as a result of radiation received from the atomic attack:

• 87 died of leukemia;

• 440 died of tumors;

• and 250 died of radiation-induced heart attacks.

• In addition, 30 fetuses developed mental disabilities after they were born.

Well out of commission

I see by the papers, one of the wells supplying water to Los Angeles has been shut down, on account of high levels of hexavalent chromium, or chromium ^VI. Other wells in the area are threatened, and will be shut down if the plume reaches them.

Los Angeles water officials have turned off a drinking water well near Burbank Airport, the first of what may be many wells to be idled as a costly result of a new spreading plume of underground chromium pollution.

You might also be interested in this, for reference, from the "hot topics" factsheet on chromium.

In the San Fernando Valley, 14 of 84 DWP wells contain detectable amounts of chromium. However, individual wells do not represent what customers actually receive since many well supplies are combined for use. The water served to LADWP customers is consistently below the detectable level of 5 parts per billion for total chromium. Nonetheless, LADWP is proactively researching treatment alternatives for chromium removal, and will be prepared to meet any new standard the State establishes.

About Filtration Systems

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is not recommending that its customers use filtration devices as related to the levels of chromium found in drinking water. The levels of chromium 6 in the water served to our customers is below 5 parts per billion (ppb), far below the existing drinking water standard in California which is 50 ppb for total chromium and the Federal standard which is 100 ppb for total chromium.

It is true that we have a few wells with total chromium values over 5 ppb, but their water is treated or blended, or the well removed from service to ensure that the chromium 6 in the water actually served to our customers, is always under 5 ppb.

Ultimately it is the customer's choice. There are a few products that can possibly further remove chromium 6 from your water. For the protection of our customers, we advise them to look for an NSF certification, specifically for chromium 6 removal, on the equipment, and require documentation from the manufacturer that proves that the equipment is certified for use in California by the State Dept. of Health Services as a water purification system.

There are always a few businesses that will try to capitalize on this issue without sharing the full story or misquoting facts to alarm or otherwise mislead the public. LADWP Customers are advised to get all the facts. For more information, visit the following official websites at:

California Department of Health Services http://www.dhs.cahwnet.gov/org/ps/ddwem/chemicals/chemindex.htm

Cal/EPA, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment http://www.oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/

Los Angeles Department of Water & Power http://www.ladwp.com/ Last Updated: April 6, 2001

And I will mention that if you're really worried about chromium ^VI in your water, you can always add a little vitamin C. This vitamin is an antioxidant, and will change the chemical state of the chromium to chromium ^III, which is a nutrient.

Socially Approved Price Gouging

The favored game at the moment has to be price-gouging the natural way, riding the bandwagon of organic food...For example, in the UK, organic milk commands a premium of around 50 cents per quart, but the farmer sees less than twenty cents of this.

– Tim Harford, The Undercover Economist, p. 42-43. What does buying organic food say about you? It might say that you believe that it is healthier to ingest food grown in a certain way. But to Tim Harford, it also says that when it comes to price, you are a sap, willing to hand a store high profit margins. He ends his discussion of the organic food rip-off by issuing a plea to organic-preferring consumers to shop more price-consciously and "not let food retailers exploit your enthusiasm."

Many people pay premium prices for things, and only get what they pay for if they place a high value on social standing.

"Hybrid technology is not 'green' technology. Like heated seats or flashy exterior trim, it's merely an expensive option that generates large markups for the Toyota Corporation and its dealers."

I am not against hybrid technology, and it warms my heart to see other people sacrificing to help hold down the price of gas for me. But until the price premium comes down to the point where I can count the number of years of gasoline savings I need to break even without using my toes, I myself will stick with regular cars.

Likewise, recycling on a municipal level is very successful at reducing the amount of trash that makes it to landfill, but at what cost? When recycling pays, people automatically do it. Forcing people to recycle is a form of mandated price gouging – people are forced to donate their labor sorting recyclables out of their trash, labor they'd rather expend elsewhere.