UPGRADING THE GRID IS A LOGISTIC NIGHTMARE WITH 500 OWNERS AND FIFTY STATES WEIGHING IN.

As is so often the case when discussing ways to reduce our carbon footprint, there are good and bad issues that need to be addressed.

In this instance, the good news is that wind and solar power are finally being seriously recognized for their ability to generate massive amounts of clean, non-toxic, relatively inexpensive eclectic power.

The bad news, however, is that our nation’s eclectic transmission “grid” - - the superhighway of sorts that you hear so much about and through which energy travels from point of generation to point of use - - is so hopelessly outdated that significant amounts of this clean new power is unable to make its way to the areas that need it the most.

Simple problem you might say. Just build a new one the way T. Boone ‘Windaddy’ Pickens is doing way down yonder in ole’ Texas town. Problem solved, you say with the smirk of one who have merely spoken the obvious, and is sorta’ amazed that others didn’t mention it first.

But my friends, it is not so easy…

The current grid is not only over a century old, and held together with chewing gum and band-aids, but bits and pieces of it are owned by over 500 separate entities.

Before renovations could proceed, all 500 of them would have to agree on the plan that would then have to be approved by the 50 sates that maintain regulatory control over those companies and this system. Then there are the permits - - mountains of state, federal and local permits - - not to mention the battles with the property owners that must approve every addition to the “grid”.

In short, this is one long drawn-out logistical nightmare.

Of course, we could always go in another direction and kiss off the grid altogether and adopt a more localized model. This would differ from our current system in that the power generated in an area would stay in that area and not be parsed out to wherever.

But even this is inferior to the idea that is starting to take hold among independent minded men and women lately, which is for homeowners and apartment owning entities to generate their own electric power through a combination of rooftop wind and solar generating apparatus.

This would be the best scenario, as it would allow individuals and families to get totally off the grid and say goodbye to out of control eclectic bills that will only continue to rise in the months and years to come.

Now I know your going to tell me how expensive going solar or adding wind turbines can be. Here, there is more good news, which is that as the apparatus becomes more mainstream; costs are coming down from previous sky-high levels.

As of this writing, numerous additional manufacturing companies - - both domestic and foreign - - have entered the business of manufacturing the technology for such conversions, meaning not only is their greater flexibility in pricing, but more options in terms of styling and materials used.

These include the introduction of ordinary looking ceiling tiles that are actually photovoltaic panels, as well as numerous styles of low profile wind turbines intended to replace those huge propeller drive assemblies in areas where space is at a premium.

Furthermore, numerous states and the federal government now have financing options - - in the form of tax credits - - available for homeowners seeking to make the switch to wind and/or solar.

Additionally, some of the panel-manufacturing companies have started offering long-term lease/purchase agreements allowing homeowners to install now and pay over time with the money that otherwise would have gone to the power companies.

Now thats a win-win if I ever heard one.

- DENIS

EDITOR’S NOTE! In the coming months we will make it a point to feature some of the latest technological advances in this field.

Continue reading about the “grid”

MEAT-EATERS’ DIETS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALMOST TWICE THE EMISSIONS OF THOSE OF VEGETARIANS

As one who has continuously questioned why so many in the environmental movement tap dance around the role that meat laden diets play in the production of greenhouse gasses, I was relieved this week to see that no less a prestigious organization than Germany’s, Institute for Ecological Economy Research (IoeW), had finally connected quantifiable, relatable numbers to the devastation. This my friends is a welcome addition to an argument that for too long has been driven by the usual banal, inexact, quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo that tends to permeate so many green conversations.

Now instead of merely being told that the production of meat produces as much greenhouse gases as all of the world’s cars, planes, trucks and trains taken together, we know that eating a meat-laden diet for one year is equal to driving a mid-sized car - - not a hybrid - - three thousand miles, or the distance from New York to California.

Moreover, thanx to IoeW, we also know that the food that a vegetarian consumes in a year produces only half as much greenhouse gasses as a meat eater, in other words the same as that mid-sized, non-hybrid car would produce driving approximately 1500 miles.

But the best of all of the report’s findings is that a vegan diet, meaning one without meat or dairy, would cut the emissions released in the production of your food more than seven-fold, to the equivalent of driving that same mid-sized car a little under three hundred miles.

Choosing organic foods ups the ante even more; an organic diet produces only one 17th of the greenhouse gasses of a meat-laden diet.

Presently there are 1 billion pigs; 1.3 billion head of cattle; 1.8 billion sheep & goats and 15.4 billion chickens in Planet Earth’s food chain. Of these, the production of beef, according to the report, is “particularly environmentally unfriendly.” Producing 2.2 pounds of beef produces twice as much greenhouse gasses as a similar amount of pork.

IoeW’s calculations are based on emissions of greenhouse gases, including methane produced by the animals themselves, as well as emissions from food production including manufacturing feed and fertilizer and the use of farmland.

Some related statistics not mentioned in IoeW’s report but which are germane to the discussion include:

Agriculture accounts for almost 14% of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide; Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Nitrogen based fertilizers responsible for almost 1/3 of Agricultures contribution to Global Warming; Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Besides the production of greenhouses gasses, raising animals for meat is the leading cause of water pollution, land degradation and deforestation; Source: Ode Magazine

2.2 lbs of beef in a burger responsible for the same CO2 as 155 miles of driving and the energy consumption of a 100 watt bulb burning non-stop for 20 days; Source: Ode Magazine

- DENIS

CANDIDATES OFFER DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS TO THE SAME PROBLEM

After eight years of the Bush administration deficating all over all things green, it is refreshing to not only have a presidential campaign where both candidates agree that global warming is real, that it is man made, and that it is the job of the Federal Government to play a part in reducing the threat, but one where both candidates are willing to get specific as to the steps that they will take to make our country a saner, healthier, more sustainable global citizen.

This being said, there are a rash of differences in the two men’s approaches to the crisis, which I, with the help of research from thedailygreen.com, have outlined below.

When I was putting this posting together, I could not resist from time time editorializing on some of the candidate’s positions. MY COMMENTS ARE IN CAPS!

GLOBAL WARMING

CANDIDATE OBAMA:

Would cut emissions by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050; NOT ENOUGH!

His cap-and-trade regulation would include an auction of all pollution credits;

Would use the money generated to pursue aggressive renewable energy and energy efficiency goals that would create millions of new “green collar” jobs. ‘BOUT TIME!

CANDIDATE MCCAIN:

Would support a 60% cut below 1990 levels of pollution; DEFINATELY NOT ENOUGH!

Would allot credits to existing polluters, rather than auctioning them off. WHY SHOULD THE POLLUTERS NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR THESE?

NATIONAL SECURITY

CANDIDATE OBAMA:

Would wean the nation off of Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil within 10 years;

Would invest heavily in renewable energy technologies;

Would improve the energy efficiency of cars and buildings;

Would enact new rules to make burning coal more expensive and to encourage the use of alternatives. ALL GOOD IDEAS!

CANDIDATE MCCAIN:

Would support drilling for more oil; VERY BAD!

Would support using more renewable and alternative forms of energy, including (so-called) “clean coal;” CLEAN COAL IS A FANTASY!

Would support greater use of nuclear power for electricity. WHAT ABOUT THE NUCLEAR WASTE?

NUCLEAR ENERGY

CANDIDATE OBAMA:

While he does not oppose the use of nuclear power, he always acknowledges the safety and radioactive waste arguments; NOT STRONG ENOUGH!

Would redistribute cash from the oil and coal industries to renewables. GOOD!

CANDIDATE MCCAIN:

Has made expanding nuclear power a central part of his energy platform by calling for the construction of 45 new plants by 2030. 45 MORE CHANCES TO POISON US ALL!

OFFSHORE DRILLING

CANDIDATE OBAMA:

Would accept offshore drilling only as part of a compromise to achieve broader energy policy goals, which include massive investments in renewable and alternative energy. ENOUGH COMPROMISES!

CANDIDATE MCCAIN:

Supports increased offshore drilling. “Drill here now” is his common refrain.A SERIOUS FLIP-FLOP FROM MAVERICK MCCAIN!

ETHANOL

CANDIDATE OBAMA:

Would maintain subsidies and tariffs that support the corn-based ethanol industry.
OLD BAD HABITS DIE HARD!

CANDIDATE MCCAIN:

Talks about opposing subsidies for corn growers; GOOD!

Strongly opposes the tariff on Brazilian ethanol, which protects domestic corn growers; BAD!

Supports the use of ethanol and the development of Cellulosic ethanol, but doesn’t get specific.
AT LEAST HE’S THINKING OF SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVES

ENERGY COSTS

CANDIDATE OBAMA:

Would enact a windfall profits tax on oil companies and use the money to give families a $1,000 “Emergency Energy Rebate;” GOOD!

Would invest in plug-in hybrid cars and boosting fuel economy, to help reduce oil imports; GOOD!

Would also take expensive grades of oil stored in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and swap it for cheaper grades; WHO CARES?

Would spend money generated by a cap-and-trade regulation designed to lower carbon emissions on projects to boost home energy efficiency, and to provide credits to people struggling to pay higher electricity bills; WISE!

Would require local utilities to derive 25% of energy from renewable sources by 2025.
NOT NEARLY ENOUGH!

CANDIDATE MCCAIN:

Would expand domestic production of oil and natural gas; SO 20TH CENTURY!

Would offer a $5,000 tax break to those who buy zero-carbon vehicles, (which do not yet exist); COULD BE PROMISING!

Would eliminate the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol, which experts say would have a modest effect on price; HURTS AMERICAN FARMERS!

Would oppose a windfall profits tax on oil companies; A PAYBACK TO BIG OIL FOR THEIR SUPPORT!

Would focus on improving the energy efficiency of the federal government, hoping to drive down price by slackening demand; WISHFULL THINKING!

Favors the installation of so-called “SmartMeters” so individuals can better monitor their energy consumption and its cost; GOOD IDEA TO MAKE PUBLIC CONSCIOUS OF USE!

Would create predictable tax incentives for wind, solar and other renewable energy sources.
COULD BE GOOD!

- DENIS

PRODUCE SUPPLIERS CLAIM MODERN TECHNOLOGY WILL PREVENT PRODUCE FROM BECOMING LIMP

Potentially limp produce notwithstanding, the Food and Drug Administration has given its ok for produce suppliers to begin irradiating fresh spinach and iceberg lettuce to help in the fight against e-coli and other bacterial illnesses.

The new ruling goes into effect immediately amid significant speculation that the use of the controversial process is a poor substitute for properly maintained fields and for washing the product in the home prior to eating.

Irradiation has been around for years, though it was mainly used to rid beef of e-coli and to cure certain spices. But that was before 2006’s e-coli outbreak where three people died and 200 more were sickened after eating raw spinach.

The spinach outbreak was traced to animal contamination of the product prior to harvesting. Also being this controversial process are tomatoes and peppers, the latter the source of this summers outbreak of salmonella.

Continue Reading

GOLDEN STATE WILL BUILD TWO SOLAR ARRAYS CAPABLE OF GENERATING AS MUCH ELECTRICITY AS A LARGE COAL-BURNING POWER PLANT OR A SMALL NUCLEAR PLANT

Plans have just been announced to build two solar power installations here in our home state of California, which during peak hours on a sunny day will generate more than 800 megawatts of power, or 12 times as much electricity as the largest solar farm does today.

The two solar farms, which will cover an estimated 12.5 square miles of San Luis Obispo County in Central California, are expected to generate enough electricity to supply 239,000 homes. Viewed another way, this is as much power as is generated by a large coal-burning plant or a small nuclear plant, without the obvious environmental devastation both of these energy sources creates.

Two California companies will split the task with Hayward, California-based OptiSolar Inc., building the larger of the two installations. Plans call for the privately held company’s Topaz Solar Farm to generate 550 MW of solar power when it is fully operational in 2013. The company plans to utilize amorphous silicon solar panels, which are less costly than the traditional silicon-based panels that dominate the market.

Joining OptiSolar Inc in the massive task is San Jose-based SunPower Inc., which will build a 250 MW solar ranch, also in Central California. SunPower’s silicon-based solar cells are among the most efficient in the industry at transforming sunlight into electricity. The latter project is expected to be fully operational in 2012.

Both deals, however, are contingent upon the extension of key federal tax credits the renewal of which is tied up in the congressional fight over offshore drilling.

Plans are for both companies to sell the electricity generated to Pacific Gas & Electric, to help the utility meet a state mandate that 20 percent of its electricity comes from renewable sources by 2010.

OVER 40 US CITIES CONSIDER RESTORING STREETCAR LINES AS SMOG -FREE MASS TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE.

Most of us are too young to remember streetcars; those early twentieth century train/bus hybrid vehicles powered by overhead electric lines that ran on rails flush with the pavement, stopping frequently to pick up and disgorge passengers from entrance/exits on both sides.

Well it appears that this novel, fun means of early twentieth century transportation is just what the doctor ordered to help relieve deadlock in today’s overcrowded clean-energy conscious world.

Citing reasons including spurring economic development, easing traffic congestion and as a way to draw hip young professionals and empty-nest baby boomers back from the suburbs, over forty US cities are considering reactivating streetcars, which for the most part fell victim in the late 1940’s through mid 1950’s to aggressive automobile and oil industry lobbying.

More than a dozen US cities already have existing streetcar lines, including New Orleans, Portland, Seattle, Tacoma and San Francisco, while Denver, Houston, Cincinnati, Salt Lake City and Charlotte, N.C., either have already introduced, or are planning to introduce streetcars.

At a cost of about $3 million dollars per streetcar and an average capacity of 130 passengers per car, it seems that this is a bargain that cities can not afford to let pass them by, particularly with all of the uncertainty surrounding future fuel prices and the crap that our country has to put up with from oil producing nations.

Now if we could only get the electricity to power the streetcars from clean renewable sources, it would be a win-win for everyone.

- - Denis

OVER 400 OXYGEN DEPLETED “DEAD ZONES” PLAGUE WORLD’S OCEANS

Fertilizer runoff, fossil fuel burning, sewage and pollution-fed algae, are among the items being blamed for depleting ocean oxygen, killing sea life and creating over 400 worldwide “Dead Zones”, covering an area of 95,000 square miles, according to researchers writing in the latest edition of Science.

Hypoxia, as the condition is known, is not a new phenomenon, but as the number of “Dead Zones” has doubled each decade since the 1960’s, it is one that requires immediate attention. Failure to do so, experts tell us, could lead to a day in the not too distant future when man is no longer able to extract enough fish, shrimps, crabs and other sea life from the oceans to feed himself.

The newest “Dead Zones” are being found in the Southern Hemisphere in South America, Africa, and parts of Asia, according to researchers.

Closer to home, the largest U.S. dead zone is at the mouth of the Mississippi River, which at latest count covers some 8,000 square miles. Also threatened is Washington State’s Samish Bay and Yaquina Bay in Oregon.

For more information about “Dead Zones”

WAL-MART STORES, KOHL’S, SAFEWAY AND WHOLE FOODS MARKET AMONG CHAINS RACING TO JUMP ON THE SOLAR BANDWAGON

Solar power is coming to the nation’s retail sector in a big way with Kohl’s stores announcing plans to add solar panels to 85 stores in addition to the 43 that already have them. Macy’s, similarly, plans to install the energy harvesting devices atop 40 more stores this year for a total of 58 stores where at least part of the energy used comes from the sun.

Also wading into the renewable energy fray is supermarket chain, Safeway, where plans call for installing panels atop 23 stores. These retailers are not alone in moving to solar energy. Other chains, including Whole Foods Market, BJ’s Wholesale Club, REI and Wal-Mart, are planning solar projects of their own.

While analysts, according to the New York Times, are not sure how much power the rooftop projects could ultimately produce, the initial estimate is that the solar panels will generate between 10 and 40 percent of the power a store needs, a significant reduction in energy demand in many communities where big box retailers use a disproportionate amount of the available energy.

Not surprisingly, most of the solar conversions to date are centered in California, New Jersey and Connecticut, states where generous incentives are offered for renewable energy projects.

For this phenomena to mainstream nationwide two things must happen. First, the federal government must reauthorize the renewable energy tax credit currently bogged down in the Congressional deadlock over offshore oil drilling and slated to expire at the end of this year. Second, the individual states need to come up with their own incentive plans the way California, New Jersey and Connecticut have.

Whether or not this will come to pass at anytime soon is unknown. What is known is that far too many states still have a vested interest in, and love affair with, coal, even though, we all know that it is among the dirtiest and most toxic of all the energy sources available.

But this is not a battle that can be won with logic. Nor is it one that can be won today. In the interim, the environmental movement should relish it’s victories - - and the move by the major retail players to embrace solar, for whatever their reasons - - is a major victory.

And while the temptation is there to force the issue of incentive plans on a state by state basis, it is not the best use of the green movements time or limited financial resources. Better to leave this battle to the Wal-Marts and Macy’s of the world, as they are better suited to the challenge.

Just know, that when these retailers see the savings that renewable energy will eventually bring to their bottom line, they will lead the fight for local incentives in a manner that the environmental movement could only dream of.

In the meantime, let’s just hope that this mainstream acceptance of solar will one day soon broaden to include wind power as well. There are currently on the market, numerous low profile wind turbines (such as the one featured in the image above) manufactured with city dwellers in mind that offer the benefits of this clean renewable energy source without the drawback of those ugly fifty feet tall spinning propeller turbines.

Perhaps by combining both sources of renewable energy, the day will come when these retail giants will be entirely off the grid, which would eliminate much of the CO2 currently discharged into our atmosphere.

One can only hope.

- - Denis

POLL REVEALS MORE AMERICANS THAN EVER BEFORE WORKING TO REDUCE THEIR CARBON FOOTPRINT” BY DRIVING LESS, USING LESS ELECTRICITY AND RECYCLING

Americans in record numbers are taking steps to reduce their carbon footprint despite the stonewalling of major politicians and much of the corporate elite, according to the latest ABC News/Planet Green/Stanford University Poll.

Of those quizzed, the majority believe that Global Warming is real, that it is caused by the actions of individuals and businesses, and unless significant lifestyle changes are enacted will greatly impact the lives of future generations. To aid in the fight against Global Warming, most Americans polled support a cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Not surprisingly, an overwhelming 64% of Americans polled now rate “finding new energy sources” as more important than improving conservation. Additionally, most Americans admit to supporting higher taxes on oil company profits, stricter fuel efficiency rules for cars, and legislative controls to prevent oil speculators from driving up gas prices.

For some reason, however, most of those polled - - a stunning 41% - - reject describing themselves as environmentalists. Among those distancing themselves from the trendy label are 70% of Republicans and 60% of Democrats.

Finally, on a disappointing note, 44% of those polled favor building more nuclear power plants, the most people to express support of nuclear power in 28 years.

POLL NUMBERS AT A GLANCE:

Ways respondents are reducing their individual carbon footprint:

71% of those polled are reducing their use of energy or goods whose production creates greenhouse gases.

59% are using less gasoline — driving less, or using smaller, more fuel-efficient cars, while others are carpooling or taking mass transit.

60% are cutting their consumption of power and water, and

33% are recycling.

Ways America can reduce it’s global carbon footprint:

78% of respondents support the institution of stricter fuel efficiency standards for cars.

61% would like the federal government to outlaw oil speculation by investors when the speculation results in higher prices at the pump.

55% would support a windfall profit tax on oil company profits, and

74% favor the institution of a “cap and trade” system with the government issuing permits limiting the amount of greenhouse gases companies can emit.

Of those supporting a “cap and trade” system, 57% would maintin this position even if it raised their electric bill by $10 a month, while a slightly smaller 47% would continue their support if the increase was $25 a month.

This system enjoys bi-partisan suport with 66 percent of Democrats, 52 percent of Republicans, and 60 percent of Independents expressing their support for the “cap-and-trade” system.

Why respondents conserve:

34% say it’s mainly to improve the environment.

25% acknowledge it’s to save money, and

41% attribute their actions to both reasons equally.

Why 30% of respondents are not conserving:

20% admit not knowing how to proceed.

50% consider it either unnecessary, too expensive, too inconvenient, won’t do any good, or they just aren’t interested.

GLOBAL WARMING:

80% of those polled acknowledge that global warming is occurring, with 25% of respondents listing global warming as the single biggest environmental problem in the world.

It’s effect on the planet:

74% of respondents blame Global Warming for causing the melting of polar ice.

Closer to home, nearly 60% of those polled credit global warming with increasing the frequency of extreme weather events like droughts and storms, while 43% blame unstable weather patterns in the area where they live on the phenomena.

Global Warming and the future:

81% of those polled believe that if significant action isn’t taken to address global warming, it poses a threat to future generations.

37% worry it will affect them in their own lifetime, and

73% worry that it’ll pose a serious threat in their children’s lifetimes.

Responsibility for Global Warming:

58% of those polled blame Global Warming on the actions of people. This number rises to 63% when commercial and industrial activities are added to the mix.

64% of women polled believe global warming is caused by human activity, as opposed to 52% of men.

Reducing Global Warming:

75% of those polled believe global warming will only be reduced if individuals make major lifestyle changes.

67% of respondents feel that the federal government should do more about global warming even if other countries do less.

Men vs. Women on Global Warming:

72% of women polled reported that global warming is “personally important to them, while

59% of men agreed.

Religion and Gobal Warming:

26% of those polled, who identified themselves as evangelical white Protestants, see global warming as very serious issue compared to 40% of non-evangelical white Protestants.

35% of those polled, who identified themselves as evangelical white Protestants, claim that global warming is “personally important to them” as opposed to 48% of of non-evangelical white Protestants, while

46% of those polled, who identified themselves as evangelical white Protestants, acknowledged that they would like to see the federal government doing more about global warming, compared with 64% of non-evangelical white Protestants.

Politics and Global Warming:

20% of those polled who identified themselves as Republican admitted that they consider Global Warming as very serious,

compared to 53% of Democrats for whom the issue is very serious.
polled.

Nuclear Power:

44% of those polled favor building more nuclear power plants.

Support for Nuclear by political party:

60% of respondents who support building more nuclear power plants listed their party affiliation as Republican; while

33% of Democrats stated their support for a greater use of nukes.

An Environmentalist for President:

42% of those polled say they’d be more likely to support a candidate who’s a strong environmentalist.

Buying Green:

75% of those polled believe buying environmentally friendly products is better for the environment.

67% try to buy them at least occasionally, while

46% try to buy them “whenever possible.”

Green’s meaning to America:

33% percent of those polled believe taking unilateral action actually would help the U.S. economy creating new businesses and jobs, while

22% believe such efforts will damage the U.S. economy.

On a less positive note, 44% of those polled worry that addressing Global Warming will cause them financial hardship.

Offshore Drilling and drilling in Nature Preserves:

63 percent of those polled favor oil drilling in coastal waters where it’s currently prohibited, and

55 percent favor drilling in wilderness areas.

My Notes! These last two numbers, while higher than normal in polls like this, are most certainly a reaction to $4.00 a gallon gasoline, and to the massive profits that the oil companies are enjoying as a result of the higher prices.

Sadly, the poll did not quiz respondents on how much oil they believed was in these currently protected areas? Had they done so, all parties involved would have been disappointed to learn that if all of the currently protected areas were drained dry of oil, there may - - and this is a very questionable may - - be enough remaining to supply the world for 5 or 6 months, tops.

So why then all of the interest from George Bush, John McCain and others of their ilk in drilling in and potentially damaging these areas?

What do the oil companies stand to gain from the tens, and perhaps, hundreds of millions of dollars that they are spending, and will continue to spend, on lobbyists and in the purchase of politicians to achieve this goal?

My best guess is that it is all about control. Most expert’s believe that short of a miracle occurring between now and Election Day, the Democrats will sweep all three branches of government come election day. And with the Democrats will come saner energy policy, and a government less willing to roll over and play dead at Big Oil’s beckoning.

So for those in the fossil fuel business, it’s now or potentially never. Let’s hope the latter comes to pass.

Till Soon!

- - Denis

FOR THE SECOND TIME IN AS MANY MONTHS BEEF FROM NEBRASKA BEEF LTD MAY BE CONTAMINATED WITH E. COLI

Nebraska Beef Ltd. announced Friday night that it is recalling 1.2 million pounds of fresh ground beef because the product may be contaminated with E. coli. This is the second time in as many months that the company has had to recall product. Last months recall is blamed for at least 49 cases of E. coli.

Stores affected by this latest recall include Whole Foods Markets in Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, Massachusetts, Florida, New Jersey, New York, Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington D. C., Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Canada.

To date, Whole Foods reports that seven people in Massachusetts and two people in Pennsylvania have become ill after eating the affected meat. The company is requesting that customers who purchased ground beef from June 2 though Aug. 6 to return it to the store with the packaging or receipt for a refund.

For more information, consumers can call 512-542-0878.