I just had to pass this along. Perhaps this is the introduction to a new business course called "Compassion in Business." Well done, I say. You know I don't favour big business, but this is super.
Sleepover for snowbound shoppers
More than 100 people spent the night in a department store on a Buckinghamshire high street when they became stranded by the snow.
The 54 staff, 30 customers and 20 children were provided with food and a bed in John Lewis in High Wycombe.
Deborah Strazza, managing director of the store, said they all became stranded after heavy snow began to fall on Monday afternoon.
"There was no way I was going to throw customers out into that," she said.
"We just had to make use of what we had got.
"Basically we made up the beds and they all snuggled down in the bed department.
"It was so sweet, the kids absolutely loved it. They thought they were in [the film] Toy Story.
"The customers were really, really grateful and they could not thank us enough."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8426110.stm
Published: 2009/12/22 10:52:39 GMT
Tuesday, 22 December 2009
Friday, 11 December 2009
Obama defends war at Nobel award
Obama defends war at Nobel award
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/8405033.stm
Published: 10 December, 2009
Wage war to make peace, I don't think this idea came out of the New Testament. Actually, it seems a funny definition of peacemaker. I'm reminded of "Brave New World."
"President Barack Obama has said the US must uphold moral standards when waging wars that are necessary and justified, as he accepted his Nobel Peace Prize.
In his speech in Oslo, he defended the US role in Afghanistan, arguing the use of force could bring lasting peace.
He also said his accomplishments were slight compared with other laureates.
Mr Obama was given the prize in October for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples".
Thursday's ceremony in the Norwegian capital came days after Mr Obama announced he was sending 30,000 extra US soldiers to the war in Afghanistan. "
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/8405033.stm
Published: 10 December, 2009
Wage war to make peace, I don't think this idea came out of the New Testament. Actually, it seems a funny definition of peacemaker. I'm reminded of "Brave New World."
"President Barack Obama has said the US must uphold moral standards when waging wars that are necessary and justified, as he accepted his Nobel Peace Prize.
In his speech in Oslo, he defended the US role in Afghanistan, arguing the use of force could bring lasting peace.
He also said his accomplishments were slight compared with other laureates.
Mr Obama was given the prize in October for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples".
Thursday's ceremony in the Norwegian capital came days after Mr Obama announced he was sending 30,000 extra US soldiers to the war in Afghanistan. "
Sunday, 6 December 2009
The arguments made by climate change sceptics
BBC News 6 December, 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm
The arguments made by climate change sceptics
"At the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, 192 governments are aiming
for a new global agreement to constrain greenhouse gas emissions and
curb human-induced climate change.
But some commentators are unconvinced that rising greenhouse gas emissions
are the cause of modern-day warming. Or they say the world is not actually getting warmer - or that a new treaty would hurt economic growth and well-being.
So what are their arguments, and how are they countered by scientists who assert that
greenhouse gases, produced by human activity, are the cause of modern-day climate change?""
I suggest that this is a very clear and useful summary (contained on the website) of just what the climate skeptics are claiming. It is by no means exhaustive but interesting anyway. It seems to me that the skeptical position is demanding certainty from a planet that we are gradually understanding to be a self-regulating organism and not a machine. Most people accept that science cannot accurately predict human behaviour. There is so much that science does not understand and that is unpredictable concerning human healing and medicine. We don't refuse to go to the physician because he/she is not certain of just what medicine will cure us or even whether the medicine prescribed will cure us.
One of the saddest things about the global warming debate is the sketchy and outrageous media articles which are designed to sell newspapers rather than reveal the truth. The media focuses on CO2, but fail to emphasize that methane, nitrous oxide, CFCs and ozone are also rising and much of this rise is due to human activities. It is the interaction and combination of all these factors plus water vapour that must be considered. Because the factors and their relationships are not simple and not well understood, the media come out with something simple to gain headlines.
Another sad occurrence is how the media confuses climate with weather. The climate is affected by an overall increase in the earth's temperature of around .8C since in the last 150 years or so. There is no precise effect that this has had on climate. We must understand general proclivities and probabilities when it comes to predicting weather and climate.
Also, the media is focusing on the wrong question. We should be asking about the factors which drove temperature off it's peak the last few warm periods in the 150 thousand year cycles we observe from ice cores. If that is examined, we would find that the important causes of cooling have been destroyed by human activity. Primarily, the vast forests and savannah. The forests have been chopped and the grasslands have been ploughed and saturated with nitrogen from artificial fertilizer to feed a population which is out of control and caught up in an economic philosophy of growth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm
The arguments made by climate change sceptics
"At the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, 192 governments are aiming
for a new global agreement to constrain greenhouse gas emissions and
curb human-induced climate change.
But some commentators are unconvinced that rising greenhouse gas emissions
are the cause of modern-day warming. Or they say the world is not actually getting warmer - or that a new treaty would hurt economic growth and well-being.
So what are their arguments, and how are they countered by scientists who assert that
greenhouse gases, produced by human activity, are the cause of modern-day climate change?""
I suggest that this is a very clear and useful summary (contained on the website) of just what the climate skeptics are claiming. It is by no means exhaustive but interesting anyway. It seems to me that the skeptical position is demanding certainty from a planet that we are gradually understanding to be a self-regulating organism and not a machine. Most people accept that science cannot accurately predict human behaviour. There is so much that science does not understand and that is unpredictable concerning human healing and medicine. We don't refuse to go to the physician because he/she is not certain of just what medicine will cure us or even whether the medicine prescribed will cure us.
One of the saddest things about the global warming debate is the sketchy and outrageous media articles which are designed to sell newspapers rather than reveal the truth. The media focuses on CO2, but fail to emphasize that methane, nitrous oxide, CFCs and ozone are also rising and much of this rise is due to human activities. It is the interaction and combination of all these factors plus water vapour that must be considered. Because the factors and their relationships are not simple and not well understood, the media come out with something simple to gain headlines.
Another sad occurrence is how the media confuses climate with weather. The climate is affected by an overall increase in the earth's temperature of around .8C since in the last 150 years or so. There is no precise effect that this has had on climate. We must understand general proclivities and probabilities when it comes to predicting weather and climate.
Also, the media is focusing on the wrong question. We should be asking about the factors which drove temperature off it's peak the last few warm periods in the 150 thousand year cycles we observe from ice cores. If that is examined, we would find that the important causes of cooling have been destroyed by human activity. Primarily, the vast forests and savannah. The forests have been chopped and the grasslands have been ploughed and saturated with nitrogen from artificial fertilizer to feed a population which is out of control and caught up in an economic philosophy of growth.
Friday, 4 December 2009
Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics
Each Other — Where We Are
Ecological Inheritance
If Darwin didn't rock your world, this should
by Sandra Steingraber
Published in the November/December 2009 issue of Orion magazine
http://www.orionmagazine.org:80/index.php/articles/article/5104/
"We know from lab experiments that certain chemical exposures in prenatal life can alter developmental pathways and lead to altered architecture of adult structures (such as breasts). But our current system of environmental regulation—with its narrow focus on identifying chemicals that cause mutations—does not screen for chemicals that trigger changes in development. And our current system of genetic testing—with its narrow focus on identifying carriers of certain genes that bestow notably higher cancer risks—does not consider the regulation of genes by environmentally mediated signals either."
"Perhaps most astonishing of all, epigenetic changes can be inherited. This means that the environmental exposures we experienced as children can have consequences not just for us but also for our descendants. More philosophically, it means that, contrary to current biological dogma, the nineteenth-century idea that acquired traits can be passed down the generations may not be so wrong-headed after all. And this brings us back to Darwin, who developed his ideas before we had a working understanding of genes and who was agnostic on the subject of the heritability of acquired characteristics. The reality of epigenetic inheritance hardly overturns natural selection—indeed it shows us another route by which species can adapt. Finally, it shines a spotlight on one of Darwin’s lesser-appreciated insights: that all of life is interrelated—not only by our common origins but also by our common ecology."
Steingraer is too kind. Lamarck was laughed out of court for saying this. But Darwin had the name and influencial backers.
"Can environmentally induced or acquired changes in organisms be transmitted to future generations? Does the inheritance of acquired characteristics--if it occurs at all--play a significant role in evolution? These questions were the subject of heated scientific and political controversy until as recently as the 1960s, when the decisive successes of classical genetics submerged this debate. If asked, most biologists today would say that inheritance of acquired characteristics never occurs. Yet there are actually numerous well-documented examples of the phenomenon, and I believe it has played a major role in speeding up evolution."
Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics; March 1993; Scientific American Magazine; by Otto E. Landman; 1 Page(s)
http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=2D40FE07-49EA-4A19-840A-475A8B20456
This is exactly why so many of us claim that genetically modified food is and has always been risky. Furthermore, if it does in the end cause deathly problems, it will be terribly difficult to trace the problem back to the source. This is also why Monsanto and associates fight so hard to keep themselves on the gravy train and us ignorant.
Ecological Inheritance
If Darwin didn't rock your world, this should
by Sandra Steingraber
Published in the November/December 2009 issue of Orion magazine
http://www.orionmagazine.org:80/index.php/articles/article/5104/
"We know from lab experiments that certain chemical exposures in prenatal life can alter developmental pathways and lead to altered architecture of adult structures (such as breasts). But our current system of environmental regulation—with its narrow focus on identifying chemicals that cause mutations—does not screen for chemicals that trigger changes in development. And our current system of genetic testing—with its narrow focus on identifying carriers of certain genes that bestow notably higher cancer risks—does not consider the regulation of genes by environmentally mediated signals either."
"Perhaps most astonishing of all, epigenetic changes can be inherited. This means that the environmental exposures we experienced as children can have consequences not just for us but also for our descendants. More philosophically, it means that, contrary to current biological dogma, the nineteenth-century idea that acquired traits can be passed down the generations may not be so wrong-headed after all. And this brings us back to Darwin, who developed his ideas before we had a working understanding of genes and who was agnostic on the subject of the heritability of acquired characteristics. The reality of epigenetic inheritance hardly overturns natural selection—indeed it shows us another route by which species can adapt. Finally, it shines a spotlight on one of Darwin’s lesser-appreciated insights: that all of life is interrelated—not only by our common origins but also by our common ecology."
Steingraer is too kind. Lamarck was laughed out of court for saying this. But Darwin had the name and influencial backers.
"Can environmentally induced or acquired changes in organisms be transmitted to future generations? Does the inheritance of acquired characteristics--if it occurs at all--play a significant role in evolution? These questions were the subject of heated scientific and political controversy until as recently as the 1960s, when the decisive successes of classical genetics submerged this debate. If asked, most biologists today would say that inheritance of acquired characteristics never occurs. Yet there are actually numerous well-documented examples of the phenomenon, and I believe it has played a major role in speeding up evolution."
Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics; March 1993; Scientific American Magazine; by Otto E. Landman; 1 Page(s)
http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=2D40FE07-49EA-4A19-840A-475A8B20456
This is exactly why so many of us claim that genetically modified food is and has always been risky. Furthermore, if it does in the end cause deathly problems, it will be terribly difficult to trace the problem back to the source. This is also why Monsanto and associates fight so hard to keep themselves on the gravy train and us ignorant.
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
What is there not to believe
From The Times
December 1, 2009
‘Nations will vanish and millions lose their homes to rising seas’
Hannah Devlin
http://www.timesonline.co.uk:80/tol/news/environment/article6938378.ece
"A rise in sea levels of 1.4m predicted today in a major climate report would result in the loss of entire nations and the displacement of about ten per cent of the world’s population, according to scientists.
The scenario described in the latest report of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
http://www.scar.org/
would leave tropical islands such as the Maldives and Tuvalu submerged and result in the loss of large parts of Bangladesh and the Indian Ocean Coast.
In Britain, billions of pounds would have to be spent to protect low-lying cities such as London from being inundated from flood surges that could be even more extreme than the average increase.
'Once set in motion, sea-level rise is impossible to stop. The only chance we have to limit sea-level rise to manageable levels is to reduce emissions very quickly, early in this century. Later it will be too late to do much,' said Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, on whose research the 1.4m figure was based.
Vast swaths of the Fenlands in eastern England, which are inhabited by about 385,000 people and lie just a few metres above sea level, could become flooded as the artifical drainage banks and pumps used today become unable to cope with the rising tide.
The resulting loss of argricultural land would be a major blow to British food security. Commenting last month on a climate impact report by the Met Office, David Milliband, the Foreign Secretary, warned that failing to keep global temperatures to within 2C of the present, would heighten the risk of international conflicts over water and land resources. 'We’re talking about a high pressure world in which droughts and flooding will drive mass migration,' he said.
A 1.4m rise could result in about 10 per cent of the world’s population being forcibly displaced by land loss. Coastal cities would effectively become fortified islands defended on all sides from encroaching water. Shanghai, Alexandria, Boston, New York, and Venice would all be on the brink of submersion.
This year the US estimated it would have to spend $156 billion — or about 3 per cent of its GDP — on flood defences to cope with a 1m rise."
Please forgive me for overstating the obvious, but I'm finally beginning to "get it"
So, if rising global temperatures are deemed to be just a natural occurrence and just simply a part of the interglacial period we are in or just part of something about the planet that we don't understand, then the loss of homes, land and jobs, etc. is just a, what do the insurance firms call it? "Act of God!!!" Ahhh. This explains why multinationals and governments maximally influenced by multinationals are happy to promote the "climate skeptics." Point of view and sow seeds of dissent within the populace (grin) so they won't have to retool or otherwise disrupt the flow of profits.
"Only two out of five British voters believe that climate change is real and is caused by human activity."
http://news.uk.msn.com:80/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=150868324
So two out of 5 is 40% that accept anthropogenic climate change claims.
"Almost a third, or 32%, believe that the link is not yet proved; eight percent say it is environmentalist propaganda to blame man and 15% believe the world is not warming."
News24
http://www.news24.com/Content/SciTech/News/1132/0ae7a512e7a744ec8df9b0c10a577af1/14-11-2009-01-15/Climate_change_not_man-made
I guess I am totally out of touch with how 32% of our sample population figures things out. Or maybe a great percentage of people don't figure? Is that it? Maybe they just read the paper and say, there we are, just as I suspected, it is just a government plot to raise taxes etc. and believe it because it was "in the paper."
Can anyone help me here, seriously, I just don't know how to deal with such large numbers that appear to me to ignore common sense.
Why do I say this?
Well, let's see.
(1) Everyone knows that trees suck up carbon and everyone knows that hundreds of forests, large and small have been chopped for man made materials such as sailing ships, forts, houses, wood chips etc. As we sit today, millions of trees are still being chopped from the existing rain forests.
(2) The oceans are the major absorber of atmospheric CO2. Everyone knows what happens when a carbonated drink is warmed. Who hasn't opened a warm soft drink or beer?
Our oceans are warming and simply cannot hold as much CO2.
Simple, easy to imagine and visualise.
(3) Our human population is on about a 45 degree angle of increase as shown by any graph or might I suggest all graphs on the subject. These people, as they can afford, use petrol, oil, coal, natural gas don't they? Have I said anything controversial or speculative here yet? Yes, No?
(4) That scientific research has revealed an increase of CO2 since the industrial revolution is undisputable. The co-relation is obvious, isn't it? Where have I gone astray?
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, eats like a duck, swims like a duck, flies like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. How else do you decide that a duck is a duck?
Well then what is there not to believe?
The glaciers are melting, the artic and antartic ice is melting, and thus the oceans are rising. Whether humans are causing it or not, it is happening and we either pay now or pay more later.
Who disagrees with that and why please?
When the hundreds of thousands are homeless and starving, how much of our meadowland, parkland, woods, places of outstanding natural beauty etc. will be covered in asphalt, housing, and corn? Is this what we want for our grandchildren and great grandchildren?
We are already consuming more than the planet can supply sustainably.
I am sorry, but swapping tungsten light bulbs for long life bulbs that pop in 3 months and cannot be thrown in the rubbish is just NOT the answer.
December 1, 2009
‘Nations will vanish and millions lose their homes to rising seas’
Hannah Devlin
http://www.timesonline.co.uk:80/tol/news/environment/article6938378.ece
"A rise in sea levels of 1.4m predicted today in a major climate report would result in the loss of entire nations and the displacement of about ten per cent of the world’s population, according to scientists.
The scenario described in the latest report of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
http://www.scar.org/
would leave tropical islands such as the Maldives and Tuvalu submerged and result in the loss of large parts of Bangladesh and the Indian Ocean Coast.
In Britain, billions of pounds would have to be spent to protect low-lying cities such as London from being inundated from flood surges that could be even more extreme than the average increase.
'Once set in motion, sea-level rise is impossible to stop. The only chance we have to limit sea-level rise to manageable levels is to reduce emissions very quickly, early in this century. Later it will be too late to do much,' said Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, on whose research the 1.4m figure was based.
Vast swaths of the Fenlands in eastern England, which are inhabited by about 385,000 people and lie just a few metres above sea level, could become flooded as the artifical drainage banks and pumps used today become unable to cope with the rising tide.
The resulting loss of argricultural land would be a major blow to British food security. Commenting last month on a climate impact report by the Met Office, David Milliband, the Foreign Secretary, warned that failing to keep global temperatures to within 2C of the present, would heighten the risk of international conflicts over water and land resources. 'We’re talking about a high pressure world in which droughts and flooding will drive mass migration,' he said.
A 1.4m rise could result in about 10 per cent of the world’s population being forcibly displaced by land loss. Coastal cities would effectively become fortified islands defended on all sides from encroaching water. Shanghai, Alexandria, Boston, New York, and Venice would all be on the brink of submersion.
This year the US estimated it would have to spend $156 billion — or about 3 per cent of its GDP — on flood defences to cope with a 1m rise."
Please forgive me for overstating the obvious, but I'm finally beginning to "get it"
So, if rising global temperatures are deemed to be just a natural occurrence and just simply a part of the interglacial period we are in or just part of something about the planet that we don't understand, then the loss of homes, land and jobs, etc. is just a, what do the insurance firms call it? "Act of God!!!" Ahhh. This explains why multinationals and governments maximally influenced by multinationals are happy to promote the "climate skeptics." Point of view and sow seeds of dissent within the populace (grin) so they won't have to retool or otherwise disrupt the flow of profits.
"Only two out of five British voters believe that climate change is real and is caused by human activity."
http://news.uk.msn.com:80/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=150868324
So two out of 5 is 40% that accept anthropogenic climate change claims.
"Almost a third, or 32%, believe that the link is not yet proved; eight percent say it is environmentalist propaganda to blame man and 15% believe the world is not warming."
News24
http://www.news24.com/Content/SciTech/News/1132/0ae7a512e7a744ec8df9b0c10a577af1/14-11-2009-01-15/Climate_change_not_man-made
I guess I am totally out of touch with how 32% of our sample population figures things out. Or maybe a great percentage of people don't figure? Is that it? Maybe they just read the paper and say, there we are, just as I suspected, it is just a government plot to raise taxes etc. and believe it because it was "in the paper."
Can anyone help me here, seriously, I just don't know how to deal with such large numbers that appear to me to ignore common sense.
Why do I say this?
Well, let's see.
(1) Everyone knows that trees suck up carbon and everyone knows that hundreds of forests, large and small have been chopped for man made materials such as sailing ships, forts, houses, wood chips etc. As we sit today, millions of trees are still being chopped from the existing rain forests.
(2) The oceans are the major absorber of atmospheric CO2. Everyone knows what happens when a carbonated drink is warmed. Who hasn't opened a warm soft drink or beer?
Our oceans are warming and simply cannot hold as much CO2.
Simple, easy to imagine and visualise.
(3) Our human population is on about a 45 degree angle of increase as shown by any graph or might I suggest all graphs on the subject. These people, as they can afford, use petrol, oil, coal, natural gas don't they? Have I said anything controversial or speculative here yet? Yes, No?
(4) That scientific research has revealed an increase of CO2 since the industrial revolution is undisputable. The co-relation is obvious, isn't it? Where have I gone astray?
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, eats like a duck, swims like a duck, flies like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. How else do you decide that a duck is a duck?
Well then what is there not to believe?
The glaciers are melting, the artic and antartic ice is melting, and thus the oceans are rising. Whether humans are causing it or not, it is happening and we either pay now or pay more later.
Who disagrees with that and why please?
When the hundreds of thousands are homeless and starving, how much of our meadowland, parkland, woods, places of outstanding natural beauty etc. will be covered in asphalt, housing, and corn? Is this what we want for our grandchildren and great grandchildren?
We are already consuming more than the planet can supply sustainably.
I am sorry, but swapping tungsten light bulbs for long life bulbs that pop in 3 months and cannot be thrown in the rubbish is just NOT the answer.
Sunday, 29 November 2009
Illegal logging in Siberia
By Alfonso Daniels
BBC News, Dalnerechensk, Russia
"Wagons brimming with logs accumulate in the Siberian railway station of Dalnerechensk, more than 8,000km (4,971 miles) east of Moscow. They are waiting to cross the nearby Chinese border.Once in China, they will be processed and used for construction or turned into garden furniture and other products to be sold in European and US shops.More than a third of all Russian logs are smuggled by mafias, a practice that doubled between 2005 and 2007, according to official figures.
It is a huge business. China imports nearly six out of 10 logs produced in the world, after banning logging in its own territory following devastating floods a decade ago.
In total, 10m cubic metres of wood, equivalent to nearly a third of all logging in the Amazon, is harvested every year from Russian soil.This fuels a massive illegal business that threatens to destroy the largest forest on the planet in 20 to 30 years, according to Forest Trends, an international consortium of industry and conservation groups.
"“ My boss has a guy who shuts up anyone creating problems or speaking too much ”"Yevgeni", illegal logger"
Alexander Vitrik, a local senior inspector, says that in the few cases where someone is arrested, pressure to stop trials is huge from the top levels of government."'I can't give names, but they're protected by very influential people,' he says.
Mr Vitrik admits that corruption among inspectors is rife, but declines to go into detail.Despite these problems, some inspectors vow to keep on fighting.""'Since March, I've only been given 600 litres of gas to patrol seven million hectares,' he says.""Mr Samoilenko says those behind the illegal logging set fire to his car and then tried to burn down his parents' house, but failed.
His colleague Anatoly Kabaniets, sitting in the driver's seat, smiles when hearing this: 'All this small stuff doesn't perturb us.
My son worked as an inspector and was murdered, but we'll never give up.'"
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/8376206.stm
As I remember, Japan is also saving their forests and buying in. I saw recently that China is planting millions of trees. This is truly having your cake and eating it too.
BBC News, Dalnerechensk, Russia
"Wagons brimming with logs accumulate in the Siberian railway station of Dalnerechensk, more than 8,000km (4,971 miles) east of Moscow. They are waiting to cross the nearby Chinese border.Once in China, they will be processed and used for construction or turned into garden furniture and other products to be sold in European and US shops.More than a third of all Russian logs are smuggled by mafias, a practice that doubled between 2005 and 2007, according to official figures.
It is a huge business. China imports nearly six out of 10 logs produced in the world, after banning logging in its own territory following devastating floods a decade ago.
In total, 10m cubic metres of wood, equivalent to nearly a third of all logging in the Amazon, is harvested every year from Russian soil.This fuels a massive illegal business that threatens to destroy the largest forest on the planet in 20 to 30 years, according to Forest Trends, an international consortium of industry and conservation groups.
"“ My boss has a guy who shuts up anyone creating problems or speaking too much ”"Yevgeni", illegal logger"
Alexander Vitrik, a local senior inspector, says that in the few cases where someone is arrested, pressure to stop trials is huge from the top levels of government."'I can't give names, but they're protected by very influential people,' he says.
Mr Vitrik admits that corruption among inspectors is rife, but declines to go into detail.Despite these problems, some inspectors vow to keep on fighting.""'Since March, I've only been given 600 litres of gas to patrol seven million hectares,' he says.""Mr Samoilenko says those behind the illegal logging set fire to his car and then tried to burn down his parents' house, but failed.
His colleague Anatoly Kabaniets, sitting in the driver's seat, smiles when hearing this: 'All this small stuff doesn't perturb us.
My son worked as an inspector and was murdered, but we'll never give up.'"
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/8376206.stm
As I remember, Japan is also saving their forests and buying in. I saw recently that China is planting millions of trees. This is truly having your cake and eating it too.
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
Fighting "superweeds" created by GM crops
"War of words over weeds could modify the verdict on GM crops"American farmers are having to spend more and more money and chemicals fighting "superweeds" created by the rush into genetically modified crops, according to a new report which promises to re-ignite the debate over GM. It claims that, far from reducing pesticide use, as promised, GM crops are requiring much more – because the saving on insecticide use is outweighed by extra herbicides being thrown at the weeds. The cost of weed control in the southern states is approaching the point where it will wipe out the benefit of extra yields from GM seeds and the problem is moving north says the report, which was published last week by The Organic Center in Boulder, Colorado. The report is authored by The Organic Center’s chief scientist and agricultural economist Charles Benbrook, a former US government adviser. He will be presenting his findings in Brussels and London early in December. Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, which will host Dr Benbrook's visit to Westminster on December 3, said yesterday: 'This is very significant research and a major blow to attempts to revive GM crops in England.'"http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk:80/features/War-of-words-over-weeds....
This fact has been proposed over and over again for the last 15 + years here in the uk, long before the US even knew that GM seeds were being planted. It was the the UK that awakended the US to what was happening to them. We cannot be wrong mainly because our warnings are backed by the latest research and experience, now being felt and collected as above, that plants do evolve and adapt much more quickly than animals.Actually, I may have spoken in error. Perhaps we humans do adapt much more quickly than research shows. Our reaction to antibiotics has been very quick. Maybe we have much more to learn about how we work???
What do you think?
This fact has been proposed over and over again for the last 15 + years here in the uk, long before the US even knew that GM seeds were being planted. It was the the UK that awakended the US to what was happening to them. We cannot be wrong mainly because our warnings are backed by the latest research and experience, now being felt and collected as above, that plants do evolve and adapt much more quickly than animals.Actually, I may have spoken in error. Perhaps we humans do adapt much more quickly than research shows. Our reaction to antibiotics has been very quick. Maybe we have much more to learn about how we work???
What do you think?
Friday, 6 November 2009
Carbon credits for cutting down rainforest and farming no-dig
GM Watch
SOUTH AMERICAN GM SOY CLOSE TO GET CARBON CREDITS-AGRIBUSINESS LOBBY IN THE CLIMATE NEGOTIATIONS
Javiera Rulli
La Soja Mata, September 2009
http://lasojamata.org/es/node/397
Nice work if you can get it! Encourage people to chop trees and replace them with soy beans. Then sell them expensive GM seed and qualify for carbon credits because the farmers are using a bit of no-till. Of course with the lack of clay and miniscule humus layer, why turn over mostly subsoil?
That's like selling ciggies to kids and then getting a subsidy because the package encourages them not to throw their butts down on the ground.
There seems to be no limits to the absurd and exploititive schemes multinationals such as Monsanto will hatch. And which governments resist? Next thing we hear will be how successful, thus the implication of rightiousness, GM must be coupled with sales figures.
U.S.: KILLER PIGWEED THREATENS CROPS IN THE SOUTH
"Glyphosate (Roundup)-resistant pigweed is choking more than a million acres of cotton and soybeans in America's South, according to a report by ABC News. In the last three months, Jim Hubbard of Double H Farms has spent more than $500,000 fighting the pigweeds, and they still won't die."
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11561:killer-pig-weeds-threaten-crops-in-the-south
http://bit.ly/kiGsL
Will this news reach the South Americans? I don't think so.
"As the UN Climate Change Conference 2009 (COP15) gets closer, a new agreement has to be signed for the period after 2012.It is becoming clear how agribusiness attempts to gain profits from the massive carbon credits market. Under the term "Conservation Agriculture", Monsanto and other biotech allies have penetrated the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) aiming to get carbon credits for agribusiness. A voluntary 'responsible' label for Roundup Ready soy sponsored by World Wild Life Fund (WWF), and a newly approved Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM) methodology are important steps for Agribusiness to get access to this three billion dollar business.
Proposals to include agriculture in carbon offsetting focus on changes in tillage practices and reductions in methane and nitrous oxide emissions. All these practices are included in the concept of "Conservation Agriculture", which is based on three principles: minimal soil disturbance, permanent soil cover and crop rotations . However, in the name of Conservation Agriculture and with the explicit consent of FAO and UNFCCC, very different agricultural methods are included. Under this label a range of systems from biological agriculture to No-till GM industrial agriculture can be labelled as sustainable and so receive carbon credits.
For agribusiness, the combination of RR soybean and No-till is an economical success. When glyphosate is sprayed on soy monoculture, all plants die except the GM soy, which significantly simplifies the job of weed control. Mechanical weeding (with the use of ploughs) is substituted by chemical weeding. No-till makes herbicide use indispensable for the weeding; in this sense the best way to name it would be 'Chemical No-till'. The combination of RR soy monocultures and No-till has lead to an overall exponential increase of pesticide use and millions of dollars of profit for seed and chemical companies. The production scale has increased to monocultures of thousands of hectares, with a minimal labour requirement of only 2 people per 1000 hectares, basing all pest management on pesticide spraying machines and airplanes.
The expansion of RR soybean crops is causing massive contamination because of the intensive pesticide use. This leads not only to biodiversity loss, but in countries like Argentina and Paraguay, also people are being exposed to live under "chemical war" conditions. Studies in Argentina and Paraguay demonstrate higher malformations rates in areas of soy production ."
For more information:
javierarulli()yahoo.com
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11563-monsanto-penetrating-carbon-credit-mechanism
SOUTH AMERICAN GM SOY CLOSE TO GET CARBON CREDITS-AGRIBUSINESS LOBBY IN THE CLIMATE NEGOTIATIONS
Javiera Rulli
La Soja Mata, September 2009
http://lasojamata.org/es/node/397
Nice work if you can get it! Encourage people to chop trees and replace them with soy beans. Then sell them expensive GM seed and qualify for carbon credits because the farmers are using a bit of no-till. Of course with the lack of clay and miniscule humus layer, why turn over mostly subsoil?
That's like selling ciggies to kids and then getting a subsidy because the package encourages them not to throw their butts down on the ground.
There seems to be no limits to the absurd and exploititive schemes multinationals such as Monsanto will hatch. And which governments resist? Next thing we hear will be how successful, thus the implication of rightiousness, GM must be coupled with sales figures.
U.S.: KILLER PIGWEED THREATENS CROPS IN THE SOUTH
"Glyphosate (Roundup)-resistant pigweed is choking more than a million acres of cotton and soybeans in America's South, according to a report by ABC News. In the last three months, Jim Hubbard of Double H Farms has spent more than $500,000 fighting the pigweeds, and they still won't die."
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11561:killer-pig-weeds-threaten-crops-in-the-south
http://bit.ly/kiGsL
Will this news reach the South Americans? I don't think so.
"As the UN Climate Change Conference 2009 (COP15) gets closer, a new agreement has to be signed for the period after 2012.It is becoming clear how agribusiness attempts to gain profits from the massive carbon credits market. Under the term "Conservation Agriculture", Monsanto and other biotech allies have penetrated the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) aiming to get carbon credits for agribusiness. A voluntary 'responsible' label for Roundup Ready soy sponsored by World Wild Life Fund (WWF), and a newly approved Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM) methodology are important steps for Agribusiness to get access to this three billion dollar business.
Proposals to include agriculture in carbon offsetting focus on changes in tillage practices and reductions in methane and nitrous oxide emissions. All these practices are included in the concept of "Conservation Agriculture", which is based on three principles: minimal soil disturbance, permanent soil cover and crop rotations . However, in the name of Conservation Agriculture and with the explicit consent of FAO and UNFCCC, very different agricultural methods are included. Under this label a range of systems from biological agriculture to No-till GM industrial agriculture can be labelled as sustainable and so receive carbon credits.
For agribusiness, the combination of RR soybean and No-till is an economical success. When glyphosate is sprayed on soy monoculture, all plants die except the GM soy, which significantly simplifies the job of weed control. Mechanical weeding (with the use of ploughs) is substituted by chemical weeding. No-till makes herbicide use indispensable for the weeding; in this sense the best way to name it would be 'Chemical No-till'. The combination of RR soy monocultures and No-till has lead to an overall exponential increase of pesticide use and millions of dollars of profit for seed and chemical companies. The production scale has increased to monocultures of thousands of hectares, with a minimal labour requirement of only 2 people per 1000 hectares, basing all pest management on pesticide spraying machines and airplanes.
The expansion of RR soybean crops is causing massive contamination because of the intensive pesticide use. This leads not only to biodiversity loss, but in countries like Argentina and Paraguay, also people are being exposed to live under "chemical war" conditions. Studies in Argentina and Paraguay demonstrate higher malformations rates in areas of soy production ."
For more information:
javierarulli()yahoo.com
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11563-monsanto-penetrating-carbon-credit-mechanism
Climate deal unlikely this year
Climate deal 'unlikely' this year
By Richard BlackEnvironment correspondent, BBC News website, Barcelona
The UK government says it is highly unlikely that a new legally binding climate treaty can be agreed this year - and a full treaty may be a year away.Two years ago, the world's governments vowed to finalise a new treaty at next month's climate summit in Copenhagen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8345501.stm
The delegates appear to be disputing over money and who should pay. Interesting.
The have-nots who wish to exploit natural resources left over from colonialism want the rich countries to pay them for not following their example.
There is a precedent in the US and UK , for example, of paying people with resources not to use them. This is in the form of farm subsidies and payment to leave land fallow.
Rome is burning while they fiddle.
Of course there will be wining and dining regardless whether anything is decided. And, we can be sure, regardless of the hot air, the media will report significant success.
By the way, does anyone know what a "politically binding" agreement is?
Sounds like a really rare bird to me.
I would have thought 2 years was enough to knock out an agreement if the actors were really serious, of course.
This reminds me of a saying: Oh God, please grant me celibacy, but not yet.
By Richard BlackEnvironment correspondent, BBC News website, Barcelona
The UK government says it is highly unlikely that a new legally binding climate treaty can be agreed this year - and a full treaty may be a year away.Two years ago, the world's governments vowed to finalise a new treaty at next month's climate summit in Copenhagen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8345501.stm
The delegates appear to be disputing over money and who should pay. Interesting.
The have-nots who wish to exploit natural resources left over from colonialism want the rich countries to pay them for not following their example.
There is a precedent in the US and UK , for example, of paying people with resources not to use them. This is in the form of farm subsidies and payment to leave land fallow.
Rome is burning while they fiddle.
Of course there will be wining and dining regardless whether anything is decided. And, we can be sure, regardless of the hot air, the media will report significant success.
By the way, does anyone know what a "politically binding" agreement is?
Sounds like a really rare bird to me.
I would have thought 2 years was enough to knock out an agreement if the actors were really serious, of course.
This reminds me of a saying: Oh God, please grant me celibacy, but not yet.
Sunday, 1 November 2009
Population increase triggers many ills
UK population 'to rise to 71.6m'
"The population of the UK is expected to increase from 61m to 71.6m by 2033, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
Just over two-thirds of the increase is expected to be related directly or indirectly to migration to the UK.
The population of pensionable age is expected to rise by 32% over the next 25 years.
If the projected increase materialises, the population will have grown at its fastest rate in a century."
BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/8318010.stm
21 October, 2009
The extremes of global warming social problems have only just begun to emerge. Yet, already, as you can see above, population shifts threaten our countryside and rural way of life. I am especially concerned because this is only the beginning. There are several factors that coalesce to make for frightening consequences. One, already DEFRA spokespersons are talking about feeding the world. Just recently I read that already we need almost double the food to feed the world. Two, as hundreds of thousands need a new homeland when their living spaces flood, they will naturally put pressure on us to absorb them. This puts tremendous pressure not only on our available housing space but on our social services. Three, economic growth and CO2 emission reduction are at cross purposes. The prevailing corporate philosophy of unending growth or die is cancer incarnate. Four, the rainforest destruction continues unabated. So what do we need to do?
One, encourage fewer births and allocate funding to assist poorer countries to eliminate the need for several children to take care of their parents; or whatever is driving the need for several children. Two, break up corporate and private practices of depriving indigenous people of the land to feed themselves. This includes a halt to the shipment of luxury, out of season food, to the West. Three, break the power of corporate political domination. Endless growth assumptions are absurd and come from the fact that corporations have the legal standing of a person but no heart or conscience. Sustainability must be substituted for the endless growth objective. Four, stop rainforest cutting everywhere and compensate those who lose financially whilst implementing a timed shift in job availability and business objectives. Make the rainforest too valuable to cut.
All four of these problem and action items can be achieved through the efforts of people around the globe acting locally to wean themselves from the corporate world trade agreements and encouraging and supporting local growth.
Now is the time to start and the Transition Town movement has the structure and is gaining the experience to lead the way.
"The population of the UK is expected to increase from 61m to 71.6m by 2033, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
Just over two-thirds of the increase is expected to be related directly or indirectly to migration to the UK.
The population of pensionable age is expected to rise by 32% over the next 25 years.
If the projected increase materialises, the population will have grown at its fastest rate in a century."
BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/8318010.stm
21 October, 2009
The extremes of global warming social problems have only just begun to emerge. Yet, already, as you can see above, population shifts threaten our countryside and rural way of life. I am especially concerned because this is only the beginning. There are several factors that coalesce to make for frightening consequences. One, already DEFRA spokespersons are talking about feeding the world. Just recently I read that already we need almost double the food to feed the world. Two, as hundreds of thousands need a new homeland when their living spaces flood, they will naturally put pressure on us to absorb them. This puts tremendous pressure not only on our available housing space but on our social services. Three, economic growth and CO2 emission reduction are at cross purposes. The prevailing corporate philosophy of unending growth or die is cancer incarnate. Four, the rainforest destruction continues unabated. So what do we need to do?
One, encourage fewer births and allocate funding to assist poorer countries to eliminate the need for several children to take care of their parents; or whatever is driving the need for several children. Two, break up corporate and private practices of depriving indigenous people of the land to feed themselves. This includes a halt to the shipment of luxury, out of season food, to the West. Three, break the power of corporate political domination. Endless growth assumptions are absurd and come from the fact that corporations have the legal standing of a person but no heart or conscience. Sustainability must be substituted for the endless growth objective. Four, stop rainforest cutting everywhere and compensate those who lose financially whilst implementing a timed shift in job availability and business objectives. Make the rainforest too valuable to cut.
All four of these problem and action items can be achieved through the efforts of people around the globe acting locally to wean themselves from the corporate world trade agreements and encouraging and supporting local growth.
Now is the time to start and the Transition Town movement has the structure and is gaining the experience to lead the way.
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
Agriculture is an undervalued and underestimated climate change tool
Climate Change Solution
Agriculture is an undervalued and underestimated climate change tool that could be one of the most powerful strategies in the fight against global warming. Nearly 30 years of Rodale Institute soil carbon data show conclusively that improved global terrestrial stewardship--that specifically includes 21st Century regenerative agricultural practices--can be the most effective currently available strategy for mitigating CO2 emissions. Read it and see the future of farming that can change the world.
http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/Rodale_Research_Paper-07_30_08.pdf
Introduction
Agriculture is an undervalued and underestimated climate change tool that could be one of the most powerful strategies in the fight against global warming. Nearly 30 years of Rodale Institute soil carbon data show conclusively that improved global terrestrial stewardship--specifically including regenerative organic agricultural practices--can be the most effective currently available strategy for mitigating CO2 emissions.
Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial® (FST) is the longest-running side-by-side comparison of organic and conventional farming systems in the U.S. and one of the oldest trials in the world. It has documented the benefits of an integrated systems approach to farming using regenerative organic practices. These include cover crops, composting and crop rotation to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide by pulling it from the air and storing it in the soil as carbon. Results from these practices—corroborated at other research centers that include University of California at Davis, University of Illinois, Iowa State University and USDA Beltsville, Maryland, research facility—reiterate the vast, untapped potential of organic agricultural practices to solve global warming.
Agricultural carbon sequestration has the potential to substantially mitigate global warming impacts. When using biologically based regenerative practices, this dramatic benefit can be accomplished with no decrease in yields or farmer profits. Even though climate and soil type affect sequestration capacities, these multiple research efforts verify that practical organic agriculture, if practiced on the planet’s 3.5 billion tillable acres, could sequester nearly 40 percent of current CO2 emissions.
Agriculture is an undervalued and underestimated climate change tool that could be one of the most powerful strategies in the fight against global warming. Nearly 30 years of Rodale Institute soil carbon data show conclusively that improved global terrestrial stewardship--that specifically includes 21st Century regenerative agricultural practices--can be the most effective currently available strategy for mitigating CO2 emissions. Read it and see the future of farming that can change the world.
http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/Rodale_Research_Paper-07_30_08.pdf
Introduction
Agriculture is an undervalued and underestimated climate change tool that could be one of the most powerful strategies in the fight against global warming. Nearly 30 years of Rodale Institute soil carbon data show conclusively that improved global terrestrial stewardship--specifically including regenerative organic agricultural practices--can be the most effective currently available strategy for mitigating CO2 emissions.
Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial® (FST) is the longest-running side-by-side comparison of organic and conventional farming systems in the U.S. and one of the oldest trials in the world. It has documented the benefits of an integrated systems approach to farming using regenerative organic practices. These include cover crops, composting and crop rotation to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide by pulling it from the air and storing it in the soil as carbon. Results from these practices—corroborated at other research centers that include University of California at Davis, University of Illinois, Iowa State University and USDA Beltsville, Maryland, research facility—reiterate the vast, untapped potential of organic agricultural practices to solve global warming.
Agricultural carbon sequestration has the potential to substantially mitigate global warming impacts. When using biologically based regenerative practices, this dramatic benefit can be accomplished with no decrease in yields or farmer profits. Even though climate and soil type affect sequestration capacities, these multiple research efforts verify that practical organic agriculture, if practiced on the planet’s 3.5 billion tillable acres, could sequester nearly 40 percent of current CO2 emissions.
Sunday, 25 October 2009
350 - What is going on here?
“On October 24th, people from 181 countries came together for the most widespread day of environmental action in the planet’s history. At over 5200 events around the world, people gathered for strong action and bold leadership on the climate crisis” Bill McKibbon
In Hartland, Devon we held hands at an event we named Hands Across Hartland. I will upload a couple of photos unless they are too large in which case I'll get them reduced in size and upload them soon.
350 has focused on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It appears that the 2007 IPPC findings were far too conservative. Prominent scientists are now proposing that we must not maintain CO2 above 350 ppm. Unfortunately for Gaia we are already at 387 and climbing at 2ppm/year.
By looking at several ice core samples, taken from both the artic and antartic, showing us temperature and CO2 content over the last 450k years, we can see that CO2 has never been so high. These samples allow us to look at the present and 4 previous interglacial warming periods. CO2 has never been higher than 300ppm and peaked at around 280 for 3 out of the 5 periods.
So it safe to say that we have never been here before and can only look at predictive models.
Another look at the ice core samples shows the almost 100% correlation between CO2 and temperature. Which drives the other is controversial. Maybe something else drives both. The prevalent view is the greenhouse theory that we must all be aware of. This means that CO2, in addition to other greenhouse gasses such as methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbon are driving up the temperature. Human driven carbon emissions are obviously significant. Those who hold out for a temperature driven alternative point out that as the ocean temperature increases vast amounts of CO2 are released. A little thought reveals that we would then have a very dangerous positive feedback mechanism wherein the greenhouse effect would continue to warm the oceans which then cause more CO2 which increases the greenhouse effect. Now, the question is: What will limit or stop this positive feedback?
In the past million years or so, vast amounts of trees performed that service by sequestering carbon, releasing water vapor and stimulating cloud cover which increased the deflection of the sun’s rays (albedo) effectively taking the place of the miles and miles of ice which had melted. With that negative feedback firmly in place and the orbital forcing factors favouring cooling, the downward cycle of Gaia’s temperature was assured.
Unfortunately, this natural development has been destroyed by humans. Millions of trees over thousands of years have been chopped as if they were useless to anything but to serve the greed of homo sapiens.
Delicate balance
Perhaps too late we have come to understand that the behavior patterns of Gaia, a living being are not as precise as the mathematical formulas and models we have built up to predict a machine’s behavior. All three of the Milankovitch cycles that affect climate, The eccentricity of our orbit around the sun, the amount of the Earth’s tilt, and the combination of the Earth’s wobble as it spins and where the wobble places the poles during Summer and winter, are imprecise and erratic. The cycles vary in intensity and in length. It is their interaction that alters the delicate balance of positive and negative forcings that drive the reversal of the warming and cooling of the planet. There is a warming combination which has occurred about every 100k to 112k years that appears to trigger a rise of temperature from an approximately 100K years of heavy glaciation to an approximately 12K years of warming. The primary amplification factor in these cycles of warming and cooling has been the Earth’s orbit. A more elliptical orbit amplifies the positive and negative feedback forces of the other two cycles. Unfortunately for us, at present our orbit is about as much circular as it has ever been and is moving toward a more circular state. As the orbit becomes more circular, the more difficult it is for the, in our case cooling, or negative feedback factors to force us into a cooling cycle.
So What?
Since we are part of nature, then isn’t what we do natural too? Yes, I’ll go there. However, we are the first beings spawned by Gaia that have a share in Gaia’s survival structures and cycles. We are the first Earth beings that have so far figured out how to survive as we eat out our environment. As our mentors have pointed out, we are now, and not by our conscious choice, co-creators with Gaia of our environment. Unfortunately, we are not ready and have not the wisdom to assume such power.
Our establishment scientists and religious leaders are still unable to grasp the significance and import of the fact that we are an outgrowth of a living, loving being. A being with the intelligence and ability to self-regulate. We assume that our lovely planet is dumb and what we see and measure is some chance combination of factors that we can grind up into our mechanistic paradigm. How about asking – why do we now have a ratio of over 80% cooling and only a little over 20% warming over an expanse of 120k years? Millions of years ago there was a lot more carbon and the oceans were far more expansive then now. Could it be that this oscillation of cooling periods with shorter warming periods is necessary to self regulate us toward maintaining a livable environment? We must remember that Gaia acts in, to us, long term increments.
We know that the sun’s output of heat and energy is expanding. All stars that we have studied have a life cycle of expanding energy until the become red giants then and spurt out planetary material. This knowledge led James Lovelock, as I have read, to question why the Earth was not hotter. What resulted was the Gaia Hypothesis and now Gaia theory.
The challenge of homo sapiens
In the past millenniums, creatures, warm and cold blooded beings, plant and mineral beings exercised their innate drive to expand their activity and awareness. It is only now that homo sapiens has pushed the envelope to an extent that we must now use the combination of our thinking function and our deep intuitive knowing to make wise decisions. With power comes responsibility. We have the science, we have the spirituality, we have the wisdom and we have the level of consciousness to not only survive, but share in the increasing health of Gaia.
Yes, there are detractors, there are greedy people and corporations without soul, but they cannot prevail over the loving grace of Gaia. It is the science of complexity and autopoisis that we find our latest understanding of the effect of the love streaming out from Gaia. As we become ever more conscious our descriptors will evolve and our feeling of connectedness will deepen. The power of Gaia’s love as it is expressed in our species is beautiful beyond imagination. Be that which you want to see.
In Hartland, Devon we held hands at an event we named Hands Across Hartland. I will upload a couple of photos unless they are too large in which case I'll get them reduced in size and upload them soon.
350 has focused on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It appears that the 2007 IPPC findings were far too conservative. Prominent scientists are now proposing that we must not maintain CO2 above 350 ppm. Unfortunately for Gaia we are already at 387 and climbing at 2ppm/year.
By looking at several ice core samples, taken from both the artic and antartic, showing us temperature and CO2 content over the last 450k years, we can see that CO2 has never been so high. These samples allow us to look at the present and 4 previous interglacial warming periods. CO2 has never been higher than 300ppm and peaked at around 280 for 3 out of the 5 periods.
So it safe to say that we have never been here before and can only look at predictive models.
Another look at the ice core samples shows the almost 100% correlation between CO2 and temperature. Which drives the other is controversial. Maybe something else drives both. The prevalent view is the greenhouse theory that we must all be aware of. This means that CO2, in addition to other greenhouse gasses such as methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbon are driving up the temperature. Human driven carbon emissions are obviously significant. Those who hold out for a temperature driven alternative point out that as the ocean temperature increases vast amounts of CO2 are released. A little thought reveals that we would then have a very dangerous positive feedback mechanism wherein the greenhouse effect would continue to warm the oceans which then cause more CO2 which increases the greenhouse effect. Now, the question is: What will limit or stop this positive feedback?
In the past million years or so, vast amounts of trees performed that service by sequestering carbon, releasing water vapor and stimulating cloud cover which increased the deflection of the sun’s rays (albedo) effectively taking the place of the miles and miles of ice which had melted. With that negative feedback firmly in place and the orbital forcing factors favouring cooling, the downward cycle of Gaia’s temperature was assured.
Unfortunately, this natural development has been destroyed by humans. Millions of trees over thousands of years have been chopped as if they were useless to anything but to serve the greed of homo sapiens.
Delicate balance
Perhaps too late we have come to understand that the behavior patterns of Gaia, a living being are not as precise as the mathematical formulas and models we have built up to predict a machine’s behavior. All three of the Milankovitch cycles that affect climate, The eccentricity of our orbit around the sun, the amount of the Earth’s tilt, and the combination of the Earth’s wobble as it spins and where the wobble places the poles during Summer and winter, are imprecise and erratic. The cycles vary in intensity and in length. It is their interaction that alters the delicate balance of positive and negative forcings that drive the reversal of the warming and cooling of the planet. There is a warming combination which has occurred about every 100k to 112k years that appears to trigger a rise of temperature from an approximately 100K years of heavy glaciation to an approximately 12K years of warming. The primary amplification factor in these cycles of warming and cooling has been the Earth’s orbit. A more elliptical orbit amplifies the positive and negative feedback forces of the other two cycles. Unfortunately for us, at present our orbit is about as much circular as it has ever been and is moving toward a more circular state. As the orbit becomes more circular, the more difficult it is for the, in our case cooling, or negative feedback factors to force us into a cooling cycle.
So What?
Since we are part of nature, then isn’t what we do natural too? Yes, I’ll go there. However, we are the first beings spawned by Gaia that have a share in Gaia’s survival structures and cycles. We are the first Earth beings that have so far figured out how to survive as we eat out our environment. As our mentors have pointed out, we are now, and not by our conscious choice, co-creators with Gaia of our environment. Unfortunately, we are not ready and have not the wisdom to assume such power.
Our establishment scientists and religious leaders are still unable to grasp the significance and import of the fact that we are an outgrowth of a living, loving being. A being with the intelligence and ability to self-regulate. We assume that our lovely planet is dumb and what we see and measure is some chance combination of factors that we can grind up into our mechanistic paradigm. How about asking – why do we now have a ratio of over 80% cooling and only a little over 20% warming over an expanse of 120k years? Millions of years ago there was a lot more carbon and the oceans were far more expansive then now. Could it be that this oscillation of cooling periods with shorter warming periods is necessary to self regulate us toward maintaining a livable environment? We must remember that Gaia acts in, to us, long term increments.
We know that the sun’s output of heat and energy is expanding. All stars that we have studied have a life cycle of expanding energy until the become red giants then and spurt out planetary material. This knowledge led James Lovelock, as I have read, to question why the Earth was not hotter. What resulted was the Gaia Hypothesis and now Gaia theory.
The challenge of homo sapiens
In the past millenniums, creatures, warm and cold blooded beings, plant and mineral beings exercised their innate drive to expand their activity and awareness. It is only now that homo sapiens has pushed the envelope to an extent that we must now use the combination of our thinking function and our deep intuitive knowing to make wise decisions. With power comes responsibility. We have the science, we have the spirituality, we have the wisdom and we have the level of consciousness to not only survive, but share in the increasing health of Gaia.
Yes, there are detractors, there are greedy people and corporations without soul, but they cannot prevail over the loving grace of Gaia. It is the science of complexity and autopoisis that we find our latest understanding of the effect of the love streaming out from Gaia. As we become ever more conscious our descriptors will evolve and our feeling of connectedness will deepen. The power of Gaia’s love as it is expressed in our species is beautiful beyond imagination. Be that which you want to see.
Friday, 23 October 2009
Copenhagen will fail
Copenhagen will fail - it's official. At least that is what United Nations climate change chief Yvo de Boer told the Financial Times on Tuesday.Mr de Boer told the newspaper that the Copenhagen climate change conference will not produce a new international treaty to replace the Kyoto treaty.http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/2009/10/climate_conference_se...
Are we really surprised? In the Us the Conservative right is dead against any measure that will tax energy use or alter the inalienable right of every American citizen to have as much as they can possibly afford, even if they have to borrow against the future.
I have just returned from a visit with relatives in the US. There is no indication whatsoever that people there are buying small cars or doing anything really to scale down. Even the recent and still evident ecomomic downturn does not seem to have affected people's priorities. It seems to me to be the essence of materialism has totally been absorbed. Take whatever you can afford by saving, borrowing, or stealing as what possessions you have is the overall measure of your success in life.Taxing the poor to finance the offset of energy reduction is not the answer.There are really two major priorities in my not so humble opinion.
(1) Immediately limit population. Rescind by law that assumed human right to have as many children as you choose regardless of who is paying for them or what problems population explosion is causing. ALL of the climate change and global warming problemsin the near term are caused by over population and it is this population influenced by the overwhelming pull of materialiasm that not only impedes but seems to abort every action to exhort people to cut back. Just put yourself in the mindset of a transnational Director.Growth is the first commandment. It is either grow or die (be bought out!) If population is decreased where will the growth come from? It took me a long time to realise this. Of course population control cannot surfacer as a reasonable and possible item of discussion. The transnationals, who operate as legal entities with citizen rights but no consciousness will not and cannot agree to a serious economic decline - a serious downsizing on a scale that will have a chance in limiting the CO2 to 350 parts per million.
(2) Immediately stop cutting trees. Make trees objects of veneration and protect them for the CO2 absorption that they so freely provide for us. Immediately provide builders with alternative building materials. Costly, yes of course. But with planning and research, alternatives can be put in place such that the cost will decrease in the future.If we don't do these two things, then the cost will dramatically increase in the future.
So, let is look out for the results of Copenhagen on or near after 7 December. If they cannot come to an agreement that sets a pace of downsizing then we, the smallholder are truly on out own. Then we must look at the resources of our communities and take action to take care of ourselves. It can be done. There are lots of things we can do for ourselves. Transition Towns have a good start. We can learn from them and move forward. Let us see what happens or doesn't happen at Copenhagen.What do you think?
Are we really surprised? In the Us the Conservative right is dead against any measure that will tax energy use or alter the inalienable right of every American citizen to have as much as they can possibly afford, even if they have to borrow against the future.
I have just returned from a visit with relatives in the US. There is no indication whatsoever that people there are buying small cars or doing anything really to scale down. Even the recent and still evident ecomomic downturn does not seem to have affected people's priorities. It seems to me to be the essence of materialism has totally been absorbed. Take whatever you can afford by saving, borrowing, or stealing as what possessions you have is the overall measure of your success in life.Taxing the poor to finance the offset of energy reduction is not the answer.There are really two major priorities in my not so humble opinion.
(1) Immediately limit population. Rescind by law that assumed human right to have as many children as you choose regardless of who is paying for them or what problems population explosion is causing. ALL of the climate change and global warming problemsin the near term are caused by over population and it is this population influenced by the overwhelming pull of materialiasm that not only impedes but seems to abort every action to exhort people to cut back. Just put yourself in the mindset of a transnational Director.Growth is the first commandment. It is either grow or die (be bought out!) If population is decreased where will the growth come from? It took me a long time to realise this. Of course population control cannot surfacer as a reasonable and possible item of discussion. The transnationals, who operate as legal entities with citizen rights but no consciousness will not and cannot agree to a serious economic decline - a serious downsizing on a scale that will have a chance in limiting the CO2 to 350 parts per million.
(2) Immediately stop cutting trees. Make trees objects of veneration and protect them for the CO2 absorption that they so freely provide for us. Immediately provide builders with alternative building materials. Costly, yes of course. But with planning and research, alternatives can be put in place such that the cost will decrease in the future.If we don't do these two things, then the cost will dramatically increase in the future.
So, let is look out for the results of Copenhagen on or near after 7 December. If they cannot come to an agreement that sets a pace of downsizing then we, the smallholder are truly on out own. Then we must look at the resources of our communities and take action to take care of ourselves. It can be done. There are lots of things we can do for ourselves. Transition Towns have a good start. We can learn from them and move forward. Let us see what happens or doesn't happen at Copenhagen.What do you think?
Friday, 31 July 2009
FSA attacks organic 30 July
"It is a popular myth that people who buy organic food only do so because they think it will make them healthier. Recent research in a number of European countries, including the UK, has found that its regular buyers have a much more sophisticated understanding of organic food and farming. On health, people are mainly concerned to avoid eating sprays. Pesticides are designed to kill living plants and animals, so it makes good sense to avoid consuming them. Organic animals can't be treated routinely with antibiotics: concern about resistance to antibiotics is rising and in some EU countries, community acquired MRSA is an increasing problem." Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director commenting on the FSA Organic Review in the Independent, 30 July 2009.
Let’s do a study. I’ll choose what documents are worthy to be included in the study by my criteria. Outcomes that that don’t favour my point of view, I’ll deem insignificant. Other outcomes I’ll decide are irrelevant. I’ll choose the researchers and fund the research with the taxpayers money. Obviously important factors which would more obviously count against me, I’ll just ignore. Pesticides, for instance, are not relevant to human health because I’ve said so. I know the media will print anything I say. Shall we start today? Sky McCain 30 July, 2009
Organic 'has no health benefits'
Organic food is no healthier than ordinary food, a large independent review has concluded.
[Sky: How can it be independent when it was funded bt the FSA?]
There is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of any extra health benefits from eating organic produce, UK researchers found.
[Sky: Guess who decides what is and what is not a health benefit?]
The Food Standards Agency who commissioned the report said the findings would help people make an "informed choice".
But the Soil Association criticised the study and called for better research.
Researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine looked at all the evidence on nutrition and health benefits from the past 50 years.
“ Without large-scale, longitudinal research it is difficult to come to far-reaching clear conclusions on this, which was acknowledged by the authors of the FSA review ” Peter Melchett, Soil Association
Among the 55 of 162 studies that were included in the final analysis, there were a small number of differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally produced food but not large enough to be of any public health relevance, said study leader Dr Alan Dangour.
Sky: [ Alan is a senior lecturer and registered public health nutritionist with a background in biochemistry and biological anthropology. Alan taught previously at University College London and the University of Cambridge, and joined LSHTM in 2001. He has worked extensively in Guyana, Central Asia and Chile and his early research focused on child health. Alan's current research deals mostly with nutrition in older people, and he is conducting a series of trials to determine the effectiveness of nutrition interventions for the maintenance of health and function in later life. http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/people/dangour.alan]
Overall the report, which is published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found no differences in most nutrients in organically or conventionally grown crops, including in vitamin C, calcium, and iron.
The same was true for studies looking at meat, dairy and eggs.
Differences that were detected, for example in levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, were most likely to be due to differences in fertilizer use and ripeness at harvest and are unlikely to provide any health benefit, the report concluded.
The review did not look at pesticides or the environmental impact of different farming practices.
[Sky: Each year, around 2.5 million tons (2,500,000 tons = 5 billion pounds) of pesticide are dumped on the planet's crops. [2]
In 2002, an estimated 69,000 children were poisoned by pesticides in the US [3]
The World Health Organization reports 220,000 people die every year worldwide because of pesticide poisoning. Hard to believe, isn't it? [2]
In 2001, the world pesticide market was valued at $32 billion ($32,000,000,000). Big bucks! [1]
Although most pesticides (80%) are used in the rich countries, most of the poisonings are in poor countries. This is because safety standards are poor, there may be no protective clothing or washing facilities, insufficient enforcement, poor labeling of pesticides which are used by farm workers who can't read anyway. Few people know much about pesticide hazards. [2]
Pesticide residues in food are often higher in poor countries. [2]
Farmers who use pesticides have a 'significantly higher rate of cancer incidence' than non-farmers. [2]
In the US, nearly one in ten of about 3 billion kilograms (that's 6,613,800,000 pounds) of toxic chemicals released per year is known to be capable of causing cancer (in other animals as well as people). [2]
http://tiki.oneworld.net/pollution/poisonings.html
1. US EPA Pesticide Market Estimates; 2. Public health risks associated with pesticides and natural toxins in foods, David Pimentel et al., College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA; 3. US EPA fact sheet. ]
Memorial 547 Men, Women and Children will Die today from Pesticide Poisoning (Statistically known as "acceptable risks" for pesticide poison registration)
http://www.getipm.com/our-loved-ones/memorium.htm
Bayer Responsible in Pesticide Deaths of 24 Children in Peru
Families Appeal to Secretary General Kofi Annan to Exclude Bayer from the UN Global CompactPesticide Action Network Latin America and Red de Accion en Alternativas al uso de AgroqumicosAugust 30th, 2002
Following a nine-month investigation, a Peruvian Congressional Subcommittee has issued its final report on the poisoning deaths by the organophosphate pesticide methyl parathion of 24 children in the remote village of Tauccamarca in October 1999. The Subcommittee concluded that there is significant evidence of administrative and criminal responsibility on the part of Ministry of Agriculture, and of criminal responsibility on the part of the agrochemical company Bayer. Headquartered in Germany, Bayer has been a principle Peruvian importer and distributor of both methyl and ethyl parathion. The report recommends that the government and Bayer indemnify the families of the dead children.
The material above are only the first 3 hits on Google “pesticide deaths” Is there need for more? If so, it is available, volumes of reports. Pesticide poisoning is one of the truly gruesome scandals of our time. ]
Gill Fine, FSA director of consumer choice and dietary health, said: "Ensuring people have accurate information is absolutely essential in allowing us all to make informed choices about the food we eat.
"This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food.
"What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food."
She added that the FSA was neither pro nor anti organic food and recognised there were many reasons why people choose to eat organic, including animal welfare or environmental concerns.
“ Organic food is just another scam to grab more money from us ” Ishkandar, London
Dr Dangour, said: "Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority."
He added that better quality studies were needed.
[Sky: This didn’t stop you from publishing this one before the Brussels study being carried out by Carlo Leifert of Newcastle University. The details about this were in the Times on 29 July. I believe it is part of the QLIF studies. One reference is here:
http://orgprints.org/10595/01/niggli-leifert-2007-overview.pdf]
In the Times article Leifert said “The FSA did not want to admit that there was anything good
in organic food. The government is worried they will then have to have a policy to make organic food available to evreryone.” I believe that they government is scared shitless that the court cases will bankrupt the country if they admit that pesticides are harmful to our health.]
Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association said they were disappointed with the conclusions.
"The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences.
"Although the researchers say that the differences between organic and non-organic food are not 'important', due to the relatively few studies, they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods.
"Without large-scale, longitudinal research it is difficult to come to far-reaching clear conclusions on this, which was acknowledged by the authors of the FSA review.
Sky: [But this is the small print. It is the headlines that catch the public’s eye. They know this and bank on it]
"Also, there is not sufficient research on the long-term effects of pesticides on human health," he added. Sky: [I wonder why not? Ha ha}
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/health/8174482.stmPublished: 2009/07/29 13:22:17 GMT© BBC MMIX
______________________________________________________
Systematic reviews of scientific literature evaluating organic food for nutrient content and health effects
Overview
The global demand for organic food is rising. In 2007 the organic food market in the UK was estimated to be worth over £2 billion - an increase of 22% since 2005. The UK organic market is now the third largest in Europe after Germany and Italy. These increased sales are thought to result, at least in part, from increased consumer confidence in the safety of organic foods, and their perceived benefits to human health and the environment.
Several reviews published in the past 10 years have compared nutritional composition of organic and conventionally produced foods, and have reported equivocal results. None of the reviews employed an explicitly systematic methodology. Little research has been conducted on the potential benefits of organic foods for human health, and there is no consistent underlying hypothesis for the mechanisms of action of any putative health benefits.
Given the large and increasing demand for organic foods in the UK and elsewhere, up-to-date objective independent statements on the relative nutritional and health merits of organic vs. conventionally produced foods are needed for both public policy and consumer advice.
This project will produce two separate systematic reviews of published scientific literature. The first review will compare the composition (nutrients and other nutritionally-relevant substances) of organically and conventionally produced foods. The second review will evaluate the putative health effects of organic food.
Protocols
To access the systematic review protocol on the composition (nutrients and other substances) of organically and conventionally produced foods, please press here.
To access the systematic review protocol on the putative health effects of organic food, please press here. Please note this is an updated protocol (updated 21st October 2008).
Project timeline
Start date: 15th September 2008End date: 19th December 2008
LSHTM Project Staff
Dr. Alan Dangour (PI) Dr. Liz Allen Ms Andrea AikenheadMs Arabella HayterDr. Karen LockProfessor Ricardo Uauy
Expert Independent Review Panel
Dr. Julie Lovegrove (University of Reading)Professor Martin Wiseman (World Cancer Research Fund)
Feedback
We would be happy to receive your comments on the review protocols. Please email your comments to: organic.reviews@lshtm.ac.uk. We will not be able to reply to your emails, but all comments received will be considered.
Funder
Food Standards Agency
Let’s do a study. I’ll choose what documents are worthy to be included in the study by my criteria. Outcomes that that don’t favour my point of view, I’ll deem insignificant. Other outcomes I’ll decide are irrelevant. I’ll choose the researchers and fund the research with the taxpayers money. Obviously important factors which would more obviously count against me, I’ll just ignore. Pesticides, for instance, are not relevant to human health because I’ve said so. I know the media will print anything I say. Shall we start today? Sky McCain 30 July, 2009
Organic 'has no health benefits'
Organic food is no healthier than ordinary food, a large independent review has concluded.
[Sky: How can it be independent when it was funded bt the FSA?]
There is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of any extra health benefits from eating organic produce, UK researchers found.
[Sky: Guess who decides what is and what is not a health benefit?]
The Food Standards Agency who commissioned the report said the findings would help people make an "informed choice".
But the Soil Association criticised the study and called for better research.
Researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine looked at all the evidence on nutrition and health benefits from the past 50 years.
“ Without large-scale, longitudinal research it is difficult to come to far-reaching clear conclusions on this, which was acknowledged by the authors of the FSA review ” Peter Melchett, Soil Association
Among the 55 of 162 studies that were included in the final analysis, there were a small number of differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally produced food but not large enough to be of any public health relevance, said study leader Dr Alan Dangour.
Sky: [ Alan is a senior lecturer and registered public health nutritionist with a background in biochemistry and biological anthropology. Alan taught previously at University College London and the University of Cambridge, and joined LSHTM in 2001. He has worked extensively in Guyana, Central Asia and Chile and his early research focused on child health. Alan's current research deals mostly with nutrition in older people, and he is conducting a series of trials to determine the effectiveness of nutrition interventions for the maintenance of health and function in later life. http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/people/dangour.alan]
Overall the report, which is published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found no differences in most nutrients in organically or conventionally grown crops, including in vitamin C, calcium, and iron.
The same was true for studies looking at meat, dairy and eggs.
Differences that were detected, for example in levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, were most likely to be due to differences in fertilizer use and ripeness at harvest and are unlikely to provide any health benefit, the report concluded.
The review did not look at pesticides or the environmental impact of different farming practices.
[Sky: Each year, around 2.5 million tons (2,500,000 tons = 5 billion pounds) of pesticide are dumped on the planet's crops. [2]
In 2002, an estimated 69,000 children were poisoned by pesticides in the US [3]
The World Health Organization reports 220,000 people die every year worldwide because of pesticide poisoning. Hard to believe, isn't it? [2]
In 2001, the world pesticide market was valued at $32 billion ($32,000,000,000). Big bucks! [1]
Although most pesticides (80%) are used in the rich countries, most of the poisonings are in poor countries. This is because safety standards are poor, there may be no protective clothing or washing facilities, insufficient enforcement, poor labeling of pesticides which are used by farm workers who can't read anyway. Few people know much about pesticide hazards. [2]
Pesticide residues in food are often higher in poor countries. [2]
Farmers who use pesticides have a 'significantly higher rate of cancer incidence' than non-farmers. [2]
In the US, nearly one in ten of about 3 billion kilograms (that's 6,613,800,000 pounds) of toxic chemicals released per year is known to be capable of causing cancer (in other animals as well as people). [2]
http://tiki.oneworld.net/pollution/poisonings.html
1. US EPA Pesticide Market Estimates; 2. Public health risks associated with pesticides and natural toxins in foods, David Pimentel et al., College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA; 3. US EPA fact sheet. ]
Memorial 547 Men, Women and Children will Die today from Pesticide Poisoning (Statistically known as "acceptable risks" for pesticide poison registration)
http://www.getipm.com/our-loved-ones/memorium.htm
Bayer Responsible in Pesticide Deaths of 24 Children in Peru
Families Appeal to Secretary General Kofi Annan to Exclude Bayer from the UN Global CompactPesticide Action Network Latin America and Red de Accion en Alternativas al uso de AgroqumicosAugust 30th, 2002
Following a nine-month investigation, a Peruvian Congressional Subcommittee has issued its final report on the poisoning deaths by the organophosphate pesticide methyl parathion of 24 children in the remote village of Tauccamarca in October 1999. The Subcommittee concluded that there is significant evidence of administrative and criminal responsibility on the part of Ministry of Agriculture, and of criminal responsibility on the part of the agrochemical company Bayer. Headquartered in Germany, Bayer has been a principle Peruvian importer and distributor of both methyl and ethyl parathion. The report recommends that the government and Bayer indemnify the families of the dead children.
The material above are only the first 3 hits on Google “pesticide deaths” Is there need for more? If so, it is available, volumes of reports. Pesticide poisoning is one of the truly gruesome scandals of our time. ]
Gill Fine, FSA director of consumer choice and dietary health, said: "Ensuring people have accurate information is absolutely essential in allowing us all to make informed choices about the food we eat.
"This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food.
"What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food."
She added that the FSA was neither pro nor anti organic food and recognised there were many reasons why people choose to eat organic, including animal welfare or environmental concerns.
“ Organic food is just another scam to grab more money from us ” Ishkandar, London
Dr Dangour, said: "Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority."
He added that better quality studies were needed.
[Sky: This didn’t stop you from publishing this one before the Brussels study being carried out by Carlo Leifert of Newcastle University. The details about this were in the Times on 29 July. I believe it is part of the QLIF studies. One reference is here:
http://orgprints.org/10595/01/niggli-leifert-2007-overview.pdf]
In the Times article Leifert said “The FSA did not want to admit that there was anything good
in organic food. The government is worried they will then have to have a policy to make organic food available to evreryone.” I believe that they government is scared shitless that the court cases will bankrupt the country if they admit that pesticides are harmful to our health.]
Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association said they were disappointed with the conclusions.
"The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences.
"Although the researchers say that the differences between organic and non-organic food are not 'important', due to the relatively few studies, they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods.
"Without large-scale, longitudinal research it is difficult to come to far-reaching clear conclusions on this, which was acknowledged by the authors of the FSA review.
Sky: [But this is the small print. It is the headlines that catch the public’s eye. They know this and bank on it]
"Also, there is not sufficient research on the long-term effects of pesticides on human health," he added. Sky: [I wonder why not? Ha ha}
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/health/8174482.stmPublished: 2009/07/29 13:22:17 GMT© BBC MMIX
______________________________________________________
Systematic reviews of scientific literature evaluating organic food for nutrient content and health effects
Overview
The global demand for organic food is rising. In 2007 the organic food market in the UK was estimated to be worth over £2 billion - an increase of 22% since 2005. The UK organic market is now the third largest in Europe after Germany and Italy. These increased sales are thought to result, at least in part, from increased consumer confidence in the safety of organic foods, and their perceived benefits to human health and the environment.
Several reviews published in the past 10 years have compared nutritional composition of organic and conventionally produced foods, and have reported equivocal results. None of the reviews employed an explicitly systematic methodology. Little research has been conducted on the potential benefits of organic foods for human health, and there is no consistent underlying hypothesis for the mechanisms of action of any putative health benefits.
Given the large and increasing demand for organic foods in the UK and elsewhere, up-to-date objective independent statements on the relative nutritional and health merits of organic vs. conventionally produced foods are needed for both public policy and consumer advice.
This project will produce two separate systematic reviews of published scientific literature. The first review will compare the composition (nutrients and other nutritionally-relevant substances) of organically and conventionally produced foods. The second review will evaluate the putative health effects of organic food.
Protocols
To access the systematic review protocol on the composition (nutrients and other substances) of organically and conventionally produced foods, please press here.
To access the systematic review protocol on the putative health effects of organic food, please press here. Please note this is an updated protocol (updated 21st October 2008).
Project timeline
Start date: 15th September 2008End date: 19th December 2008
LSHTM Project Staff
Dr. Alan Dangour (PI) Dr. Liz Allen Ms Andrea AikenheadMs Arabella HayterDr. Karen LockProfessor Ricardo Uauy
Expert Independent Review Panel
Dr. Julie Lovegrove (University of Reading)Professor Martin Wiseman (World Cancer Research Fund)
Feedback
We would be happy to receive your comments on the review protocols. Please email your comments to: organic.reviews@lshtm.ac.uk. We will not be able to reply to your emails, but all comments received will be considered.
Funder
Food Standards Agency
FSA attacks organic again! 31 July
There are at least two major contradictions that reveal the clearly biased attitude of this research as noted below. (1) The researchers admit to finding limited evidence but claim there is NO evidence. (2) They claim that pesticides was not in their remit and that they focused exclusively on nutrition but go on to say that the second half of their study looks for evidence of health benefits of eating organic food. Death or sickness from pesticides is certainly a health consideration.
Organic food report admits to lack of evidence Ecologist 29th July, 2009http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/294394/organic_food_report_admits_to_lack_of_evidence.html
FSA review dismisses health benefits of eating organic but admits to a lack of research on which to base findingsOrganic food is not healthier or more nutritious than conventionally produced food, according to a review commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA).Looking at 50 years of published studies, researchers said there was not enough evidence to prove any additional health or nutritional benefits to consumers from eating organic.'This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food,' said FSA director of consumer choice Gill Fine.'What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food.'
Sky: No, not at all. You can’t claim that there is not enough evidence to make a decision and in the same breath turn around and make the decision that there is no nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food.
“Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.” Dr Dangour, of the LSHTM’s Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit.
FSA’s Review document“the current evidence base was, 'extremely limited both in terms of the number of studies and the quality of studies found'. “
Sky: There is a huge difference between NO evidence and LIMITED evidence. This statement clearly reveals the bias of the reports.
“What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food.”
Gill Fine, FSA Director of Consumer Choice and Dietary Health
Sky: They should get their stories straight before publishing. Dr. Langour from the research unit claims “NO” evidence, the FSA claims “little or no.”
The LSHTM researchers conclude, quite rightly:”‘It should be noted that these conclusions relate to the evidence base currently available, which contains limitations in the design and in the comparability of studies… Examination of this scattered evidence indicates a need for further high-quality research in this field.’Unfortunately, somewhere between the academic’s pen and the enthusiastic keyboard of the FSA press office, this important, guarded and measured conclusion got lost.Instead, we are likely to see the headline ‘Organic No Better For You’ plastered across the world’s newsstands tomorrow, when in fact this study says no such thing.What those newsstands should read is: ‘Buck Your Ideas Up, Food Scientists – There’s Work To Be Done…’” Ecologist Editor’s
Bloghttp://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/bloggers/the_editors_blog/294396/fsa_organics_study_read_it_closely.html
Lack of researchResearchers could only identify 11 studies relating to the health content of organic food and admitted the current evidence base was, 'extremely limited both in terms of the number of studies and the quality of studies found'.They found more studies on nutritional content but said, 'examination of this scattered evidence indicates a need for further high-quality research in this field.
'The Soil Association, the leading voice of the organic sector in the UK, said the FSA failed to include the results from a major EU-funded study which found higher levels of 'nutritionally desirable compounds' in organic crops.They also criticised the FSA for ignoring the issue of pesticide residues and their possible long-term effect on human health.An FSA spokeswoman said the study was done in response to consumer confusion over the possible nutritional benefits of eating organic and that pesticide contamination was not in the review's remit.Sky: The quote below comes from the FSA’s Review document and utterly contradicts the statement above.
Avoidance of pesticides is definitely a health benefit.“This research was split into two separate parts, one of which looked at differences in nutrient levels and their significance, while the other looked at the health benefits of eating organic food.”Useful links
FSA Organic Review http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/jul/organicSee alsoEditor's blog: FSA organic study: read it closely
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/bloggers/the_editors_blog/294396/fsa_organics_study_read_it_closely.htmlOrganic review publishedWednesday 29 July 2009
http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/jul/organic
An independent review commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) shows that there are no important differences in the nutrition content, or any additional health benefits, of organic food when compared with conventionally produced food. The focus of the review was the nutritional content of foodstuffs.Gill Fine, FSA Director of Consumer Choice and Dietary Health, said: ‘Ensuring people have accurate information is absolutely essential in allowing us all to make informed choices about the food we eat. This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food. What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food.'The Agency supports consumer choice and is neither pro nor anti organic food. We recognise that there are many reasons why people choose to eat organic, such as animal welfare or environmental concerns. The Agency will continue to give consumers accurate information about their food based on the best available scientific evidence.’The study, which took the form of a ‘systematic review of literature’, was carried out by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). LSHTM’s team of researchers, led by Alan Dangour, reviewed all papers published over the past 50 years that related to the nutrient content and health differences between organic and conventional food. This systematic review is the most comprehensive study in this area that has been carried out to date.The FSA commissioned this research as part of its commitment to giving consumers accurate information about their food, based on the most up-to-date science.This research was split into two separate parts, one of which looked at differences in nutrient levels and their significance, while the other looked at the health benefits of eating organic food. A paper reporting the results of the review of nutritional differences has been peer-reviewed and published today by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.Dr Dangour, of the LSHTM’s Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit, and the principal author of the paper, said: ‘A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.’Related linksFirst review: Organic nutrient content review and appendices Read the report by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine's Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit(pdf 1MB)Organic food More information about organic foodSecond review: Organic health effects review Read the report by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine's Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit(pdf 333KB)
Organic food report admits to lack of evidence Ecologist 29th July, 2009http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/294394/organic_food_report_admits_to_lack_of_evidence.html
FSA review dismisses health benefits of eating organic but admits to a lack of research on which to base findingsOrganic food is not healthier or more nutritious than conventionally produced food, according to a review commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA).Looking at 50 years of published studies, researchers said there was not enough evidence to prove any additional health or nutritional benefits to consumers from eating organic.'This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food,' said FSA director of consumer choice Gill Fine.'What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food.'
Sky: No, not at all. You can’t claim that there is not enough evidence to make a decision and in the same breath turn around and make the decision that there is no nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food.
“Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.” Dr Dangour, of the LSHTM’s Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit.
FSA’s Review document“the current evidence base was, 'extremely limited both in terms of the number of studies and the quality of studies found'. “
Sky: There is a huge difference between NO evidence and LIMITED evidence. This statement clearly reveals the bias of the reports.
“What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food.”
Gill Fine, FSA Director of Consumer Choice and Dietary Health
Sky: They should get their stories straight before publishing. Dr. Langour from the research unit claims “NO” evidence, the FSA claims “little or no.”
The LSHTM researchers conclude, quite rightly:”‘It should be noted that these conclusions relate to the evidence base currently available, which contains limitations in the design and in the comparability of studies… Examination of this scattered evidence indicates a need for further high-quality research in this field.’Unfortunately, somewhere between the academic’s pen and the enthusiastic keyboard of the FSA press office, this important, guarded and measured conclusion got lost.Instead, we are likely to see the headline ‘Organic No Better For You’ plastered across the world’s newsstands tomorrow, when in fact this study says no such thing.What those newsstands should read is: ‘Buck Your Ideas Up, Food Scientists – There’s Work To Be Done…’” Ecologist Editor’s
Bloghttp://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/bloggers/the_editors_blog/294396/fsa_organics_study_read_it_closely.html
Lack of researchResearchers could only identify 11 studies relating to the health content of organic food and admitted the current evidence base was, 'extremely limited both in terms of the number of studies and the quality of studies found'.They found more studies on nutritional content but said, 'examination of this scattered evidence indicates a need for further high-quality research in this field.
'The Soil Association, the leading voice of the organic sector in the UK, said the FSA failed to include the results from a major EU-funded study which found higher levels of 'nutritionally desirable compounds' in organic crops.They also criticised the FSA for ignoring the issue of pesticide residues and their possible long-term effect on human health.An FSA spokeswoman said the study was done in response to consumer confusion over the possible nutritional benefits of eating organic and that pesticide contamination was not in the review's remit.Sky: The quote below comes from the FSA’s Review document and utterly contradicts the statement above.
Avoidance of pesticides is definitely a health benefit.“This research was split into two separate parts, one of which looked at differences in nutrient levels and their significance, while the other looked at the health benefits of eating organic food.”Useful links
FSA Organic Review http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/jul/organicSee alsoEditor's blog: FSA organic study: read it closely
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/bloggers/the_editors_blog/294396/fsa_organics_study_read_it_closely.htmlOrganic review publishedWednesday 29 July 2009
http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/jul/organic
An independent review commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) shows that there are no important differences in the nutrition content, or any additional health benefits, of organic food when compared with conventionally produced food. The focus of the review was the nutritional content of foodstuffs.Gill Fine, FSA Director of Consumer Choice and Dietary Health, said: ‘Ensuring people have accurate information is absolutely essential in allowing us all to make informed choices about the food we eat. This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food. What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food.'The Agency supports consumer choice and is neither pro nor anti organic food. We recognise that there are many reasons why people choose to eat organic, such as animal welfare or environmental concerns. The Agency will continue to give consumers accurate information about their food based on the best available scientific evidence.’The study, which took the form of a ‘systematic review of literature’, was carried out by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). LSHTM’s team of researchers, led by Alan Dangour, reviewed all papers published over the past 50 years that related to the nutrient content and health differences between organic and conventional food. This systematic review is the most comprehensive study in this area that has been carried out to date.The FSA commissioned this research as part of its commitment to giving consumers accurate information about their food, based on the most up-to-date science.This research was split into two separate parts, one of which looked at differences in nutrient levels and their significance, while the other looked at the health benefits of eating organic food. A paper reporting the results of the review of nutritional differences has been peer-reviewed and published today by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.Dr Dangour, of the LSHTM’s Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit, and the principal author of the paper, said: ‘A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.’Related linksFirst review: Organic nutrient content review and appendices Read the report by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine's Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit(pdf 1MB)Organic food More information about organic foodSecond review: Organic health effects review Read the report by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine's Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit(pdf 333KB)
Sunday, 1 March 2009
Feeding the world
Today's News 19 February, 2009
Sam Allen Soil Association
We must produce more food says Hilary Benn "The Independent features an extract from the Environment Secretary Hilary Benn's speech at the National Farmers' Union earlier this week: 'I want British agriculture to produce as much food as possible. No ifs. No buts. The only requirements: that consumers want what's produced and that the way it's produced sustains our environment and safeguards our landscape. This is not about targets for production or self-sufficiency. We are a trading nation. Some of the food we grow, we export; nearly £12bn worth in 2007. And the food that we import is really important too. It is about productive, efficient farming. It is about the higher-yielding seeds, better irrigation and more sustainable use of fertilisers that have transformed agriculture in parts of the world.'"
http://www.independent.co.uk:80/opinion/commentators/hilary-benn-we-must-produce-more-food-8211-without-risking-farmers8217-futures-1625827.html
Editor's Comment: This kind of talk makes me sad, angry, and outraged. "I want British Agriculture to produce as much food as possible." Who cares what he personally wants? What is important is the health and welfare of our society. Runaway, catastrophic, population explosion should not automatically mean that we have to plow up every inch of our soil to export food. What about the health of the countryside? What about other beings that we share space with, the birds, animals, bees, flowers? We kill pollinating insects with government approved chemical poison. We kill earthworms with government approved fertilisers. Life as we know it cannot survive this eco-cide, this madness. This planet does not belong to homo sapiens to wreck in the name of consumerism driven by materialism and multinational corporations. No, no Mr. Benn. The answer is the curtailment of massive global food shipments and encouragement and financial support for local food provision around the globe. This enhances the health and sustainability of people, allows a cooperative sharing with Nature and is in harmony with efforts to deal with peak oil and global warming.
It has taken me a long tome to realise that multinationals don't appear to see the problem. Population to them is simply increased markets that lead to increased profits.
Sam Allen Soil Association
We must produce more food says Hilary Benn "The Independent features an extract from the Environment Secretary Hilary Benn's speech at the National Farmers' Union earlier this week: 'I want British agriculture to produce as much food as possible. No ifs. No buts. The only requirements: that consumers want what's produced and that the way it's produced sustains our environment and safeguards our landscape. This is not about targets for production or self-sufficiency. We are a trading nation. Some of the food we grow, we export; nearly £12bn worth in 2007. And the food that we import is really important too. It is about productive, efficient farming. It is about the higher-yielding seeds, better irrigation and more sustainable use of fertilisers that have transformed agriculture in parts of the world.'"
http://www.independent.co.uk:80/opinion/commentators/hilary-benn-we-must-produce-more-food-8211-without-risking-farmers8217-futures-1625827.html
Editor's Comment: This kind of talk makes me sad, angry, and outraged. "I want British Agriculture to produce as much food as possible." Who cares what he personally wants? What is important is the health and welfare of our society. Runaway, catastrophic, population explosion should not automatically mean that we have to plow up every inch of our soil to export food. What about the health of the countryside? What about other beings that we share space with, the birds, animals, bees, flowers? We kill pollinating insects with government approved chemical poison. We kill earthworms with government approved fertilisers. Life as we know it cannot survive this eco-cide, this madness. This planet does not belong to homo sapiens to wreck in the name of consumerism driven by materialism and multinational corporations. No, no Mr. Benn. The answer is the curtailment of massive global food shipments and encouragement and financial support for local food provision around the globe. This enhances the health and sustainability of people, allows a cooperative sharing with Nature and is in harmony with efforts to deal with peak oil and global warming.
It has taken me a long tome to realise that multinationals don't appear to see the problem. Population to them is simply increased markets that lead to increased profits.
Thursday, 5 February 2009
What exactly is it to be called Organic?
The following are my comments on the high cost of organic animal feed situation :
January 31, 2009
Farmers seeking organic 'holiday'
By Keith Doyle BBC News
"Farmers have approached ministers seeking a relaxation in organic rules to help them survive the recession. The BBC has seen figures showing a demand for organic food has fallen. The move would mean farmers could cut costs without losing their organic status. Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, said farmers could put animals on non-organic feed without their land losing its organic status. Sales of organic foods have plummeted by 13% in the last three months.
Editor's Comment: The Timesonline article on 22 December, 2008 stated: "Sales of organic food slumped 10 per cent in the 12 weeks up to the end of November, according to the latest figures from the consumer researchers TNS." [See Newsletter 273, 31 December, 2008] Again, I have searched the TNS site and cannot find this reference. Now the figure cited is 13% and I am no closer to finding the source of these statistics. Sales have dropped because growth has slowed. Many reports that I have seen confirm that growth has slowed but demand is still strong. Let me provide some examples here:
'Sales of organic produce fall 19%' (8 September, 2008)Clio Turton, of the Soil Association, says, "What we are seeing now is a plateau rather than reversal. Year-on-year over the last decade, average growth has been 25 per cent. We are predicting a 10 per cent growth for 2007. While this is down, it is still a growing market."Financial Times (5 Sept)
Asda: 25 per cent increase in organic salesAsda have sent out a press release titled "Supermarket bucks the trend and reports significant growth in organics." It writes: "Despite the bleak economic outlook, ASDA has seen an increase of 25 per cent in sales of its organic range in the last quarter whilst the rest of the market has grown at just under three per cent." (Sept 2008) It lists one of the reasons behind this growth as due to better availability of organic products as ASDA now stocks a range of 900 organic items.
"Wholefoods’ Mr. Besancon argued consumers were treating organic purchases differently from those of other premium products. '...When you buy organic you believe it is inherently better for you and the planet,' he said. 'Who can afford to get sick? So people are becoming more introspective about what they eat. There is growth in the category. It is just less than it was.'" BY NIGEL HUNT and BRAD DORFMAN, Reuters 29 January, 2009
"Patrick Holden, director of Britain’s leading organic certification body the Soil Association, said he was getting mixed reports, with some consumers switching from organic to cheaper free-range products. Demand for many products is, however, holding up well. Some are benefiting from growing demand for locally produced food. 'Organic food with a local story is bucking the recession," he said. "This recession has destabilized things a little, but not catastrophically.' Mr. Holden said about 20% of organic food sales were vulnerable, being bought by "light green" purchasers who had been influenced by the actions of other consumers. These he contrasted with the "deep greens" who make up 80% of demand and are committed to the benefits for health and the environment. 'Storm and tempest won’t affect their buying habits," he said. "I think that rump of committed consumers [is] with us to stay.'"
Editor's Comment: Then why ask DEFRA for a derogation to separate organic land from organic stock?
BY NIGEL HUNT and BRAD DORFMAN, Reuters 29 January, 2009
Editor's Comment: Why risk undermining consumer confidence in organic principles and procedures by twiddling the organic regulations to favour one set of organic producers [grain] over another set? [cattle] Surely the Soil Association charity should be keeping at arms length from these certification controversies. As Lawrence Woodward of Elm Farm Research says below: "It undermines the view that consumers have about the integrity of organic product."
The Soil Association has already asked Rural Affairs Secretary Hilary Benn to consider the benefits of relaxing the rules for an indefinite period while it consults other bodies. Mr Melchett said: "Over a dozen other certifying groups are backing the proposal which would allow meat and dairy farmers to use non-organic feed, typically costing half the price.
Editor's Comment: There are not a dozen more certifying groups operating in the UK, so this must take in other EU countries as well.
"The animals would not be sold as organic but farmers would not [editor's emphasis] have to go through the lengthy and expensive process of returning their land to being organic when the economy picks up."
Editor's Comment: Of course, this does not apply to the stock. The Soil Association made it quite clear on 22 December Today's News entry - "Farmers would be encouraged to return to full standards as soon as possible and would need to go through the same conversion period as any converting farmer."
Dairy farmer Noel Marsh has spent two years and hundreds of thousands of pounds to make his farm organic, but is living through tough times. He told BBC Breakfast: "People are buying less organic milk and more conventional. "And the product we are selling is not achieving the price it should at the moment, with feed costs higher than we have ever known them."
Editor's Comment: The question that is crying out to be asked here is: Who decides what the price should be? For instance, what should the price of a house be? As for the cost of organic feed, as I wrote to Helen Browning, who provides organic grain? If the problem is that organic grain is too high, then I recommend that this problem be investigated. Is it the organic grain producer that is charging too much? Is it the wholesaler? Is it the retailer? Find out and put pressure where it is needed. Or, maybe the problem is the attitude that justifies a business to simply charge as much as the market will bear.
Mr Marsh is undecided on whether the proposal would work for him but thinks other organic farmers would benefit. But Lawrence Woodward of the Organic Research Centre rejected the idea as "muddled" and "arguably stupid". He said: "It undermines the view that consumers have about the integrity of organic product, about the fact that organic farmers are principled producers. "Their farming system is based on principle, that the system that we have developed is a system that really delivers these things and every time we talk about things like taking holidays from principles it undermines that belief and that integrity."
Editor's Comment: Lawrence Woodward has captured the essence of this situation exactly and clearly stated it. I thoroughly agree with him here.
Renee Elliott, founder of the Planet Organic chain, said: "Consumer trust is crucial. It's a very complicated, very well regulated mechanism for producing the best quality food. This cannot affect that." The National Farmers Union has not yet endorsed the proposal, saying it wants to be certain that anything which helps one group of farmers does not harm another. And the Government is biding its time, saying it wants more evidence showing just how bad the situation is for organic farmers and how much support the Soil Association has.
Editor's Comment: Technically, an organically certified producer is prohibited from bringing in manure from a non organic farm for the obvious reason that the animal will have passed through possibly harmful pesticides, herbicides and fungicides from the feed. This is just one of many problems that will come up if this derogation is allowed. What makes a farm organic and who decides what procedures and principles are organic? Well, folks, since 1991, it has been the European Commission. (formally ECC)
January 31, 2009
Farmers seeking organic 'holiday'
By Keith Doyle BBC News
"Farmers have approached ministers seeking a relaxation in organic rules to help them survive the recession. The BBC has seen figures showing a demand for organic food has fallen. The move would mean farmers could cut costs without losing their organic status. Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, said farmers could put animals on non-organic feed without their land losing its organic status. Sales of organic foods have plummeted by 13% in the last three months.
Editor's Comment: The Timesonline article on 22 December, 2008 stated: "Sales of organic food slumped 10 per cent in the 12 weeks up to the end of November, according to the latest figures from the consumer researchers TNS." [See Newsletter 273, 31 December, 2008] Again, I have searched the TNS site and cannot find this reference. Now the figure cited is 13% and I am no closer to finding the source of these statistics. Sales have dropped because growth has slowed. Many reports that I have seen confirm that growth has slowed but demand is still strong. Let me provide some examples here:
'Sales of organic produce fall 19%' (8 September, 2008)Clio Turton, of the Soil Association, says, "What we are seeing now is a plateau rather than reversal. Year-on-year over the last decade, average growth has been 25 per cent. We are predicting a 10 per cent growth for 2007. While this is down, it is still a growing market."Financial Times (5 Sept)
Asda: 25 per cent increase in organic salesAsda have sent out a press release titled "Supermarket bucks the trend and reports significant growth in organics." It writes: "Despite the bleak economic outlook, ASDA has seen an increase of 25 per cent in sales of its organic range in the last quarter whilst the rest of the market has grown at just under three per cent." (Sept 2008) It lists one of the reasons behind this growth as due to better availability of organic products as ASDA now stocks a range of 900 organic items.
"Wholefoods’ Mr. Besancon argued consumers were treating organic purchases differently from those of other premium products. '...When you buy organic you believe it is inherently better for you and the planet,' he said. 'Who can afford to get sick? So people are becoming more introspective about what they eat. There is growth in the category. It is just less than it was.'" BY NIGEL HUNT and BRAD DORFMAN, Reuters 29 January, 2009
"Patrick Holden, director of Britain’s leading organic certification body the Soil Association, said he was getting mixed reports, with some consumers switching from organic to cheaper free-range products. Demand for many products is, however, holding up well. Some are benefiting from growing demand for locally produced food. 'Organic food with a local story is bucking the recession," he said. "This recession has destabilized things a little, but not catastrophically.' Mr. Holden said about 20% of organic food sales were vulnerable, being bought by "light green" purchasers who had been influenced by the actions of other consumers. These he contrasted with the "deep greens" who make up 80% of demand and are committed to the benefits for health and the environment. 'Storm and tempest won’t affect their buying habits," he said. "I think that rump of committed consumers [is] with us to stay.'"
Editor's Comment: Then why ask DEFRA for a derogation to separate organic land from organic stock?
BY NIGEL HUNT and BRAD DORFMAN, Reuters 29 January, 2009
Editor's Comment: Why risk undermining consumer confidence in organic principles and procedures by twiddling the organic regulations to favour one set of organic producers [grain] over another set? [cattle] Surely the Soil Association charity should be keeping at arms length from these certification controversies. As Lawrence Woodward of Elm Farm Research says below: "It undermines the view that consumers have about the integrity of organic product."
The Soil Association has already asked Rural Affairs Secretary Hilary Benn to consider the benefits of relaxing the rules for an indefinite period while it consults other bodies. Mr Melchett said: "Over a dozen other certifying groups are backing the proposal which would allow meat and dairy farmers to use non-organic feed, typically costing half the price.
Editor's Comment: There are not a dozen more certifying groups operating in the UK, so this must take in other EU countries as well.
"The animals would not be sold as organic but farmers would not [editor's emphasis] have to go through the lengthy and expensive process of returning their land to being organic when the economy picks up."
Editor's Comment: Of course, this does not apply to the stock. The Soil Association made it quite clear on 22 December Today's News entry - "Farmers would be encouraged to return to full standards as soon as possible and would need to go through the same conversion period as any converting farmer."
Dairy farmer Noel Marsh has spent two years and hundreds of thousands of pounds to make his farm organic, but is living through tough times. He told BBC Breakfast: "People are buying less organic milk and more conventional. "And the product we are selling is not achieving the price it should at the moment, with feed costs higher than we have ever known them."
Editor's Comment: The question that is crying out to be asked here is: Who decides what the price should be? For instance, what should the price of a house be? As for the cost of organic feed, as I wrote to Helen Browning, who provides organic grain? If the problem is that organic grain is too high, then I recommend that this problem be investigated. Is it the organic grain producer that is charging too much? Is it the wholesaler? Is it the retailer? Find out and put pressure where it is needed. Or, maybe the problem is the attitude that justifies a business to simply charge as much as the market will bear.
Mr Marsh is undecided on whether the proposal would work for him but thinks other organic farmers would benefit. But Lawrence Woodward of the Organic Research Centre rejected the idea as "muddled" and "arguably stupid". He said: "It undermines the view that consumers have about the integrity of organic product, about the fact that organic farmers are principled producers. "Their farming system is based on principle, that the system that we have developed is a system that really delivers these things and every time we talk about things like taking holidays from principles it undermines that belief and that integrity."
Editor's Comment: Lawrence Woodward has captured the essence of this situation exactly and clearly stated it. I thoroughly agree with him here.
Renee Elliott, founder of the Planet Organic chain, said: "Consumer trust is crucial. It's a very complicated, very well regulated mechanism for producing the best quality food. This cannot affect that." The National Farmers Union has not yet endorsed the proposal, saying it wants to be certain that anything which helps one group of farmers does not harm another. And the Government is biding its time, saying it wants more evidence showing just how bad the situation is for organic farmers and how much support the Soil Association has.
Editor's Comment: Technically, an organically certified producer is prohibited from bringing in manure from a non organic farm for the obvious reason that the animal will have passed through possibly harmful pesticides, herbicides and fungicides from the feed. This is just one of many problems that will come up if this derogation is allowed. What makes a farm organic and who decides what procedures and principles are organic? Well, folks, since 1991, it has been the European Commission. (formally ECC)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)