"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
Friday, 31 July 2009
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)
Saturday, 31 March 2007
Climate change false claims
False Claims about Climate Change causes
(1) The Associated Press Says:
"North Sea water temperatures have climbed 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years, and that has shifted currents, carrying a major food source, plankton, away from the cod, said scientist Chris Reid of the Partnership for Observation of the Global Oceans in Plymouth, England.
"The only way that these increases can be explained is by greenhouse gas emissions," Reid said. In their larval stage, the cod feed on the minute plants and animals known as plankton. Chances of survival without them are slim. North Sea cod that do survive today are smaller and less successful at mating and reproducing, Reid explained. In addition, warmer temperatures increase cod metabolism and the larvae's need for nutrition, he and other marine scientists noted in a 2003 research paper.
Sky Comments: Water temperature in the northern hemisphere always increases during interglacial periods. Temperatures: "Global average sea level in the last interglacial period (about 125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat of polar ice. Ice core data indicate that average polar temperatures at that time were 3 to 5°C higher than present, because of differences in the Earth’s orbit."
The Quote above was taken from: INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science BasisSummary for Policymakers vContribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Page 8 of 21
We must remember firstly that humans did not significantly add carbon to the atmosphere in the previous interglacial period and yet, as quoted above, temperatures in Greenland were higher than at present. There is no way to accurately separate out the natural glacial/interglacial 100,000 year cyclic rise in temperature from the human effects on the greenhouse gasses. Until we can accurately accomplish this, one must be careful with statements such as the above "The only way" implying certainty. There simply is no certainty. Orbital forcing data comparisons of 12,000 year ago and 112,000 years ago do not correlate and I don't believe there is a high degree of agreement among scientists as to the relative weighting to be given to the effects of obliquity, eccentricity and precesion on global temperature highs and lows. Surely this research must proceed with the highest intensity and priority if we are to choose the most effective strategy to counter the effect of increased carbon (methane, CO2, and nitrous oxide) emissions.
(2) The Associated Press says:
"Scientists say rising sea temperatures worldwide are causing more coral bleaching — the draining of color when the fragile animals that form reefs become stressed and spew out the algae that give coral its color and energy to build massive reef structures.
Oceans are also absorbing more carbon dioxide, increasing their acidity and eroding coral's ability to build reef skeletons."
Sky Comments:
Afraid not:
"Another process, called "the biological pump," transfers CO2 from the ocean's surface to its depths. Warm waters at the surface can hold much less CO2 than can cold waters in the deep.
"This is the 'soda bottle on a warm day' effect," says Agassiz professor of biological oceanography James McCarthy, "and is not unique to carbon dioxide; it applies to all gases dissolved in water. There is a higher capacity to hold a gas with a lower temperature than with a higher temperature."
This means that when deep ocean waters rise to the surface as part of normal ocean-circulation patterns, the water heats up and actually releases CO2."
The quote above taken from:
The Ocean Carbon Cycle http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/1102198.html
Occasions of invalid claims such as the one above are harmful because they add ammunition to the cause of those trying to deflect and defeat efforts to stem the increased flow of human caused greenhouse gasses.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070331/ap_on_sc/climate_species_impactThis report was written by AP correspondents Charles J. Hanley, New York; Ben Fox, San Juan; Rohan Sullivan, Sydney; Karl Ritter, Stockholm; Beth Duff-Brown, Toronto; Courtney French, London; and Heidi Vogt, Dakar.
(1) The Associated Press Says:
"North Sea water temperatures have climbed 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years, and that has shifted currents, carrying a major food source, plankton, away from the cod, said scientist Chris Reid of the Partnership for Observation of the Global Oceans in Plymouth, England.
"The only way that these increases can be explained is by greenhouse gas emissions," Reid said. In their larval stage, the cod feed on the minute plants and animals known as plankton. Chances of survival without them are slim. North Sea cod that do survive today are smaller and less successful at mating and reproducing, Reid explained. In addition, warmer temperatures increase cod metabolism and the larvae's need for nutrition, he and other marine scientists noted in a 2003 research paper.
Sky Comments: Water temperature in the northern hemisphere always increases during interglacial periods. Temperatures: "Global average sea level in the last interglacial period (about 125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat of polar ice. Ice core data indicate that average polar temperatures at that time were 3 to 5°C higher than present, because of differences in the Earth’s orbit."
The Quote above was taken from: INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science BasisSummary for Policymakers vContribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Page 8 of 21
We must remember firstly that humans did not significantly add carbon to the atmosphere in the previous interglacial period and yet, as quoted above, temperatures in Greenland were higher than at present. There is no way to accurately separate out the natural glacial/interglacial 100,000 year cyclic rise in temperature from the human effects on the greenhouse gasses. Until we can accurately accomplish this, one must be careful with statements such as the above "The only way" implying certainty. There simply is no certainty. Orbital forcing data comparisons of 12,000 year ago and 112,000 years ago do not correlate and I don't believe there is a high degree of agreement among scientists as to the relative weighting to be given to the effects of obliquity, eccentricity and precesion on global temperature highs and lows. Surely this research must proceed with the highest intensity and priority if we are to choose the most effective strategy to counter the effect of increased carbon (methane, CO2, and nitrous oxide) emissions.
(2) The Associated Press says:
"Scientists say rising sea temperatures worldwide are causing more coral bleaching — the draining of color when the fragile animals that form reefs become stressed and spew out the algae that give coral its color and energy to build massive reef structures.
Oceans are also absorbing more carbon dioxide, increasing their acidity and eroding coral's ability to build reef skeletons."
Sky Comments:
Afraid not:
"Another process, called "the biological pump," transfers CO2 from the ocean's surface to its depths. Warm waters at the surface can hold much less CO2 than can cold waters in the deep.
"This is the 'soda bottle on a warm day' effect," says Agassiz professor of biological oceanography James McCarthy, "and is not unique to carbon dioxide; it applies to all gases dissolved in water. There is a higher capacity to hold a gas with a lower temperature than with a higher temperature."
This means that when deep ocean waters rise to the surface as part of normal ocean-circulation patterns, the water heats up and actually releases CO2."
The quote above taken from:
The Ocean Carbon Cycle http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/1102198.html
Occasions of invalid claims such as the one above are harmful because they add ammunition to the cause of those trying to deflect and defeat efforts to stem the increased flow of human caused greenhouse gasses.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070331/ap_on_sc/climate_species_impactThis report was written by AP correspondents Charles J. Hanley, New York; Ben Fox, San Juan; Rohan Sullivan, Sydney; Karl Ritter, Stockholm; Beth Duff-Brown, Toronto; Courtney French, London; and Heidi Vogt, Dakar.
Tesco Stifling Choice
21 March 2007
Tesco 'ruining towns and stifling choice'
By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent The Independent
"Tesco is descending like a black cloud over Britain's towns and cities, stifling choice and fostering a sense of alienation: those are just some of the claims made in a new book about Britain's biggest supermarket. Tescopoly, by Andrew Simms, an economist, charts the rise of Tesco's " pile it high, sell it cheap" approach and damns its ethos, methods and influence. Tesco is depicted as a megalomaniac company that mistreats suppliers and rivals, manipulates planners and helps create "clone towns". With annual profits of £43bn, Tesco takes almost one-third of food spending in the UK but its expansion is being opposed by a varied army of campaigners. A website, Tescopoly, founded by the environmental pressure group Friends of the Earth, the charity War on Want and other organisations, aims to co-ordinate local campaigns. In an independent book of the same name, Mr Simms, the policy director of the New Economics Foundation and one of the site's founders, argues Tesco has a pernicious influence on society." Tesco in numbers
12 Countries with stores (Britain, Ireland, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Turkey, China, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand and South Korea)
979 Global stores in 2002
2,672 Global stores in 2006
20m British customers weekly
£43bn Sales in 2005/06
£2.2bn Profit in 2005/06
30% Share of UK grocery market
£3.9m pay for Sir Terry Leahy Read more Here
Tesco 'ruining towns and stifling choice'
By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent The Independent
"Tesco is descending like a black cloud over Britain's towns and cities, stifling choice and fostering a sense of alienation: those are just some of the claims made in a new book about Britain's biggest supermarket. Tescopoly, by Andrew Simms, an economist, charts the rise of Tesco's " pile it high, sell it cheap" approach and damns its ethos, methods and influence. Tesco is depicted as a megalomaniac company that mistreats suppliers and rivals, manipulates planners and helps create "clone towns". With annual profits of £43bn, Tesco takes almost one-third of food spending in the UK but its expansion is being opposed by a varied army of campaigners. A website, Tescopoly, founded by the environmental pressure group Friends of the Earth, the charity War on Want and other organisations, aims to co-ordinate local campaigns. In an independent book of the same name, Mr Simms, the policy director of the New Economics Foundation and one of the site's founders, argues Tesco has a pernicious influence on society." Tesco in numbers
12 Countries with stores (Britain, Ireland, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Turkey, China, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand and South Korea)
979 Global stores in 2002
2,672 Global stores in 2006
20m British customers weekly
£43bn Sales in 2005/06
£2.2bn Profit in 2005/06
30% Share of UK grocery market
£3.9m pay for Sir Terry Leahy Read more Here
SALSA - Completely Unnecessary and costly
Helping the small producer? I don't think so.
After reading the Ecologist and a few other bits of disappointing news items, I reached a new low when I read about the new initiative designed by some of the most lofty free trade flag flyers to "help" the small producer.
One of the most depressing aspects of starting up a small business is the fact that most of the regulations and restrictions favour the large producer. From health and safety to compost making, only the large, already established can afford to meet the requirements. To add insult to injury one soon encounters the army of inspectors from embedded echelons of bureaucracy in both governmental and private but government supported sources. The most iniquitous are those that in the guise of "helping"- be it the consumer or the producer - obtain funding to provide jobs to "assure" often what the law already requires.
In Smallholders Online Newsletter 178 (28 November, 2006) I submitted the following quote from one of the Red Tractor derivitives:
"Operators of the assurance scheme which underpins the Red Tractor standards have called on livestock markets to apply before Christmas to join up or risk facing potentially damaging delays in attaining assured status. The impact on farmers could be severe if delays occur because, from 1 April 2007, any assured livestock sold through a market which has not joined the scheme will lose its assured status, Assured British Meat has warned."
I claimed that it was coercive to sell assurance to the producer and then take it away because their livestock market refused to pay. Now I fear that yet another expensive assurance scheme will assure that only the large and well established small businesses will be able to afford to access small retail outlets.
The perpetrators bill it as a "local food boost." What a joke. Below I comment on some quotes lifted from the SALSA news item.
"The Safe and Local Supplier Approval (SALSA) scheme removes many of the practical barriers preventing small producers from directly supplying local retailers and caterers."
Sky: If there are barriers, they have been constructed artificially and imposed on the producer by government supported organisations that have frightened retailers into agreeing that they should only buy from companies that carry an expensive label that certifies that they have conformed to what the law requires anyway.
"SALSA is a low cost, but highly rigorous, scheme which works with local producers to ensure they have robust food safety procedures in place. Membership of the SALSA scheme allows producers and processors to demonstrate their ability to meet the necessary legislative requirements."
Sky: At £450, SALSA is not low cost. What is "highly rigorous" about a check sheet that simply follows what DEFRA has already made perfectly clear in booklet after booklet that explains the law and the legal requirements? Farmers are in despair over the reams of paperwork, ear tags, passports and a plethora of other checks to see that they obey the law. The scheme "allows" producers to demonstrate that they meet legal requirements. You see, the fundamental flaw here, as in all inspection schemes, (SALSA calls them "audits") is the mistaken inference that an inspection threat or act will make people honest on the next and subsequent days following the inspection. If a person wants to cheat, they will find a way. Just last week the RSPCA "assurance" scheme received stark criticism:
"The footage gathered by workers at the Hillside Animal Sanctuary, in Frettenham, and passed on to the Evening News shows:· A duck being punched and others being treated roughly and violently grabbed round the neck before being thrown onto the back of a vehicle to be taken for slaughter.· Ducks, some of them obviously injured, being kept in cramped conditions, while dead birds lay beside them on the floor.· The floor of an industrial turkey shed littered with injured and dying birds and one dead bird which is being eaten away by flies.· Squalid conditions at a pig farm near Norwich, where two of the animals appear to be lame and left in pain.All of the farms supply food to leading stores and have been sanctioned by the RSPCA farm animal welfare scheme, Freedom Foods, which is designed to make sure firms rearing animals for food are meeting stringent welfare standards.Farms approved by the RSPCA are allowed to put the "Freedom Foods" logo on their products and demand higher prices."
From Smallholders Online Newsletter Number 191 19 March, 2007. www.smallholders.org
A few years ago I was speaking to an organic certification inspector who told me that not a day goes by that someone doesn't telephone head office to report someone cheating. Yet, the inspection system propaganda continues to treat people as dishonest by telling them that they cannot be trusted. Of course, elementary psychology has shown us that people are much more likely to be trustworthy when they are trusted to begin with. This is especially evident in the behaviour of children. Passing an inspection does NOT demonstrate honesty.
"British Retail Consortium, (BRC) Director General Kevin Hawkins said: 'SALSA is about making it easier for stores to supply local people with goods produced by local suppliers. '"
Sky:
"National buyers, traditionally geared up to source food and drink in quantities suitable for national distribution, require an assurance that the locally sourced food which they are buying meets fundamental legal, food safety and due diligence requirements. SALSA has been developed to meet this need."http://www.salsafood.co.uk/pages/about-us/why-is-salsa-needed.php
Who says they "require" assurance? What about our tax money which funds DEFRA who will enter your property without permission and kill your animals if your paperwork is no in order? If that's not policing the regulations, what are you looking for, the Army?And then there is the Food Standards Agency, FSA.
"[ Enforcement:"The Food Standards Agency oversees local authority enforcement activities for food law. It sets and monitors standards and audits local authorities’ activities to ensure enforcement arrangements are proportionate, consistent and transparent. Powers to enable the Agency to monitor and audit local authorities are contained in the Food Standards Act 1999. The Agency also supports local authorities by funding training, providing grants and making other resources available.]"The FSA is huge and has a lethal bite. And then what about each county's Trading Standards. "[Trading Standards OfficerThe workTrading standards officers (TSOs) protect consumers by making sure that goods and services are bought and sold in a safe and fair trading environment. They advise consumers and businesses, check that businesses keep to the law, investigate complaints and prosecute any traders that break consumer laws. TSOs are employed by local authorities, and their duties may include:
*taking samples of food and goods for testing
*checking that traders’ scalevisiting local traders and businesses to carry out routine checks or investigate complaints
*weights and measures are accurate
*making sure that labelling is correct and advertising is not misleading
*advising consumers and traders about the law
*investigating suspected offences – this may include undercover or surveillance work
*preparing evidence and going to court in prosecution cases
*giving talks to schools and community groups
writing reports and keeping records.]
"East Sussex Trading Standards advise businesses about and enforce numerous pieces of food standard legislation, including regulations on food labelling. http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/business/tradingstandards/foodsafety/default.htm#subtitle2"These people will close you down if you don't uphold the law.How about the Health and Safety Executive?
"[Health and Safety ExecutiveLegislation The aim of this site is to raise awareness of the range of health and safety legislation that applies to workplaces in Great Britain. It has been designed to:
*help users discover specific legislation that applies to their industry
*explain how to trace and obtain Acts and regulations
*provide links to organisations that can offer advice and guidance on legislation ]"
And then there is each county's Health and Safety department. The following is an example from my own district council.
"[Workplace Health Connect is a new service launched in February this year. It provides free, confidential and impartial advice on creating a safer and more healthy workplace for smaller businesses in England and Wales. http://www.torridge.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=6736]"
All the above are funded by taxpayer money and in place to assist businesses to protect the consumer. So why this expensive "assurance?" Of course, with my sales hat, I can easily imagine talking a retailer into going along with my contention that they "need" my services. I will promise to save them a couple of telephone calls checking up on a supplier. I might be able to persuade them that my inspection (auditing, sorry) will protect them from cheaters. I can ask them to help my organisation take in more fees and get bigger so it can "help" more producers. Following that, I can warn the retailer that in the future the government might force them to accept only SALSA approved product. And, of course the clincher is that the retailer pays absolutely nothing for this convenience. No, the producer pays. So, many retailers might shrug and figure it costs them nothing, so why not? SALSA provides services for "due diligence requirements"? What can this mean? Well, of many definitions, most having to do with legal issues, I came up with this one:
"Due DiligenceThe process of systematically evaluating information, to identify risks and issues relating to a proposed transaction. http://www.strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insof-sdf.nsf/en/so03149e.html"This is what it boils down to: Verify that information is what it is proposed to be. A retailer can do this with a telephone call or check with their local council.The SALSA website claims that the scheme is:
"self funding and founded on not-for-profit principles; it has received start up funding and support from DEFRA, Highland and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise. Standards pdf (pg 3)"
How can a scheme be self-funding when it has received start-up public money and charges the small producer £450? Founded in not-for-profit principles? Is it a not for profit company? Their website says " non-profit making" Is it a corporation limited by guarantee? I don't think so.My fear is that the powerful backers of SALSA will achieve what the BRC has achieved with large retailers. I can't find out the total cost of the BRC but the following from their website will reveal just how large, powerful and expensive they have become since 1998. If they charge £230 for just a copy of their standards document, just imagine what the total package must be worth. Perhaps they have saturated the large retailer market and see expansion downward as the only way to grow.
"British Retail ConsortiumWhy do we need BRC Certification? Who needs BRC Certification?(a) Most large UK retailers will only consider business with suppliers who have gained certification to the appropriate BRC Global Standard.Most manufacturers are required to show that they are certificated to the BRC Standards and continuously comply with the legal and quality requirements of its retail customers.This is because they have a legal responsibility for the products under the Food safety act of 1990 for their own retailer label. Brand owners also have a legal responsibility for their brand under this act.British Retail Consortiumhttp://www.brc.org.uk/standards/default.asp?mainsection_id=10&subsection_id=35
PLEASE NOTE: If you represent a food, packaging or consumer product manufacturer and have been asked by a retailer that you need BRC in order to be a supplier, your company needs certification against the appropriate a BRC Standard. Full details of the certification process can be found on the BRC Global Standards website: http://www.brcglobalstandards.com. andhttp://www.brc.org.uk/ContactUs04.aspFood and Packaging Standards plus Guidelines (Print Version) Standard and Guideline Pack English £230.00http://www.brc.org.uk/standards/default.asp?mainsection_id=2&subsection_id=2"
Above, I have submitted considerable detail in an attempt to establish that SALSA is:
(1) Completely unnecessary to either the producer or the retailer.
(2) An unecessary burden of cost on the small and local producer.
(3) Completely unhelpful to the small and local business.
I can only hope that small retailers will be fully informed as to the cost and adverse effects this scheme will have on their small suppliers before they turn down product from those who simply cannot afford this expensive and unnecessary scheme.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)