Biodynamic treechange (homesteading)

Say NO to GMO 20.01.11

I can stay quiet no longer.

Two really important matters have come to light recently that warrant your attention.

The first is an application by Monsanto to FSANZ (Food Safety Australia New Zealand) to amend the Food Standard to permit the sale and use of food derived from soybean line MON87769. This is a new variety of soybean that is genetically modified (GM) to produce stearidonic acid (SDA), an omega-3 fatty acid, in the seeds of the plant.

FSANZ is calling for comments which close on Jan 25th.

The spin is that it is high in Omega 3. The best sources of Omega 3 is from grass fed meat, organic flax, organic Near River eggs, purslane and fish. In other words real food produced with care and respect.

To see the submission and lodge a comment, go here soon!

The second issue involves an organic farmer in WA who has had his crop 'polluted' by a neighbouring farmer growing GM canola. The organic farmer, David Kibble, has lost his certification and his crop. As you might expect this is turning into a debacle with WA farmers wanting their Minister for Agriculture to resign, legislation to protect non-GM farmers, and a full audit of GM farms and their neighbours. Behind all this are the deep pockets of Monsanto. To hear an interview with David and the Food Fight team from radio 3CR, click here

You can expect to see a continuing flurry of these types of posts - after all, earlier this month Monsanto was voted Most Evil Corporation of the Year by 51% of respondents to an online poll.

Guess the other 49% don't care about what they eat!

Just like letting kids into a lolly shop

I'm a pretty optimistic kind of guy - heavens knows with Mother Nature as the majority shareholder in your enterprise you need to be.

But this article from The Guardian in the UK has left me gobsmacked. Surely they can't be serious - this is some sort of joke, right?

Read on and see what you think - I find it unbelievable.

If this is how the Governments of the 'developed' world are going to deal with the health issues that we as a race are facing, then we might as well give up now.

McDonald's and PepsiCo to help write UK health policy

Exclusive: Department of Health putting fast food companies at heart of policy on obesity, alcohol and diet-related disease

McDonald's and other food companies will help write policy on obesity and diet-related diseases. Photograph: Murdo Macleod for the Guardian

The Department of Health is putting the fast food companies McDonald's and KFC and processed food and drink manufacturers such as PepsiCo, Kellogg's, Unilever, Mars and Diageo at the heart of writing government policy on obesity, alcohol and diet-related disease, the Guardian has learned.

In an overhaul of public health, said by campaign groups to be the equivalent of handing smoking policy over to the tobacco industry, health secretary Andrew Lansley has set up five "responsibility deal" networks with business, co-chaired by ministers, to come up with policies. Some of these are expected to be used in the public health white paper due in the next month.

The groups are dominated by food and alcohol industry members, who have been invited to suggest measures to tackle public health crises. Working alongside them are public interest health and consumer groups including Which?, Cancer Research UK and the Faculty of Public Health. The alcohol responsibility deal network is chaired by the head of the lobby group the Wine and Spirit Trade Association. The food network to tackle diet and health problems includes processed food manufacturers, fast food companies, and Compass, the catering company famously pilloried by Jamie Oliver for its school menus of turkey twizzlers. The food deal's sub-group on calories is chaired by PepsiCo, owner of Walkers crisps.

The leading supermarkets are an equally strong presence, while the responsibility deal's physical activity group is chaired by the Fitness Industry Association, which is the lobby group for private gyms and personal trainers.

In early meetings, these commercial partners have been invited to draft priorities and identify barriers, such as EU legislation, that they would like removed. They have been assured by Lansley that he wants to explore voluntary not regulatory approaches, and to support them in removing obstacles. Using the pricing of food or alcohol to change consumption has been ruled out. One group was told that the health department did not want to lead, but rather hear from its members what should be done.

Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, the leading liver specialist and until recently president of the Royal College of Physicians, said he was very concerned by the emphasis on voluntary partnerships with industry. A member of the alcohol responsibility deal network, Gilmore said he had decided to co-operate, but he doubted whether there could be "a meaningful convergence between the interests of industry and public health since the priority of the drinks industry was to make money for shareholders while public health demanded a cut in consumption".

He said: "On alcohol there is undoubtedly a need for regulation on price, availability and marketing and there is a risk that discussions will be deflected away from regulation that is likely to be effective but would affect sales. On food labelling we have listened too much to the supermarkets rather than going for traffic lights [warnings] which health experts recommend." Employers are being asked to take on more responsibility for employees in a fourth health at work deal. The fifth network is charged with changing behaviour, and is chaired by the National Heart Forum. This group is likely to be working with the new Cabinet Office behavioural insight unit, which is exploring ways of making people change their behaviour without new laws.

Lansley's public health reforms are seen as a test case for wider Conservative policies on replacing state intervention with private and corporate action.

While public interest groups are taking part in drawing up the deals, many have argued that robust regulation is needed to deal with junk food and alcohol misuse.

The Faculty of Public Health, represented on several of the deal networks, has called for a ban on trans fats and minimum alcohol pricing. Professor Lindsey Davies, FPH president, said: "We are hopeful that engaging with the food industry will lead to changes in the quality and healthiness of the products we and our children eat.  It is possible to make progress on issues such as salt reduction through voluntary agreements, and we're keeping an open mind until we see what comes out of the meetings, but we do think that there is still a role for regulation."

Responding to criticism that industry was too prominent in the plans, the Department of Health said: "We are constantly in touch with expert bodies, including those in the public health field, to help inform all our work. For the forthcoming public health white paper we've engaged a wide range of people, as we are also doing to help us develop the responsibility deal drawn from business, the voluntary sector, other non-governmental organisations, local government, as well as public health bodies. A diverse range of experts are also involved."

He added that the government wanted to improve public health through voluntary agreements with business and other partners, rather than through regulation or top-down lectures because it believed this approach would be far more effective and ambitious than previous efforts.

An over-arching board, chaired by Lansley, has been set up to oversee the work of the five responsibility deal networks, with representatives of local government and a regional health director – but it too is dominated by the food, alcohol, advertising and retail industries. Gilmore called for a better balance of commercial interests and independent experts on it.

Other experts have also expressed concern at Lansley's approach. Professor Tim Lang, a member of the government's advisory committee on obesity, doubted the food and drink industry's ability to regulate itself. "In public health, the track record of industry has not been good. Obesity is a systemic problem, and industry is locked into thinking of its own narrow interests," said Lang.

"I am deeply troubled to be sent signals from the secretary of state about working 'with business' and that any action has got to be soft 'nudge' action."

Jeanette Longfield, head of the food campaign group Sustain, said: "This is the equivalent of putting the tobacco industry in charge of smoke-free spaces. We know this 'let's all get round the table approach' doesn't work, because we've all tried it before, including the last Conservative government. This isn't 'big society', it's big business."

• guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010

The Cure For Our Fossil Fuel Addiction

This is an excellent animation that explains how we've got to where we are in the great oil driven industrial complex that most if not all the world now operates in.

Having done that it then goes on to explain what will happen if we keep doing what we do now, and also lays out four key actions that will make a lasting difference.

And all in a little over five and a half minutes.

Excellent.

  

You're wondering about the connection to sustainable agriculture? Well synthetic fertilisers are a by-product of petroleum, and the diesel is used to power the large tractors to till the land, and power the semi-trailers and planes that then transport the food stuffs all over the world.

Say 'NO' to GMO today

This came through from GM Watch earlier today. It's pretty important and easy to act on.

The Economist has a GM debate sponsored by BASF: "This house believes that biotechnology and sustainable agriculture are complementary, not contradictory." 

We're currently losing and the debate rounds up in the next 48 hours. 

Please vote now a nd vote NO - and tell everyone you know to do the same.

The following is from Phil Chandler.

Please - show the GM industry what you think of them with just one click - no signup, name or email needed - just go here - http://tinyurl.com/3yk4xj6 and vote AGAINST the motion.

I suspect this has been worded in an attempt to ask a 'soft' question, which sounds harmless, so that people will be fooled into agreeing with it. But the fact is that GM and sustainable agriculture are NOT compatible, or complementary, as the very presence of GM in an open space means that organic and other non-GM crops will inevitably be contaminated. This is happening wherever GM crops are grown, and is well-documented. American farmers who were sold on GM ten years ago are now turning against it - listen to my podcast at http://biobees.libsyn.com for evidence of this.

Don't be fooled by industry propaganda: GM crops are TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE with sustainable agriculture.

This is not a definitive survey, but it is run by The Economist and will be used by the media as 'evidence' one way or the other.

So please, if you care about keeping our food and our bees GM-free - VOTE AGAINST THIS MOTION - http://tinyurl.com/3yk4xj6 - they don't need your name or email address, and it only takes a second.

Thanks. Phil Chandler www.biobees.com 

Fighting Fire With ...... Fire?

Recently you would have seen the terrible catastrophe that wild bushfires have caused across the south eastern parts of Australia, with 200 people killed, thousands homeless, and whole communities shattered and destroyed.

Now the blame game has started so we can identify how we could have let this happen, and then, how we ensure it doesn't happen again. And international readers need to know that major bushfires are a way of life for most Australians, so 'ensuring that it doesn't happen again' is a furphy. Just like earthquakes, tsunamis and tornadoes, bushfires are natural occurrences and despite our best efforts, will continue to occur.

The initial reaction from most uninformed media commentators and the like is to blame greenies, incompetent Governments or public authorities, or all three.

Today I've read two articles that go to the heart of the matter, and arrive at a similar answer from differing points.

Monsanto's Greatest Hits

The greater part of the 20th century was about industrial and chemical innovations, and as a leader (?) in various fields, Monsanto was there.

 

Having spent the entire 20th century in pursuit of profit through science, here's a chronology of MONSANTO's pursuits over their first 100 years; from Saccharin to aspirin, from Agent Orange to Round Up.

 

1901--Founder John Francis Queeny names Monsanto Chemical Works after his wife, Olga Mendez Monsanto. 

1902--The company manufactures its first product, Saccharin. The U.S. government later files suit over the safety of Saccharin, but loses.

1917--Monsanto starts producing aspirin.

1929--Monsanto acquires Rubber Services Laboratories

1935--Monsanto goes into the soap and detergents industry, starts producing phosphorus.

1938--The company goes into the plastic business.

A Truly Most Unusual Panel Pairing

Back in September this year, at a suitable conference, the boffins at Google somehow convinced what I consider to be two of the food industries leading opponents to both join a panel to discuss ‘Creating a World That Can Feed Itself’.

One of these people was Hugh Grant, Chairman, President and CEO of Monsanto, and you can imagine the angle he took in the discussion.

The other participant was Mike Pollan, Knight Professor of Journalism, UC Berkeley's Graduate School of Journalism and author of ‘In Defence of Food’ and ‘The Omnivores Dilemma’.

I’ve written about Pollan before, and am a keen supporter of most if not all of his ideals. And I’ve written about Monsanto before, and am a keen opponent of most if not all of it’s ideals.

The discussion is most enlivening and interesting. Click below to view the battle!

We Live In Very Interesting Times

As an outsider watching the current US election campaign (are we there yet?) and a keen supporter of Al Gore's We Can Solve It initiative, I can't help but really wonder how different our world would be if Al Gore had won the election eight years ago, and George W and his cronies in Florida had not perverted the course of history.

The following video is a piece that aired in the US tonight after the Obama telecast, and is an edited version of the challenge that former Vice President Gore issued in July 2008.

Titled 'Al Gore's Challenge to Repower America' it's short, sharp and a clear indication of what we need as Western society to lead the way out of the very deep and dark hole we are blindly going down.

Click on the box.

Given that Australia's position as a provider/supplier of 'carbon' to the world, and as a nation has one of the largest 'greenhouse gas footprints', we need to follow this message too.

It's Very Simple Really

Al Gore has never been shy when it comes to telling it like it is.

His latest campaign at We Can Solve It is pretty straight, too.

This post has been lifted from their site.

 

Why You Need To Know How To Send A Submission To The Raw Milk Review

Do you believe it is your right to choose what you eat and drink? Then read on...

Food Standards for Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) has commenced a review of the right to produce and sell raw milk products including milk and cheeses.

What is raw milk you ask? Put simply, it's milk straight from the cow (or goat or sheep or buffalo) without pasteurisation. There is a body of belief that this milk, full of beneficial bacteria and enzymes, is better than 'processed' milk, and before factory farming began, all the milk that humans consumed was 'raw'. In many parts of the world selling raw milk is illegal, which is currently the situation here in Australia. While it is permitted in 28 states in America, there has been a pitched battle in some sections of the community regarding this issue. My earlier post, The real deal with raw milk and the raw deal with unreal milk shed some light on this, and further information can be found here.

Proponents believe that beneficial components of milk are destroyed by pasteurisation, specifically immunoglobulins and the enzymes lipase and phosphatase, which are inactivated by heat. Raw milk contains vitamin B 6, but the heat treatment may cause as much as 20% of the vitamin to be lost. Pasteurisation also kills some of milk's naturally-occurring bacteria, such as Lactobacillus acidophilus, useful for the culturing of yogurt. Raw milk proponents point out that these "friendly" bacteria aid digestion and boost immunity.