In the previous post the question was asked why people bought organic food and in an earlier one you were told that there were 2 people asked to give their views on organically grown food. The person who favoured what he and others call conventionally grown food (which only means what is happening now) what he said was that it yielded 4 times as much as organically as though this was the only thing that mattered. Read the rest of this entry »
In the last post I said that some people jumped on the organic bandwagon only to give it up when they considered it to be too expensive. This was looked at in a recent edition of the BBC’s Countryfile. The presenter concentrated on those who purchased them from supermarkets and said that the sell of them had gone down.
But then he looked at those who bought them from Farmers Markets, independent growers, etc and said that here they had not declined, thus providing what I said. He said that he had been reporting on Countryfile for 20 years and when he had started he said that the organic percentage could be 20%, but admitted that it wasn’t and was only 4%.
He added that the organic movement encompasses many parts and that people had taken one part, i.e. how animals are treated, concentrated on that and dropped other parts.
He also spoke to a person from the Soil Association who it would be better if all the aspects of the organic movement where taken onboard.
Another program, this time on ITV looked climate change, but no mention was made of the fact that organic soil can hold all the gases that cause global warming and this does not have the adverse effects that the methods of producing natural energy such as wind turbines, nuclear fuel do. It has a plus in that it grows food that trully nourishes us.
Another series of programs the BBC is airing is: Bees, Butterflies and Blooms. The presenter Sarah Raven, who was previously part of the Gardners World Team takes up a theme first aired by Rachel Carson in her Silent Spring. At the time, 50 years ago, she was rubbished, but now those who said she was wrong have to admit she was right.
In the making of the program Sarah Raven travelled all over the country speaking to those in authority and the residents of the cities, towns, villages she visited and tried to persuade them to leave part of their gardens, public spaces, etc uncultivated to encourage the growth of wild flowers, etc that pollinating insects could visit.
She asked why should we be concerened and visited a supermarket to show us why. She filled her trolly with her usual foods and then invited the manager to remove everything we would not have if we didn’t have the pollinating insects. She had very little left.
In this post it was asked why people buy organic food in the next one the question is what is best organic or conventionally grown food
I attended the Organic Festival, which was put on by the Soil Association, in Bristol, England. While I was there I was given an leaflet which said we had “a right to eat and plant GM-free food”. It give the:
1 We need GM Food to feed a growing world population.
The vast majority of the world’s crops are not GM – GM is only planted on about 2.75% of global agricultural land. Most of this goes to animal feed, fibre and industrial scale agrofuels. What’s left is in processed food (primarily unlabelled in North America). The current push for GM is about a failing industry trying to save itself. The world’s underlying approach to food should not be about market control, patents and profit. Feeding the world means tackling poverty, improving access to the food we already produce, ending the waste of 30-40% of the world’s food, reducing losses in storage, making trade fairer, curbing overconsumption and investing in effective research. We don’t need GM to do any of this.
2 GM food helps farmers grow more in droughts and fight climate change.
All crops need the right mix of sun, water and healthy soil to produce a good yield – GM cannot change this. Despite many promises and billions of pounds spent over decades on research, not a single GM drought tolerant crop has been developed that farmers can grow. Traditional plant breeding, using modern techniques, has produced successful drought tolerant crops in fields where farmers need them now.
3 GM Food delivers more food on less land.
No current GM crops have been shown to boost yields. Independent US studies show up to 10% less yield in GM soya – manipulating a few genes gives unpredictable results. Increased yields in the past decade are due to developments in traditional plant breeding, not GM.
4 GM food helps farmers use less chemicals.
Herbicide tolerant crops: Initially GM did reduce the use of weedkillers, but weeds quickly developed resistance to the chemicals used on GM crops. The resulting “superweeds” are forcing farmers to use more chemicals, including older, more dangerous ones, at considerable expense. Some US GM cotton farmers have to hand weed whole fields when chemicals stop working. Insecticide crops: GM maize and cotton are engineered to produce toxins in every part of the plant – including the parts we eat. This is a change in the way pesticides are used, not a reduction. The toxins kill some insect pests, but not all, and Monsanto now admits that pink bollworm in parts of India is resistant to GM cotton. Yet emerging evidence shows Bt toxins may harm non-target insects (like butterflies), and there are serious concerns about the safety of the Bt toxins for human health.
5 EU opposition to GM Food is holding back developing countries (or, it’s only well-fed activists who oppose GM).
The Indian Government put an indefinite moratorium on GM brinjal (aubergine) -a flagship project for the GM industry-until safety questions are answered. There are GM bans, active protests and legal opposition in Thailand, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Mexico, South Africa, Kenya, Argentina and elsewhere. EU opposition to GM leads the way, showing that GM agriculture is not inevitable because citizens have the right to make our own decisions about what we grow and eat.
6 The EU is going to be left behind in science if we don’t do GM Food (or, we need GM Food for our economy).
GM hasn’t delivered. Farmer training needs to be improved right around the world, including in the UK. Rather than throw good money after bad, the UK should establish centres of excellence in areas like soil husbandry and advanced traditional plant breeding to lead the world in a more sustainable and equitable approach to managing farmland and forests.
7 GM Food is safe – they’ve been eating GM in the US for years and no one has ever been hurt.
GM is unlabelled and untraced in the US food supply, so there is no way to determine where GM is going or what health impacts it might be having, or even how much GM Food is actually being eaten. It is impossible to study, so this claim has no scientific basis.
8 People are changing their minds about GM Foods.
When US dairies started labelling their milk as free from GM hormones, they were so popular Monsanto went to court to get them banned. They failed. A 2010 NOP poll showed 89% support for labels on animal products in the UK showing where GM feed is used, like they have in Austria and Germany. If the GM industry believes people are changing their minds, they have nothing to fear from using such labels and letting the market decide.
9 We need GM to keep food prices down and meat industry going.
It was not a lack of GM that caused prices to go up – GM was produced throughout the 2007/8 price rises. Regional droughts, diverting food crops into industrial scale biofuels, financial speculation in food markets and the rising costs of fertilisers and fuel were key contributors, but GM Foods can’t fix these. The EU has become far too dependent on imported animal feed, much of it GM. Policies favour a highly concentrated industrial farm model that has resulted in poor animal welfare and forces smaller farmers out of business. We need a more accountable and responsible food production system. Research across the EU is helping us find the kind of crops and breeds we need to be less dependent on importing GM animal feed and exporting the damage it does to communities and the environment in far away countries.
10 Opposition to GM Food is based on emotion (or politics), not sound science. The US and Indian courts are showing that the science behind GM Food is far from sound, particularly when approvals have been based on safety dossiers provided by the industry itself. In any case, citizens are not obliged to accept whatever is scientifically possible. Non-GM Food alternatives do the scientific job better, with less risk and no public rejection, keeping farmers and consumers on the same side so everyone benefits.
When GM Food hit supermarket shelves people rejected it. Today it is hard to find food with GM ingredients shops can’t sell what people won’t buy. There is a hidden exception: milk, cheese, meat and eggs from animals raised on GM feed do not legally need a GM label. So there is no way to tell if your pint of milk or ready meal supported the GM industry.
Since people reject GM as food, the vast majority of GM crops (around 80%) have no place to go except into animal feed, Yet we simply don’t know the extent of the many problems with GM crops, including:
* GM Food not proved safe
Industry safety claims are based on their own, not independent, data. National authorities are not testing food either to find GM or to confirm independent studies showing GM damage to animals’ guts, lower nutritional value and allergic reactions or reactions in immune systems. GM DMA from feed can pass into animals’ blood. Pesticides in GM animal feed are not routinely monitored, so we don’t know what our livestock are eating. We do know the maximum legal residue limit for weedkiller glyphosate in food was raised 200% when GM soya came on the market.
• Environment damage
GM herbicide tolerant crops have accelerated the development of weedkiller resistance. There are now 140 types of herbicide tolerant “superweeds” in 40 US states, with 13 species resistant to glyphosate, and even the industry admits it takes older, more dangerous chemicals to control them.
« Corporate control
Patented GM crops give companies like Monsanto and Bayer unprecedented control over the supply of seeds and food. They say we need GM animal feed to keep costs down, but GM prices I spiked just as steeply as non-
J*A GM in 2007/08 – and we pay them even more to avoid it.
Our right to choose another way
Without clear labels, you don’t know where the GM feed is used.
While we look for better ways to feed our animals (like feeding cows grass and clover), Brazil alone grows enough non-GM soya for at least 80% of the EU’s needs without further damaging the Amazon – we don’t need GM.
Austrian and German shoppers have labels on non-GM fed foods, and France and Ireland are introducing them soon.
Supermarkets say it is too confusing to give consumers the information what they want. Your supermarket can and should insist that the dairy, meat, fish and eggs they sell are produced without GM crops and back this up with clear GM-Free labels.
Tell supermarkets to ditch GM Food once and for all
A sample letter, updated campaign information and email and postal addresses are all available at www.gmfreeze.org or directly from us on 0845 217 8992.
They say to concentrate on the supermarkets, but this is only because most people buy their foods from them. I would say search out Farmers Markets or go to small privately owned local shops where you can ask about what they sell. They are unlikely to sell GM Food as they know most people do not want them.
But not wanting GM Foods does not mean that they are whole heatedly for organic food. Many people see the popularity of a trends such as organic foods, but do not espouse the organic movement as such and only buy it when they think they can afford it and it is usually from supermarkets that they buy it.
A lot of programs on the BBC recently have looked at both GM Food and Organic ones and this topic will be looked at in the next post.
Do you live in Bristol or the surrounding area? If you do you did you attend the Soil Associations Organic Festival on the weekend of 6/7 September 2008? I did and it was really good. Read the rest of this entry »
The drug companies, both here and other places would like us to believe that their drugs have been tested and the findings made public and that they are safe. They would also like us to believe that natural remedies have not been tested. But the opposite is true. Read the rest of this entry »
This is one of the key questions those opposed to Bill C-51 which is currently going through the Canadian Parliament are asking. Do you want your Government, or even worse the Drug Companies to do so. Do you want the Drug Companies to dictate and also manipulate you into increasing their profits? Read the rest of this entry »
This is usually the question that those who think New is Better phrase it, but those who in the main support natural remedies say both are needed and the question should be which have the greatest benefits and the smallest side effects. These and allied questions are being asked in connection with a Bill that is currently going through the Canadian Parliament. The whole debate has been put on YouTube so we know what is being said. A web site has been set up to allow all those who are opposed to it to express their concerns. Read the rest of this entry »
When you hear that people are on a diet, or dieting you immediately think that they are trying to lose weight. But this is not the primary meaning. The primary meaning of the word diet is what we habitually eat, or in this case, don’t eat. You should remember this if you want to lose weight because this will encourage you to eat for health and not just for weight loss. Read the rest of this entry »
In the last post on Vitamins Calcium was mentioned and the fact that it was a mineral. Do you know what they do for you, why you should ensure that you get the correct amount, etc. Once again you are urged to ensure your mineral come from natural sources. The soil plants are grown in is vital as this is where they get the minerals our bodies need and if the soil is deficient in these nutrients then the plants will be as well. Read the rest of this entry »
In this post we look at Vitamins and what they can do for you.
We start with Vitamins, which come can be fat or water soluble. It is possible to take too much fat soluble vitamins as they are stored in your body longer but unlikely that you would be able to do so. For the average person the cost would be prohibitive and in addition you would feel bloated before it happened. Read the rest of this entry »