Today I received a letter from the Soil Association asking:

Help us challenge the lies about GM

They say:  “Powerful forces are trying to persuade the public that there is no alternative to GM crops if we are to feed the world’s population in the future.   Last month, scientists began growing genetically modified potatoes in Norfolk, The Government appears to think this represents the future for food and farming – continuing to invest tax payers’ cash on this outdated technology.

In the face of the powerful pro-GM lobby, the Soil Association is sending you this special appeal to seek your support for our ‘GM NO!’ campaign.  Here’s what we’re up against:

• The public have been lied to over the need to double food production by 2050 – a bogus
  statistic proved to be wrong by a recent Soil Association report, Telling Porkies’, Decision
  makers from the UN Secretary General to the UK Government’s Chief Scientist have used this
  lie to build a case for GM.
• A sham ‘consultation’ on GM from our Food Standards Agency (due to cost i\ million
  of public money) has seen two of its steering group resign, claiming it had been hijacked
  for ‘GM propaganda’. Professor Brian Wynne, vice-chairman of the group, and Helen
  Wallace, director of GeneWatch, both left within a week of each other. The FSA insists
  the consultation is ‘balanced¹.
• The GM potato trial at a secret location in Norfolk begs the question about what GM
  technology is actually for, Blight-resistant potato varieties have been developed using
  non-GM plant breeding methods, and they are already commercially available. The
  fact that this GM potato variety is still at the field trial stage – after 1 0 years with no
  significant results and £1,7 million of tax-payers’ money later – clearly demonstrates
  what a failing, outdated technology GM is.

Our report from May this year, Telling Porkies: The big fat lie about doubling food production’, revealed that claims we need to double global food production by 2050 are wrong.  Find out more on our website www.soilassociation.org.”

This lie about the need to double food production within forty years has dominated discussions about the future of food and farming.   Research shows the figure doesn’t actually exist – and that it is based on a number of incorrect assumptions. The claims are based on a report which on close inspection actually says production could increase by around 70%, not 100%.  What is more, it will only need to increase to 70% if we accept a huge increase in livestock (1 billion extra cattle) and resulting unacceptable increases in greenhouse gases. We also revealed that a scientific paper claiming food production will need to increase by 50% by 2030 has been withdrawn by the authors.

These apparently scientific statistics are leading to an assumption that we need vast increases in agricultural production to feed the projected population of nine billion by 2050. In fact, the scientists who made these projections say that increases in food production will still leave people starving.   Many people in rich countries need to eat less, and we need more food produced in places where people are hungry.

GM No!

We need your help to counter the arguments that GM can feed the world. Our campaigners are already fighting on many fronts to secure a sustainable food future – but we need to respond now to the revival in enthusiasm for GM.

We are calling for the Food Standards Agency to stop wasting money on what has become a PR exercise for GM food. And we want the field trial on GM potatoes to be halted and for research to be focused on proven plant breeding techniques which show much better results at a far cheaper cost.

We urgently need to raise funds to support our programme of work,  Our plans include:

• building on the evidence base which proves organic farming is the way forward in the face of
  climate change. We want to investigate and report on Nitrous Oxide emissions (which are
  responsible for over half of the greenhouse gas emissions from farming) and continue our
  work with independent scientists on the carbon footprint of organic farming
• making the case for sustainable farming in the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy in
  201 3 – ensuring that changes in European policy back climate-friendly and sustainable
  farming
• raising serious questions about how we feed our farm animals, building on previous Soil
  Association reports which have already shown how GM feed is entering our UK food chain
  (unknown to many UK consumers) through animal feed, and to see what more the organic
  movement can do to support the campaign to stop the import of (non-organic) soya from
  Latin America, grown on cleared rainforest land or newly ploughed grasslands,

There is an alternative way to feeding the world’s growing population a healthy and sustainable diet.  Please support our ‘GM NO!¹ campaign and help us build a sustainable, organic food future for us all.”

We have heard all of this before.   Just as anti-biotics where going to get rid of disease and pesticides, etc were going to grow all the food we need so will this.    But what actually happened the drug companies, pesticide manufacturers, etc have hijacked the government with millions of pounds of our money being paid to them and those who dare to question all of it being side tracked.   But we can fight back now.

This morning on Radio Bristol we were told about a new dressing that is under construction that changes colour when germs are present and releases antibiotics to deal with it.   This reminded me of a story I had read in Feburary 2010 edition of  Forever magazine.  It was written by one of their Managers.

He says that he knew something was wrong by his wife’s reaction to a call from their daughter.   She told her that her 5 year old son had had an accident with their deep fat fryer and one third of his body was burnt.    Immediately it had happened and while waiting for the ambulance,  she had poured a bottle of Aloe Vera Gelly over him and put him under a cold shower.     This had continued at the hospital, with 20ml does of Aloe Bits n’ Peaches being put into his feeding tube.

The hospital wanted to do skin grafts, but were persuaded not to and let them continue with the Aloe treatment.   Aloe Lotion was applied to the burns, the bandages they could be,  where lifted and Aloe First spray was used.  When the skin started to heal a mixture of Aloe Propolis Creme and Aloe Vera Gelly was applied.   And Aloe Vera Bits n’ Peaches was given via the feeding tube, starting with 5mls per hour and increasing to 150mls per day.

The medical team acknowledged that the healing was dramatic.   No skin graft had been necessary, with the exception of a small one under his right armpit and his face was unscared.    He was out of hospital five and half weeks later.

In England in 1948 the then Labour Government set up what is now called The Welfare State, which means that the State looks after its citizens from cradle to grave.   Or rather this was the plan, but it is not how it has worked it.   Now it has been suggested that the USA goes the same way and many do not like it and neither, it seems do many in England, with one of our Euro MP’s saying why he does not like the Health Service as it presently exists. But like everything else there are good and bad points to it.   One of the bad ones is that the English one has more or less fallen into the hands of the drug companies.   What they do is study Nature and see if they can find something that they can take, extract part of it, and manufacture a drug(s) from it and then charge the earth on the basis, that they had to do a lot of work to bring it to the market. But what is not told the general public is that they have found something that they cannot do this with and have suppressed it because they cannot make money from it.

One of the good things about our Health Service is that it is free at point of need.   You fall down, as I have done, are taken to hospital, and operated on.   No one asks if you have the insurance necessary to pay for it.    I am really pleased about this when someone from the USA mentions this as being part of my outgoings.

This has been on our News for the last few days.  Another items was the fact that 5 people benefitted from organ transplants.   Someone had agreed to donate their organs after they died.  Their liver was removed, divided in 2, one part was given to a 6 month old baby the other to someone with a diseased liver, which was removed and given to a man with cancer in his liver in what is called a Piggyback Transplant.   The other organs were given to 3 other people.

One of the things that people grumble about as far as our Health Service is concerned is the waiting lists where people need to have an operation to correct something that is malfunctioning, such as a hip that needs replacing, but is not life threatening.   There is also what is called “The Postcode Lottery”, with people from one part of the country get treatment while in another do not.

From this it can be seen that there are both good and bad points to the U K’s National Health Service.   My advice to both those who want to set up a similar system in the USA and those who oppose it is not to concentrate on one aspect be it good or bad and ignore the others, but study it and see how the good parts can be improved and the bad ones dealt with.

In the last post Professor Regan was mention together with the fact that she recently had a series of programs on the BBC. One of the things it was said she insisted on was that the findings should be published in a recognised scientific publication. In another magazine I subscribe to had an article which raised questions as to what she meant by that.

Those who want us to, as they say, be scientific, also want us to believe that scientists are objective with no bias, and they only want to find out what is correct. This is not the case. No one, even scientists, are completely objective, we all have a way of looking at the world, which is governed by our core beliefs, which are never tested, and in many cases cannot be.

The above mentioned publication mentioned Stephen Gould, who in 1982 in How Science Changes with the Political Climate. U.S. News & World Report said:

“People need to realize that scientists are human beings like everyone else and that their pronouncements may arise from their social prejudices, as any of our pronouncements might. The public should avoid being snowed by the scientist’s line: “Don’t think about this for yourself, because it’s all too complicated.”"

And in Natural History Issue 103 he said:

“Our [scientists] ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ’scientific method; with individual scientis as logical and interchangeable robots, is a serlf-serving mythology.”

The magazine is from the U.S. and reason it was published was because President Obama is promoting what is being called “consensus science”. This doesn’t mean that scientific experiments have to be conducted and each time they are those conducting them get the same results. What it means is that when enough scientists agree about anything it become the new orthodoxy, in other words it becomes a religion and those who do not belong to it are marginalised. There is another danger Professor John Christy said on 13th November 2007 on the BBC News:

“The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the “informational cascade”) is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group because we, by definition, must be the “ones who know”….. You dare not not be thought of as “one who does not know”….. This leads, in my opinion, to an overstatement of confidence in the published findings and to a ready acceptance of the views of anointed authorities.”

History provides many examples of lone individuals who take on The Establishment and are persecuted by those in authority for daring to do so. And in most cases they have proved to be right and those who opposed them wrong.

One aspect of this was looked at in the last post and much of what is said in other posts are based on programs broadcast by TV companies in the UK. Channel Four, one of our commercial TV companies are the pioneers in bringing what is happening to our food to the notice of the British public. The presenters of these programs are well known for the organic credentials. But now the BBC has decided to get in on the act. There series of programs Grow Your Own Drugs was mentioned in the last post.

Another series aired by the BBC is Professor Regan’s in which she sees if there is any scientific evidence that backs up claims made by manufacturers for the products. The ones that she and others, on her behalf, conducted were extremely rigorous, but tests that should have been conducted and questions asked were not. One of the programs looked at the food children chose such as breakfast cereals. The test conducted was whether breakfast had an effect on their concentration, etc with the findings being that it had, but it didn’t matter what it consisted of. Also tested was how much sugar and salt they contained with the findings being there were acceptable levels of both. But no mention was made of the chemicals such as colorings, flavour enhancers, extended shelf life, etc, which should have been conducted.

In another program we were told that certain people had enough of certain vitamins and minerals in their diet because they were eating food we were told contained them. But this couldn’t have been known because there was no way the soil they were grown in, etc was tested to see if it contained them. And no tested were carried out to see if there was anything in the foods that inhibited the absorbtion of them, either in the foods themselves or the bodies of those eating them.

There are things all of take for granted and do not really question unless we are challenged to do so. We are continually being told that something is scientific and something else is not and that science can provide all the answers and those who call themselves scientists frequently think this way. Science is the Greek word for knowledge and you can only have knowledge of what actually exists now. Science certainly cannot explain why something is moral and something else is not, nor can it explain why we think somethings are beautiful and others are ugly.     Next time you hear someone say that science can answer all questions and is the basis of all reality and applies it to something that is outside any scientific experiment because it happened in the past don’t accept it.

We have been called a Nation of Animal Lover, but many people differentiate between animals such as dogs and cats, which they consider to be pets and animals reared for food.

As was remarked in earlier posts many people say that they cannot afford organic food.   But many of those who say this do their shopping at one of the big supermarkets, where organic food certainly is dearer.

But if they were able to get it from Farmers’ Markets, as I do, they would find that it was no dearer than than conventional food from the supermarket.  But many people do care about how their food is grown and are prepared to do something about it.

This was proved last summer by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall who 10 years ago had moved South and set up in the business of rearing his food organically, cooking it and selling it and in the process persuaded his local town to support him in his campaign to improve the lot of chickens, which is said to be Britain’s favourite meat.

This was broadcast on one of our TV Channels and as result of seeing how they were reared people reacted and supermarkets nationwide sold out of free-range chicken.    The outcome was that the poultry industry rushed to cope with the demand.

This lead to an initiative where less birds where put into sheds and they were able to run around, fly, peck at things provided for them.   They also do not have to stand in their own droppings.   Many of our supermarkets are now only selling birds reared in this way.   But not Britain’s biggest retailer, Tesco.   Hugh tried to persuade them to talk to him and kept on being refused.  So he decided to adopt a different approach.

What he did was buy a share in Tesco’s so he could attend their AGM.   This was how the series aired last year ended.   But on Monday 26 January we were told what happened afterwards.  He found out that he needed a certain number of people to back him before he could present the petition.

After being turned down by the business people he turned to such organisations as Compassion in Farming, etc.   They did back him and he was able to present the petition to Tesco’s Head Office.

Their answer was to email him telling him to pay the postage or they would not mail their shareholders.   They wanted him to drop.  No way, he said, and set up a web site explaining the position.   He was able to raise the whole amount.   But this was still not enough for Tesco’s.   They then moved the goal posts and said that he had to get 75% of the shareholders to agree.

He attended and spoke to the shareholders.   Many thought that he would not have too much support, but had to admit they were surprised at the level of support he attracted.   10% of those who were there supported him and another 9% abstained, which meant in effect that they supported him, making it nearly 20%, i.e. 1 in 5.

In the programme on the 26th January Hugh revisits Hayley, a single mother who had continued to buy cheap mass-produced chicken.  But Hugh persuade her to visit a farm where both methods were used.  After doing so she  decided  to buy the ethically reared bird, much to the approval of Hugh.

The only way to do this is by adopting healthy eating habits, and not pursuing crash diets hoping to loose unwanted pounds in a few days.

Many of these fad diets, such as the notorious and outright silly Cabbage Soup Diet, will undermine your health, cause physical discomfort (abdominal discomfort and flatulence (gas) ) and lead to the yo-yo effect of gaining weight soon after losing it. In other words the risks aren’t worth the rewards.

Quick-weight-loss diets generally put far too much emphasis on one particular food or type of food. They violate the first principle of good nutrition which is to eat a balanced diet which should include different types of foods. If you are able to stay on such a diet for more than a few weeks, you may develop nutritional deficiencies, because no one type of food has all the nutrients a human being needs for good health. The Cabbage Soup Diet is an example. This so-called fat-burning soup is eaten mostly with fruits and vegetables. The diet supposedly helps heart patients lose 10–17 pounds in seven days before surgery. Even if the weight loss claim were true, all the damage due to a lack of many essential nutrients would far outweigh (pun intended) the benefits of losing the weight. There are no magic beans, or magic cabbages, or miracle foods when it comes to weight loss and good nutrition. That’s why you should eat moderate amounts from all the food groups rather than cutting out everything but a cabbage and water.

There may be no magic or miracle foods, but there are certain foods which contain more nutrients than others and it is wise to include them in your diet.

Among these are:

Beans (legumes),
Berries (especially blueberries),
Oranges,
Broccoli,
Pumpkin,
Spinach,
Tomatoes,
Nuts (especially walnuts),
Salmon.
Turkey,
Whole grains and oats
Yogurt
Green tea
Soy

You will note that it includes: Vegtables, Fruits, Proteins, Fats and Carbohydrates.

All crazy diets such as the cabbage one also violate another important principle of good nutrition which is that eating should be enjoyable. These diets are so monotonous and boring that it’s almost impossible to stay on them for long periods.

Imagine eating cabbage soup, nothing but cabbage soup, for even a few days much less for a whole week. By Wednesday you’d dread meal time, and by Friday you’d never again want to hear about a cabbage much less eat the soup. If you make it to Sunday you might die of a heart attack before you ever again tasted real food.

In Diet you were told that diet is what we habitually eat and not confined to weight loss. It is not just those who are trying to lose weight that follow unhealthy diets. Many modern diets based on prepackaged convenience foods which lack many vitamins and minerals, which can affect our mental capacities as well, and cause irritability, confusion, and the feeling of ‘being in a fog’ all the time.

Superfoods can be the basis of a sound, healthy, nutritious solution to curing many of these ailments and more.

Fad diets are bad in many other ways. Many don’t encourage physical activity, for example, walking 30 minutes most or alldays of the week. Physical activity helps maintain weight loss, while physical inactivity is a major risk factor for heart disease and stroke. When you hear a diet that mentions “no need for exercise” run for the hills, or at least run on a treadmill.

Quick weight loss sounds great. It is possible. Just don’t fall for tricks or gimmicks that might end up ruining your health.

Do You Weigh What You Should?

If you answered yes to Question 2 then it is more likely you are over then under weight. We are continually being told that more and more people are overweight and that we must do something about it.

But “dieting” is not the answer, what is needed is a change of lifestyle and eating pattern. There are many reasons people are overweight, but the most important are lack of exercise and the actual food we eat.

If you eat soft food which doesn’t require chewing you are likely to eat more of it. If it requires chewing you are likely to eat less of it because you are feed up with it and it is cold.

In addition because you have chewed it your body will know that you have eaten and trigger a mechanism making you feel fullup. So train your body to co-operative with your weight loss programme.

This is the claim made by those who support these methods with them accusing those of do not agree with them of being unpatriotic, not caring that people are starving, etc. But do these claims stand up to scrutiny? If they do not then we all have problems, particularly if they have convinced the government that they are the answer.

Philip Conford writing in the latest edition of ‘Living Earth’, the Soil Associations magazine says:

“In pursuit of profits, agricultural and biotech industries have a vested interest in discrediting the organic movement, whose methods render their products unnecessary.” And their followers can be relied on to follow in their footsteps. They do this by, in the name of rationalism, accusing them of having “faith in “muck and mystery” and” being “hopelessly primitive”. What they are saying is Old is Bad and New is Good, and Change always = Progress. But this is not true as can be demonstrated by the that much of what has been tried recently has proved to be really detrimental to people and nature.

The Organic Movement were accused during the war of being unpatriotic for not believing that “bagged fertilizer could prevent Britain from starving.” Now they are being accused of being “indifferent to those who await the bountiful blessings of GM crops.” The question has to be asked do they give the benefits claimed for them? Another article in the magazine provides the answer. They say that a new 3 year authoritative study carried out at the “University of Kansas shows that GM crops are producing lower yield than their non-GM counterparts, undermining claims that a switch to the controversial technology will solve the growing world food crisis.”

The study showed that GM crops produced up to 9% less crops than non-GM. But it improved when “extra manganese was added, leading to the suggestions that genetic modification hindered the crop’s take-up of the essential element from the soil.” Which means that those who eat GM foods are not going to get it either. Plants only contain what is in the soil they are grown in and what they take up from it. If something is done, or happens to them to stop them taking a specific element then they will not contain it.

Philip Conford asks: “What lessons can we learn?” The answer is that “The organic movement survived the propaganda onslaught, attracted new adherents and eventually flourished. With the optimistic glow of technological agriculture having dimmed, the organic movement must again display its founders’ tenacity in advocating a sustainable alternative.”

Here it has been demonstrated that the claims of the Technological Industry does not stand up to scrutiny and that the opposite is true to what they claim. But what about the other side? Are they drawbacks that most people know nothing about? There are and they will be the subject of another post. You are asked to note that the Organic Movement just present the facts, providing the source they used to obtain them and leaving us to make up our own mind.

I

The UK government has one standard, but the Soil Association, in on their web site say “Our standards not only meet the UK government’s minimum requirements but in many areas are higher.” They add that their “symbol is the UK’s largest and most recognisable trademark for organic produce.”

They continue “wherever you see it you can be sure that the food you have purchased has been produced and processed to strict animal welfare and environmental standards. The Soil Association has probably the highest and most comprehensive standards for organic production and processing in the world.

This is particularly true with animal welfare (for example, pigs and poultry) and the use of pesticides.

We can do this because we are an independent charity and are not motivated by profit – our goal is to promote the highest levels of organic integrity.

We have also developed standards for areas not covered by government or EU regulations. These include conservation, fish farming, textiles and health and beauty products.”

This is not just in the area of food they are also concerned about:

• Shops and other retailers
• Restaurants, bars and cafés
• Health and beauty products
• Clothing and textiles
• Gardening products like composts
• Timber and wood products
• Ethical Trade

They say: “We aim to set the ‘gold standard’ for the organic industry and have led the way in developing high organic standards. We want to ensure that Soil Association standards meet consumer expectations, reflect the best sustainable practice and become a benchmark for organic production globally.”

They have done this by setting up Standard Committees, which constantly reviews their standards to keep them up to date and to deal with new issues. They do not just operate in the UK but in other countries as well. They say:

“The Soil Association also works actively at national, European and international levels with the aim of achieving consistently high organic standards across all bodies and authorities. For example we were a founder member of, and continue to play a leading role within, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM).”

It can be seen from this that to be Organic is much more than just eating food grown in a certain manner. It is a whole lifestyle. This was what the owner of a large organic shop in Bristol said to a reporter who told him that people were cutting back on buying organic food as they were a luxury. He said he had not experienced it in his shop.

One way you can be sure in the UK that something meets the highest organic standards is buy looking for the Soil Association symbol, but what about places where they are not operating? How do you ensure that it is? That is the subject of the next post.