|
This is the weblog of
Raymond Powers.
Here I will be sharing what I find of import, humor, concern, inspiration and on the transformational edge
|
A Quote:
Just remember, we're all in this alone. --Lily Tomlin
|
Raymond lives in Ojai, where the time now is:
04:54PM
Unique Readers:
Primarily
Public Domain
Everything I've written here, except my copyrighted
essays, poetry, lyrics, and music is hereby placed in the public
domain. The quotes from other people's writings, and the pictures
used might or might not be copyrighted, but are considered fair
use. Thus the license here would best be described as:
Primarily Public
Domain.
Please ask permission if there is any question in
regards to public domain usage.
|
Syndication:
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.worldtrans.org/pic/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
WebLog Resources:
NCN NewsLogs
Weblogs.com
blo.gs
Technorati
Organica
DayPop
Blogdex
PopDex
Blogging Ecosystem
BlogTree
BlogStreet
BlogWise
BlogChalking
Wander-Lust
|
| Wednesday, July 13, 2005 |  |
|
|
|
13 Jul 2005 @ 04:18
3 Organic Heros Speak Out
Organic pioneers share their sometimes controversial views with the San
Francisco Professional Food Society
Julia Hollister
Freelance Writer
SAN FRANCISCO Three pioneers in the field of organics shared their views
with fellow foodies here recently and had some spicy words for those on the
other side of the table.
"The biggest threat to the organic movement are the (genetically modified
organisms)," said Els Cooperrider of Mendocino County. "Eventually it could
be the end of the organic agriculture."
Cooperrider was responsible for getting an initiative passed that banned
biotech crops in that county. After the initiative passed she said she was
on Monsanto¹s "hit list" and was sued by the biotech giant. She won.
Speaking at a meeting of the San Francisco Professional Food Society, she
said she was also instrumental in stopping Caltrans from roadside pesticide
spraying.
"We hear that the White House promotes GMOs and is blackmailing developing
countries that desperately need food," she said. "Pesticides are bad enough
but GMOs are worse. What¹s more, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is
looking at making allowable levels (of GMOs) and that will be fatal to
organics.
"The USDA is not working for farmers, they are working for the chemical
companies."
Nell Newman, who launched Newman¹s Own Organics with the support of her
father, actor Paul Newman, agreed.
"Organic farming is all part of the consumer educational process," she said.
"If the public knew how food is grown it would be a different world."
Her line of food items includes pretzels, chocolate bars, cookies, coffee,
pet food and fresh produce. In 1993 when she began the business, carbs were
in and pretzels were hot.
She laughed when relating her father¹s reaction to the organic food
business. He asked if her food was like "the nut loaf with gravy that your
mother makes."
She reassured him organics are fresh and tasted good.
"Organics have come a long way and California leads the way with all its
beautiful produce," she said. "But we have a long way to go bringing that
message to those in the Midwest."
Cooperrider said there were three main reasons why she got into organics and
opened the first certified organic brewpub in the country: Organic is better
for the environment, the workers and food just tastes better.
"When we opened we decided not to put Oorganic¹ on our signage because
people were wary and equated organics with tofu and sprouts," she said. "We
use local produce, butcher our own cows for our hamburgers and make our own
mustard, mayonnaise and catsup."
Guinness McFadden, a farmer and rancher from Potter Valley in Mendocino
County, said he has been in organics since the 1970s, before they had a name
for it.
"I started out with a small radish garden and was the first to get into
grapes when I relocated to the coast," he said. He also has beef cattle and
herbs but says growing vegetables are the most difficult because they
attracts every bug.
"Most importantly, organics mean a lot to those working the ground because
there are no lethal chemicals to make them sick."
|
|
| Friday, July 8, 2005 | |
|
|
|
8 Jul 2005 @ 15:48
Musician Willie Nelson Expands Biodisel Brand BioWillie
CARL'S CORNER, Texas, July 6, 2005 (ENS) - Musician Willie Nelson spent
the Independence Day weekend expanding his chain of biodiesel fueling
stations to the truck stop Carl's Corner along Interstate 35.
Carl's Corner now offers ³BioWillie,² the singer¹s unique brand of B20, a
fuel made of 20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent gasoline. It is supplied to
filling stations by Willie Nelson Biodiesel, founded by the musician.
In Texas, Carl¹s Corner is not only the name of the city, but also the
truck stop of the July 3 biodiesel celebration, which included amusements
such as a chili cook-off and concert by Nelson.
³The response from my trucker customers so far has been phenomenal,² said
Carl Cornelius, co-owner Carl¹s Corner. ³Almost everybody who¹s used it has
been totally satisfied. I¹m learning from truckers they find better mileage,
smoother performance, more power. They¹re pretty excited. Everybody ought to
get on this bandwagon.²
During the Texas event, the National Biodiesel Board presented Cornelius
with the Biodiesel Pioneer Award for his commitment to bringing biodiesel to
truckers.
Nelson intends to establish a chain of BioWillie stations throughout the
southeastern United States. "Biodiesel is the future,² he said.
Company representatives say future plans include truck stops carrying the
B20 along the east coast from Miami, Florida up to Rochester, New York.
Nelson and Peter Bell, of biodiesel supplier Distribution Drive formed
Willie Nelson Biodiesel with three other partners in December 2004. To find
out more about Willie Nelson Biodiesel, visit www.wnbiodiesel.com More >
|
|
| Thursday, July 7, 2005 | |
|
|
|
7 Jul 2005 @ 17:05
BioDemocracy Facing Hijack Threat
July 5, 2005
Marin Independent Journal
Keri Brenner
Marin's biotech crop ban, approved by voters last November, could be
threatened by "hijacking" attempts in the state Legislature that would
pre-empt county ordinances, local activists said.
"They're trying to sneak it in at the end of the legislative session," said
Mark Squire, leader of GMO Free Marin, which spearheaded the successful
Measure B initiative last year. "The end of the Legislature (session) is
traditionally the way to sneak things in so there's not time for opposition
to build or for the public to make a lot of comment."
Squire, owner of Good Earth Natural Foods in Fairfax, made his comments in
the wake of last week's two attempts by legislators to amend bills in the
state Assembly and Senate.
The process of cutting and pasting bills to insert new language is referred
to as "hijacking." The amended bills, which are slated to be heard again
this week, would remove local government authority over any seed
regulations.
"We feel it's typical of the way the biotech industry has attempted to
market their technology by avoiding public debate," Squire said.
Genetically engineered crops - also called GMOs for genetically modified
organisms, or biotech crops - refer to crops in which the DNA in seeds has
been altered to add a specific quality, such as resistance to pesticides or
disease. Proponents say genetically modified crops - such as some types of
corn, wheat, soy and rice - increase farm production and streamline farming
costs.
Opponents, however, say the biotech industry's interest in the altered crops
is financial. If the companies can control the seed patents, they can force
farmers to pay for new seeds every year, critics say.
Marin is one of three counties, along with Mendocino and Trinity, with a ban
on cultivation of genetically altered crops.
Fairfax Councilman Frank Egger said he will introduce an item at tonight's
Town Council meeting to oppose any "GMO pre-emption legislation." He is
organizing Marin activists to appear in Sacramento this week to request the
Legislature vote "no" on the two bills.
"The sneaky move is similar to the pesticide industry's pre-empting the
right of Mendocino County to prohibit aerial pesticide spraying after the
California Supreme Court upheld their voters' right to that ban," Egger
said. "That legislative pre-emption then covered all 478 cities and 58
counties in California."
Squire's and Egger's comments come as a new statewide farm group, the
California Healthy Foods Coalition, announced it was forming to provide more
public education and grassroots programs on the benefits of biotechnology.
"Family farmers understand some people have questions about biotechnology,"
said California Farm Bureau President Bill Pauli. "Our coalition will
provide people with the facts and will support agricultural innovations that
will improve the quality of life for California consumers."
The group has engaged a public relations firm, Sacramento-based River City
Communications, to launch a series of media announcements explaining the
coalition's intent and purpose.
"California's family farmers serve an important role in providing safe and
healthy food to consumers around the world," said River City President Marko
Mlikotin.
At issue in the current campaign is a genetically engineered crop ban
initiative approved for the November ballot in Sonoma County. Sonoma's
ballot measure was withdrawn last year after a technical flaw, but it has
been revamped and reintroduced.
Farm bureaus across the state - including the Marin County Farm Bureau -
opposed the series of biotech crop bans on the California ballot last
November. Marin farm officials said even though Marin does not have any
biotech crops, they wanted to have the flexibility to use any new
technologies they felt could be helpful in their operations.
A ban was approved in Marin by 61 percent of voters, but similar measures
were defeated in Butte and San Luis Obispo counties.
"Measure B won by 61 percent after an open public discourse around the GMO
issue," Squire said. "When people have a chance to hear the story, they do
the right thing."
Renata Brillinger of Californians for GE-Free Agriculture of Occidental
said the legislative attempts in Sacramento were "part of a nationally
coordinated highjacking of local democratic rights by the biotechnology
industry."
Similar laws have been attempted or passed into law in 15 other states, she
said.
"The measure is driven by narrow private interests seeking to protect their
economic stake by convincing members of the Legislature to strip away the
democratic rights of their own constituents," Brillinger said.
The state bills in question are Assembly Bill 1508 and Senate Bill 1056.
Assemblymen Simon Salinas, D-Salinas, and Juan Arambula, D-Fresno, and Sen.
Dean Florez, D-Bakersfield, wrote the amendments.
"We feel that Marin does have the right to protect our health, farms and
environment from GMOs that the state and federal governments regulate so
poorly," Squire said. "It is obvious that the federal government, whose job
it is to protect us from such risky technologies, is asleep at the wheel.
|
|
|
|
7 Jul 2005 @ 17:03
Brazil Likely to Penalize the US for Failing to Comply with WTO Ruling
Brazil Asks WTO to Allow U.S. Penalties
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 5, 2005
Filed at 7:57 a.m. ET
GENEVA (AP) -- Brazil said Tuesday it was asking the World Trade
Organization for permission to penalize the United States for its
failure to comply with a WTO ruling against U.S. subsidies for cotton
growers.
''We are asking for retaliation,'' Paulo Mesquita, Brazil's deputy
trade negotiator to the WTO, told The Associated Press. ''We are
following all the procedural steps to preserve our rights.''
Mesquita said Brazil still was consulting with Washington, but needed
to file its request so it can impose penalties if negotiations fail.
In its request -- to be formally filed later Tuesday -- Brazil will
ask the WTO to allow it to increase import duties on certain U.S.
goods to penalize the United States for failing to sufficiently
change its export programs, Mesquita said.
He didn't specify which U.S. products might be targeted.
''We still hope the United States will comply in a manner so we don't
have to carry these (retaliatory measures) out,'' Mesquita said.
In March, the world trade body upheld a ruling condemning government
help for cotton producers in the United States, saying that many U.S.
programs include illegal export subsidies or domestic payments that
are higher than WTO rules allow. The WTO gave the United States
government a June 30 deadline to end its illegal export subsidies and
domestic payments.
''It would be strange if we didn't submit this request following the
lack of implementation by the U.S.,'' Luiz Felipe de Seixas de
Correa, Brazil's ambassador to the WTO, told the AP.
The U.S. Agriculture Department said last week it would alter three
export credit guarantee programs ahead of the deadline to comply with
the WTO ruling. The alterations were intended to satisfy the WTO's
finding against the guarantees, which help U.S. growers sell
commodities by making financing available to foreign customers.
But the department didn't address the WTO finding against the
government's cotton marketing program, called Step-2, which makes
payments to exporters and domestic mill users to compensate them for
buying higher-priced U.S. cotton.
U.S. lawmakers have indicated they will try to deal with the issue
during the congressional budgeting process this year.
Brazil brought the complaint to the WTO, arguing that the U.S. has
maintained its dominance as the world's top cotton exporter, and
second-biggest cotton producer, through subsidies to cotton growers
averaging more than $2.7 billion annually from 1999 to 2003.
The U.S. said its payments to farmers fall within levels allowed
under WTO rules, arguing that many of the payments don't meet the WTO
definition of subsidies and should not have been considered
government aid.
Under an accord last summer, WTO members set up a special committee
to deal with cotton within the global body's broader agriculture
negotiations. The committee is meant to look to a proposal from West
Africa for the elimination of export and domestic subsidies by rich
producers.
Poor nations say subsidies in rich nations cause artificially low
international prices and hurt farmers in developing countries because
rich country producers are able to ''dump'' their cheap cotton on the
world market.
|
|
|
|
7 Jul 2005 @ 16:45
Here is a complete list from the South Coast Permaculture Guild of international workshops and lectures that cover a range of topics from green building design, water management, solar energy, sustainability, organic gardening etc.
Click MORE for schedule... More >
|
|
|
|
7 Jul 2005 @ 05:28
My dear friend Jeremy sent me this.
Dear Friend,
There's a lot at stake for the environment in the upcoming battle over the next Supreme Court nomination. The Supreme Court has the final say on whether to uphold and enforce--or limit and strike down--the laws that safeguard our nation's air, water, wildlife, and wilderness. Earthjustice--a nonprofit law firm for the environment that I support--is part of an all-out effort to keep the Supreme Court fair and independent.
If you believe that a fair and independent Supreme Court is vital to protecting our environment, please join Earthjustice and me in taking action TODAY.
Follow the link below to take action:
[link]
--
Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius-and a lot of courage-to move in the opposite direction.
-- Albert Einstein
Jeremy B. Paster
Senior Forest Campaigner, Greenpeace US
Direct: 415-255-9221 x321 Mobile: 415-218-7025 Fax: 415-255-9201
|
|
| Wednesday, July 6, 2005 | |
|
|
|
6 Jul 2005 @ 03:05
Battle to Stop Counties from Banning GE Crops Heats Up in California
From: Sacramento Bee (California)
By Jim Wasserman -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 am PDT Sunday, July 3, 2005
Saying their livelihoods are threatened, powerful forces that drive
California's $27 billion agricultural economy are mobilizing to defeat a
November ballot initiative to ban biotech crops in Sonoma County, and
possibly even prohibit such county bans with new legislation in coming days.
Farm interests in Sonoma County say they've already raised $200,000 to
fight a local ballot measure promoting a 10-year moratorium on growing
genetically modified crops. Statewide, the California Farm Bureau
Federation, California Cattlemen's Association and others have launched
a political organizing effort, campaign Web site and fundraising
operation to confront anti-biotech groups at the polls Nov. 8 and into
next year when more counties consider such bans.
"The whole world is watching what is going on here," said Sonoma
County Farm Bureau Executive Director Lex McCorvey. "This will put our
farmers and ranchers at a competitive disadvantage," he said, noting
that some already grow biotech corn for cattle feed.
If passed, the major wine-grape growing and dairy county would become
California's fourth to ban genetically engineered seeds. In 2004,
Mendocino, Marin and Trinity counties became the nation's first to ban
the growing of such seeds, despite having few, if any, biotech crops.
Voters in Butte, San Luis Obispo and Humboldt counties rejected their
proposed bans. The Humboldt County town of Arcata and tiny Point Arena
in Mendocino County have also banned growing of biotech crops inside
their city limits, while elected officials in nine counties have passed
resolutions supporting biotech.
Opponents of genetically modified agricultural crops, which were first
commercialized in 1996, say their long-term effects on the food supply,
public health and the environment haven't been adequately studied, and
frequently link them to an industrial-style agriculture system they say
produces food with harmful environmental practices. According to the
Washington-based Council for Biotechnology Information, biotech seeds
were planted last year on 200 million acres in 17 nations.
"Once it's out there you can't recall it," said Daniel Solnit,
campaign coordinator for GE-Free Sonoma County, the group that qualified
the ballot measure with 45,000 voter signatures this year. "This is not
like a defective product you take back. It's not like chemical
contamination. This is biological contamination that lasts forever."
Click To Read More >
|
|
|
|
6 Jul 2005 @ 03:03
Cargill's Latest Greenwashing: Natural Food in Plastic Containers Made from GE Corn
Web: Despite requests from consumers, Cargill is refusing to guarantee that its its biodegradable plastic is derived from non-genetically engineered corn. Maybe we need to pressure Wild Oats to put pressure on Cargill?
From Ag News You Can Use #72 (July 3, 2005)
Amigo Cantisano
PLASTICS FROM CORN
Agri-business giant Cargill, Inc. is quietly turning out 300,000 pounds of
plastic pellets a day made from corn, a technology that isn't exactly
new, but has come of age just as Mrs. Robinson's husband predicted in the
1960s. Containing carbon, the basic ingredient in plastics, corn and
just about any other farm crop can be converted into the raw stuff of
polyurethane and other plastics. In the past, the process was more
costly than using petroleum products. In the 1920s, Henry Ford
experimented with corn for car parts, but passed on the idea as too
costly and not modern enough. In the 1970s, corn cost $3 a bushel and
oil was about $3 a barrel; now corn is less than $3 and oil reached a
high of $60 last week.
When Wild Oats markets started buying a plastic container from Cargill
it paid 50% more than a comparable petroleum-based container. Recently,
Wild Oats said the containers were about 5% less than conventionally-made
ones. Even with the petroleum products needed to raise the corn, the
process still uses less oil-based products than conventional production.
That doesn't mean corn (soybeans, ag wastes and other farm products) will
replace petroleum in the future because only 7%-10% of our oil
consumption is used to make plastics. Still, it's nice to know that
Iowa can compete with Saudi Arabia?
|
|
| Monday, July 4, 2005 | |
|
|
|
4 Jul 2005 @ 19:02
Climate Change: Warnings of Imminent Disaster Fall on Deaf Ears
by Marcela Valente
BUENOS AIRES - If a select international group of architects and engineers
warned that a house already showing cracks and leaks was in danger of
collapse, the residents would logically adopt immediate measures to prevent
the imminent disaster.
But when it comes to the warnings made by scientists about the impact of
climate change on the planet, their alarming forecasts are largely
downplayed, and government commitments to reduce the risks are
half-heartedly fulfilled, as if some magic solution will eventually make the
problem go away.
The results of the preliminary meetings leading up to the United Nations
Climate Change Conference, to be held Nov. 28 to Dec. 9 in Montreal, reveal
that there is a serious lack of will to live up to these commitments.
In conjunction with the 11th session of the Conference of the Parties to
the U.N. Climate Change Convention, the Canadian city will also be hosting
the 1st Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, which entered into
force in February, despite the U.S. withdrawal from the treaty.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, the industrialized countries must achieve a 5.2
percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in comparison with 1990
levels, by a deadline of 2012. The Montreal meeting will begin to address
the issue of what the world's nations should do from 2012 onwards.
A report released this year by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment
Agency stresses the need for all countries, and not just the industrialized
nations, to assume some sort of commitment to curb emissions by the year
2020.
Otherwise, it will be impossible to meet the emissions reduction goals that
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change considers essential to
neutralize the adverse effects of global warming.
Before the Montreal conference, the leaders of the Group of Eight (G8) most
industrialized nations (Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Russia and the United States) will be meeting July 6-8 in Gleneagles,
Scotland, where they will address the issues of climate change and
development in Africa, among others.
The G8 countries are home to 13 percent of the world's population, but
generate 45 percent of the so-called greenhouse gases that provoke global
warming by trapping the sun's heat in the atmosphere.
One of the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions is the burning of
fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil. Other sources include cattle farming
(due to the large amounts of methane, a greenhouse gas, emitted by livestock
during the digestive process) and large-scale deforestation (when trees are
cleared through the slash and burn technique).
But as the G8 Summit draws near, there are signs that it will be difficult
to reach a consensus, even in the face of facts backed by solid scientific
evidence, such as the increase in global temperatures brought about by human
activity.
This gradual rise in temperature has resulted in more frequent and severe
flooding, droughts and hurricanes, the melting of glaciers, a rise in sea
level, an increased incidence of tropical diseases, and the loss of animal
and plant species.
The national science academies of the G8 countries, Brazil, China and India
signed a joint statement earlier this month stressing that there is ²strong
evidence that significant global warming is occurring² and that it has
²already led to changes in the Earth's climate.² As a result, they believe
it is ²vital² for the world's nations to take ²prompt action.²
But word has already leaked that the G8 representatives are reluctant to
include this diagnosis in the resolution to be signed by the heads of
government at the upcoming summit.
Roque Pedace from the Argentine branch of the international environmental
watchdog Friends of the Earth told IPS that the results of the international
seminar of government experts held May 16 and 17 in Bonn were ²extremely
poor.²
²This reflected the lack of will to move forward on the part of the United
States and also countries like Brazil, China and India, which have boycotted
the process,² he observed.
For Pedace, it is ²highly unlikely² that greater commitments will be
achieved in Montreal.
He also believes there is a serious danger that the process of committing
to emissions reductions will be abandoned, and that efforts to curb global
warming will focus on ²technological advances that might be developed in the
distant future.²
What is most urgently needed to reduce emissions, he stressed, is
²political will.²
The Climate Action Network (CAN), a coalition of 287 environmental groups
from around the world, stressed in a statement to the seminar of experts
meeting in Bonn that the climate change situation is ²urgent² and that a
²clear mandate for the negotiations coming out of Montreal² is essential.
²We cannot delude ourselves that we can engage the U.S. at this point, nor
can we wait for the U.S. to change its views before we start post-2012
discussions,² the statement underlined.
²Continuity between the first commitment period and the second commitment
period is crucial to ensure that emissions markets and other domestic
policies do not falter,² it added.
But for the moment, these cries of alarm are falling on deaf ears, as are
the calls for the creation of alternative forums for discussion.
Raúl Estrada, Argentina's ambassador at large for environmental
negotiations, was the driving force behind organizing a seminar of experts
that included the United States to study post-2012 prospects, but he admits
that the meeting did not live up to expectations, and is pessimistic about
the potential for success at the upcoming conference in Canada.
Estrada, who is the director of environmental affairs at the Argentine
Foreign Ministry and a key figure in international negotiations on climate
change, summed up the situation for IPS by noting, ²We have only a short
time, but a lot of ideas, before we get to Montreal.²
Estrada met earlier this month with a Canadian government delegation that
traveled to Buenos Aires with the goal of building bridges between the last
U.N. Climate Change Conference, held in the Argentine capital in December
2004, and the upcoming conference in Montreal.
The Canadian delegation included newly designated ambassador for Climate
Change Jacques Bilodeau and Norine Smith, assistant deputy minister for
Global Climate Affairs at Environment Canada. They were joined in Buenos
Aires by Jean Boutet, environmental issues advisor at the Canadian Embassy
in Argentina.
The delegation told Estrada that they are planning a consultative meeting
with representatives of 40 countries and will also travel to Saudi Arabia to
urge its government not to boycott the initiatives on the conference agenda.
But Estrada emphasized that if Canada, as host country of the conference,
does not select a key theme to be given priority in Montreal, the meeting
will lack any truly relevant content.
His own recommendation would be to actively promote discussion on the
commitments to be undertaken in the post-2012 period. Estrada believes that
the business community needs a legal framework to make investments in clean
technologies with long-term prospects.
The Montreal conference will also address the funds created under the Kyoto
Protocol to finance climate change adaptation programs in the developing
world, including one that specifically targets the least developed
countries.
At last year's conference in Buenos Aires, progress in this area was
obstructed when representatives of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC), headed up by Saudi Arabia, demanded compensation for the
impact on their economies that would purportedly result from decreased
consumption of fossil fuels.
Over the coming months, as the next conference approaches, the calls for
urgent action voiced by environmental activists and the scientific community
are bound to become even louder, and they hope that the world's leaders will
listen more attentively than they have until now. More >
|
|
| Sunday, July 3, 2005 | |
|
|
|
3 Jul 2005 @ 19:17
Long Day's Journey Into Night
An interview with Long Emergency author James Howard Kunstler The end of cheap oil will lead to the collapse of modern agriculture, crumbling infrastructure, radical economic contraction, and -- after an extended period of political upheaval and violence -- the rebirth of a local, agrarian way of life. So says James Howard Kunstler in his controversial new book, The Long Emergency. He sat down with Grist's Amanda Griscom Little for a chat, after which she went to Costco and bought 200 pounds of canned food and a rifle. new in Main Dish: Long Day's Journey Into Night An interview with Doomsaying author James Howard Kunstler By Amanda Griscom Little 25 May 2005
"Check all of your assumptions at the door," James Howard Kunstler advises reporters before he commences an interview. "Don't assume that anything you think about the way we live today is going to be the same 10, five, even three years from now."
The author of the new book The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the 21st Century, recently excerpted in Rolling Stone, Kunstler is an emphatic petro-pessimist who argues that civilization is about to enter a sustained period of economic, social, and environmental decrepitude triggered by the end of the cheap-oil era. He summarily rejects the possibility that renewable energy could forestall disaster, and predicts that spiking fossil-fuel prices will precipitate the collapse of the airline industry, the electricity grid, highway infrastructure, agribusiness, big-box retail stores, and suburbia itself. The majority of Americans, he says, will likely suffer bouts of violent upheaval and be forced to return to agrarian, small-town lifestyles. Understandably, his prognostications have raised some eyebrows.
A former journalist and sometime novelist, Kunstler in 1993 published The Geography of Nowhere, a much-praised jeremiad about the car-dependent suburbanization of America. Grist's Amanda Griscom Little sat down with him over lunch in New York City to get a first-hand account of his latest dark vision for the nation's future.
Tell us about the evolution of The Long Emergency. Where did these mind-boggling ideas originate?
The Long Emergency, by James Howard Kunstler, Atlantic Monthly Press, 307
pgs., 2005.
I really got into this when I was a newspaper reporter 30 years ago in Albany covering the OPEC oil embargo. I was living in the middle of it -- going through the gas lines and interviewing the people who were ticked off, motoring around a suburban metroplex where all the accessories of contemporary life were new. My office at the Hearst newspaper building was at the termination of a brand-new, heroic eight-lane boulevard of commerce with malls on either side and suburban sprawl in every direction. You couldn't fail to notice that this was a catastrophe -- a living arrangement that really had no future.
I've since been investigating suburban sprawl through works like The Geography of Nowhere. The Long Emergency is the logical sequel -- addressing the question of what will happen to this way of life when we get in trouble with energy.
Elaborate on how sprawl is inextricably connected to oil concerns.
Ever since the end of World War II, we've embarked on this project to build ourselves a drive-in utopia -- an economy based on suburban land development, eight-lane freeways lined with fry pits and hamburger shacks and a national big-box chain retail system. It has flourished because of two things: extraordinarily cheap energy and reliable supplies of it, and relative world peace. That has enabled big-box stores to develop 12,000-mile manufacturing and supply chains with the cheap labor overseas. Wal-Mart can move 4,000 TV sets from China to Wilkinsburg, Penn., and keep this tremendous stream of products going around the country with truckers who operate their warehouses on wheels. The system works only because it's cheap to transport stuff.
You also point out that the mainstream American diet is essentially predicated on "eating oil."
Yeah, industrial agriculture is another extremely problematical thing.
We've now consolidated all of our food production into a very small fraction of the population and our agribusinesses rely on pouring oil byproducts -- pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides -- on the soil. We've got this cheese-doodle and Pepsi-Cola form of agriculture where large companies like Archer Daniels Midland and ConAgra are producing huge amounts of corn and byproducts like corn syrup to create junk food. It's generally understood that most of the food we eat travels [about] 1,500 miles. So we've got all these 1,500-mile Caesar salads winging or wheeling around America to get to our dinner plates. That won't be able to continue when the cheap-oil era ends.
Click to READ More >
|
|
|
|
3 Jul 2005 @ 19:10
Climate Change: One in Six Countries Facing Food Shortage
One in six countries in the world face food shortages this year because of severe droughts that could become semi-permanent under climate change, UN scientists warned yesterday.
In a stark message for world leaders who meet in Gleneagles next week to discuss global warming, Wulf Killman, chairman of the UN food and agriculture organization's climate change group, said the droughts that have devastated crops across Africa, central America and south-east Asia in the past year are part of an emerging pattern.
"Africa is our greatest worry," he said. "Many countries are already in difficulties ... and we see a pattern emerging. Southern Africa is definitely becoming drier and everyone agrees that the climate there is changing. We would expect areas which are already prone to drought to become drier with climate change."
The food and agriculture organization and the US government, both of which monitor global food shortages, agree that 34 countries are now experiencing droughts and food shortages and others could join them. Up to 30 million people will need assistance because of the droughts and other natural disasters such as the Asian tsunami.
The worst affected countries include Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Eritrea and Zambia, a group of countries where at least 15 million people will go hungry without aid. The situation in Niger, Djibouti and Sudan is reported to be deteriorating rapidly. Many countries have had their worst harvests in more than 10 years and are experiencing their third or fourth severe drought in a few years, the UN said.
Climate change could also trigger the growth of deserts in southern Africa.
A report published in Nature today predicts that as greenhouse gases fuel global warming, the dunes of the Kalahari could begin to spread. By 2099, shifting sands could be blowing across huge tracts of Botswana, Angola, Zimbabwe and western Zambia. Much of the region was covered by shifting dunes more than 4,000 years ago.
"Dunes are composed of soft sand. If you sift away their protective vegetation cover, and there is enough energy in the wind, then that sediment has the potential to move, especially if it is dry," said David Thomas, of the University of Oxford.
"In western Zambia there are quite a lot of these ancient sand dunes. They were quite active 4,000 years ago, which isn't long in geological terms. There have been plenty of times when it has not been a great place to live." Severe droughts have also badly affected crops in Cuba, Cambodia, Australia, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Morocco, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. According to the UN's famine early warning system, 16 countries, including Peru, Ecuador and Lesotho, face "unfavorable prospects" with current crops. In Europe, one of the worst droughts on record has hit Spain and Portugal and halved some crop yields. Both countries have applied to the EU for food assistance. In Morocco the same regional drought has devastated farming and the government fears an influx of people into the cities.
Researchers are reporting a general drying of the land and growth of desertification in the Mediterranean region. "The 20-year average clearly shows a dramatic increase of desertification and drought," said a leading agricultural economist, Professor Giovanni Quaranta, of the University of Basilicata in southern Italy.
Henri Josserand, the UN's famine early warning system director, said: "In southern Africa especially, there is no question that drought has become much more frequent in the past few years. There has been a sequence of drought years for four or five years. What is unusual is the repeat patterns".
The situation in Malawi and Zimbabwe is giving particular cause for
concern.
In Malawi, where a government report suggests more more than 430,000 tonnes of maize will be needed to avert the second food shortage in three years, one in three people are expected to need help by the end of the year following poor rains. Thousands of people died in 2002-03 in what became known as a "hidden famine", which affected the poorest and remotest people. "It's going to get rapidly worse and we will have to move substantial amounts of food very fast," said one non-governmental group working in the worst-hit southern region of Malawi.
In Zimbabwe, where the effects of drought have been exacerbated by a deteriorating political situation, 4 million people may need help this year, the US government's famine early warning system showed.
"In all rural districts of Zimbabwe, crop production was poor and well below normal," said a report last week.
UN sources suggest that getting food to the country will not be difficult because neighboring South Africa had a surplus this year, but distribution in the politically volatile circumstances may be hard.
A report by Britain's leading development and environment groups this week backed the UN studies that suggest Africa will most feel the effects of drought and desertification under climate change, and will experience continued food shortages.
"Africa is more exposed to the impacts of climate change than many other regions in the world. Climate change is happening, and it is affecting livelihoods that depend on the natural environment, which, in Africa, means nearly everyone," said Andrew Simms, spokesman for the World Development Movement.
|
|
| Friday, July 1, 2005 | |
|
|
|
1 Jul 2005 @ 05:52
Organic News Briefs from the Organic Trade Association
Posted 6/30/05
News update for July 2005 of The O'Mama Report Organic demand continues to rise, increasing the need for more organic farmers.
* Organic food and beverage sales are growing faster than those of their natural counterparts, according to the Natural Marketing Institute's (NMI's) 2005 Health and Wellness Trends Report published in March. The report estimates sales of packaged organic foods and beverages grew by 18 percent during the past year, to reach $10.9 billion. Sales of natural foods and beverages were estimated to have grown 4 percent over the same period, to about $11.3 billion. The findings are based on data collected from over 2,000 U.S. households.
* The Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service has launched a "Help Wanted: Organic Farmers" campaign to raise awareness in the farm community of the need to expand organic production and increase the number of organic farmers to satisfy growing consumer demand for organically produced food.
* Demand for organic milk is outpacing supplies in some regions, according to media reports, noting that some stores have put up signs warning consumers that they have been unable to keep enough in stock. Large dairy cooperatives, such as Organic Valley, are actively working with dairy producers to help them convert to organic production to help meet demand. Research continues to find benefits of organic farming and products.
? Mary Chapman and Betty Ishida of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service in Albany, CA, discovered that organic ketchup contains higher levels of lycopene than conventional counterparts. The scientists tested lycopene levels and antioxidant activity in 13 different ketchup brands, and found the three organic varieties had higher lycopene levels.
* A study led by extension researcher Kathleen Delate and USDA soil scientist Cynthia Cambardella at Iowa State University has compared yields, pest status and soil quality during transition from conventional to organic production in Iowa. The results, published in the September-October 2004 edition of the Agronomy Journal (Vol. 96: 1,288-1,298), showed that in the first three years of transition, soybean yields between conventional and organic crops were not statistically different, while yellow dent corn yields were equivalent in organic and conventional plots. In the fourth year, organic corn yield and soybean yield in one treatment surpassed conventional yield. Their conclusion: "Organic grain crops can be successfully produced in the three years of transition to organic, and additional economic benefits can be derived from expanded crop rotations."
* Taste tests found organically and conventionally grown potatoes may be told apart by flavor but only if the potato skins are left on, according to research conducted at The Ohio State University. The results were published in the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture (April 15, 2005). ? Rats fed organic food were slimmer, slept better, and had stronger immune systems than those fed conventionally grown produce, according to a team of scientists from the Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences and Dr. Kirsten Brandt of Newcastle University's School of Agriculture. Findings were reported in the Feb. 18, 2005, issue of The Scotsman.
* At the international congress Organic Farming, Food Quality and Human Health, Professor Carlo Leifert of Newcastle University reported findings that organically produced food had higher level of specific antioxidants and lower mycotoxin levels than conventional samples, and that grass-based organic cattle diets reduce the risk of E. coli contamination while grain-based conventional diets increase the risk.
Organic products are receiving more attention in additional supermarkets, medical settings, and other venues.
* Dominick's has remodeled its grocery store in Northfield, IL, to a Lifestyle format that features an organic food section double the size of that in a traditional Dominick's store.
* Cub Foods has been certified as an organic retailer by Quality Assurance International. The certification applies to all 66 Cub West stores.
* Kroger was scheduled to begin publishing Optimum Wellness, a monthly magazine featuring stories on health, food recipes and lifestyle management, including a focus on organic, starting July 1, and distributing it in its Ralphs, Quality Food Centers, and King Soopers supermarket chains.
* United Supermarkets, which operates 47 stores in West and North Central Texas, is adopting a new labeling system for food products that flags items according to specific attributes. Green labels indicate certified organic.
* Dominican Hospital, Santa Cruz, CA, has taken steps to serve organic, sustainably grown, in-season food.
* Darlington Memorial Hospital in Darlington in the United Kingdom has begun serving organic milk to its patients.
* San Diego's Petco Park and St. Louis's Busch Stadium are testing sales of certified organic hot dogs and bratwurst this season. Delaware North Companies Sportservice handles these concessions.
* FreshDirect, a New York City Internet-based grocery company, has begun offering organic shrimp as well as organic beef among its products to consumers.
* Organic To Go, a retailer of organic and natural meals to go, has signed a lease for a 425-square-foot space in a building in downtown Seattle, WA. The company's first store opened in November in Issaquah, WA.
* Independent distributors of Snapple in New England have agreed to carry Steaz Green Tea Soda manufactured by Organic Trade Association member company Healthy Beverage Co. This means the drink will be available in such venues as gas stations and even a Subway sandwich stop in Montpelier, VT.
* Horst Rechelbacher has opened up The In, a combination organic restaurant, bar and retail shop, in Minneapolis, MN, to promote healthy living and environmental practices.
* Sustain in Chicago has developed a regional organic label to connect consumers with regional organic family farmers. The label includes a FamilyFarmed.org logo, the place of production, and the name of the farmer who grew the product.
Meanwhile, additional manufacturers are beginning to offer organic products.
* Campbell Soup Co., which entered the organic processed food market with organic tomato juice in September 2003, has since begun rolling out organic V-8 juice, two organic tomato pastes, two organic salsas, two organic versions under the Prego label, and organic Swanson chicken broth and beef broth. A company spokesman in May predicted that other large companies would begin introducing organic versions under familiar brand names.
* This is already becoming a trend. Unilever recently introduced a line of organic sauces under its Ragu brand.
* In addition, ConAgra Foods announced it will introduce Hunt's® organic tomato products and Orville Redenbacher's® organic microwave popcorn later this year.
* House of Bread Franchising has added organic bread to its line of baked goods.
Organic products continue to be a hot topic in schools, at universities, and even within churches.
* Washington State University is expanding organic production on its three-acre certified organic farm and is offering a six-credit summer course on organic farming and gardening.
* In Paris, France, cafeterias in half of the preschools have received subsidies to provide organic beef burgers, potatoes, spinach and carrots, while schoolchildren through age 14 in the Second District are offered a range of organic choices, according to an article in the March 10 issue of The New Zealand Herald.
* The Church of England in the United Kingdom is considering adopting environmentally friendly practices, including offering organic wine and bread during communion.
* The University of Hohenheim in Stuttgart, Germany, is the first university in Europe to offer a master's degree in Organic Food Chain Management.
Studies verify that organic products are on consumers' shopping list.
* A study by Mintel from 2002 to 2004 showed the number of people purchasing organic products rose to 41 percent, from 34 percent. The largest age-group jump occurred in the 18- to 24-bracket, growing from 28 percent to 47 percent. Use in the 55- to 64-year-old group grew from 24 percent to 37 percent.
* Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE) has launched a new campaign, entitled Sustainable Table, to help educate consumers on how to shop smarter, eat healthier, and enjoy the abundance of fresh, nutritious meat and produce (www.SustainableTable.org). This web site also links to the Eat Well Guide, an online directory of meat, poultry, dairy and eggs produced using sustainable practices including organic methods, and to the online advocacy film, The Meatrix.
* Chefs surveyed by the Center for Culinary Development predicted that organic, whole and natural foods such as fruit, vegetables and animal products would become more popular in mid-size towns due to consumers' growing interest in the origins of the food that they eat. In addition, the market for organic fast food and prepared foods is expected to grow, reported Marc Halperin in an article in the March 2005 issue of Food
Creation.
* Seventy-three percent of readers taking part in a recent Bon Appetit magazine poll cited organic food as a rising food trend.
|
|
| Wednesday, June 29, 2005 | |
|
|
|
29 Jun 2005 @ 00:50
Body Care Products: How Can You Tell If They're Really Organic?
Sunday, June 26, 2005
What's organic anyway?
There are no national guidelines to tell how natural a personal care product really is.
Story by LISA LIDDANE
The Orange County Register (California)
Lisa LaBarre has been filling up her shopping cart with organic food every week for more than two years. In the past six months, she has expanded the amount of organic products in her life, switching from regular skin-and body-care products to organic brands.
"I try to avoid chemicals, particularly those that are detrimental," said LaBarre, 33, a sales representative from Irvine, while browsing the body-care aisle at Whole Foods Market in Tustin. For LaBarre, going organic is all about maintaining health.
But not all organic products are created equal. Consumers such as LaBarre recently lost a tool to help determine which organic brands are what they claim and which aren't.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture in late April issued a directive prohibiting manufacturers of personal care products from using the agency's organic program seal and claiming the products are certified by the National Organic Program. The policy goes into effect Oct. 21.
Here, questions and answers about this directive and the impact on consumers.
Q. Why is this latest development significant?
A. It's important because organic personal care products are one of the fastest-growing categories in the organic industry. They're becoming more mainstream, making their way from natural foods stores to chain drugstores, supermarkets and warehouse retailers such as Sam's Club.
Sales of organic personal care products grew 19 percent from 2002 to 2003 and totaled $170 million, according to a survey by the Organic Trade Association.
Q. Who is buying these products?
A. Those with skin allergies, sensitive skin, chronic medical conditions and those who want an "organic lifestyle" one with less chemical exposure, organic-product retailers said.
Q. Why did the USDA issue this directive?
A. Because the agency does not have jurisdiction over cosmetics and body-care products, said Joan Shaffer, an FDA spokeswoman. "We don't have standards for personal care products."
The agency does not have guidelines on whether a personal care product can carry the kinds of labels used for organic food and drink.
Q. What does this mean for consumers?
A. It means there are no national guidelines governing what's organic and what's not for personal care products. It opens the door to fraudulent labeling or misbranding, said Craig Minowa, environmental scientist for the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), a nonprofit organization.
Q. Why are the USDA organic label and National Organic Program certification
important?
A. Because they give clarity for consumers and manufacturers, said Ronnie Cummins, national director for the OCA. The labels help consumers understand the subtle differences among products that claim to be organic. And they give organic food and drink manufacturers and distributors the ability to label their products according to specific categories.
Q. What were the labeling guidelines?
A. A product that contains organic ingredients can be labeled as follows:
100 percent organic: All ingredients are organic; can use the USDA organic
seal.
Organic: at least 95 percent of the ingredients are organic; can use the USDA organic seal.
Made with organic ingredients: 70 percent organic; cannot use the USDA organic seal or the word organic on the main label.
Q. How many personal care products actually complied with the highest category for organic labeling 100 percent organic and with the USDA label?
A. Only a handful, Cummins said. But those manufacturers have worked hard to meet the USDA's certification standards at a cost of thousands of dollars, he added. "They've had the rug pulled from under them," Cummins said.
Q. How have those manufacturers responded?
A. The OCA and manufacturer Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps/Sun Dog's Magic filed a complaint in federal court June 14 to stop the new USDA policy from taking effect.
Q. Does California regulate organic personal products?
A. Yes. California has the nation's only organic program overseeing personal care products. This means that organic shampoos, lotions, deodorants and other related products made or sold in California have to meet the state's standards. According to the California Organic Products Act of 2003, "cosmetic products sold, labeled, or represented as organic shall contain at least 70 percent organically produced ingredients."
But California's program is controversial and some say not tough enough on anufacturers, because it allows them to list hydrosols water used to extract essential oils as an organic ingredient. The OCA does not agree with this rule.
Q. What do studies show about the health benefits of organic personal care
products?
A. There are no studies comparing health benefits of organic personal care products with those of nonorganic products. The perception of health benefits is based on studies showing that organic foods contain fewer pesticides and chemicals than nonorganic foods. However, there are more studies showing potential harm or strong associations between certain synthetic or chemical ingredients in personal care products and diseases or
medical conditions.
Q. What are my options if I want to buy organic personal care products?
A. You have several:
Take your chances, and trust manufacturers' claims, knowing that some may not hold up under careful scrutiny.
Purchase only at natural foods stores where buyers specialize in selecting products that have met those stores' internal quality standards. You'll need to call these stores and ask them about their criteria.
Do your own research, then read the ingredient list, usually found on the back of each product.
Q. Where can I go to get more information before I buy?
A. Some organic-product advocates cite the Environmental Working Group's 2004 report called "Skin Deep" as a source of information on ingredients in personal care products: www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep/.
The EWG is a consumer watchdog group specializing in environmental investigations. Another site is www.safecosmetics.org, a campaign by the environmental and consumer groups.
Q. Where can I get more information?
A. Go to:
* Organic Consumers Association: www.organicconsumers.org/bodycare
* Organic Trade Association: www.ota.com
Guidelines for reading labels
* Read all the labels. If the front label contains the words organic, organics or 70 percent organic, turn over the product and read the ingredient list.
* Note the order of ingredients. Ingredients should be listed in order of amounts, from greatest to least. Are organic ingredients listed first, in the middle or last?
* If there are certification organizations listed on the label, check out the Web sites of the organizations to learn more about their organic certification process.
* Know which chemical or synthetic ingredients may have the potential for harm or exacerbating skin allergies.
Sources: Suzanne Murray, beauty and fashion editor, Organic Style magazine; Jordonna Vargas, body-care manager, Mother's Market, Costa Mesa; Maren Giuliano, whole body coordinator, Whole Foods Market's Southern Pacific stores; Craig Minowa, environmental scientist for the Organic Consumers Association. More >
|
|
| Monday, June 27, 2005 | |
|
|
|
27 Jun 2005 @ 22:19
The Solution to Famine in Africa is Organic Farming Not GMOs
Posted 6/27/05
From The Independent (UK)
Hungry for an alternative Tewolde Berhan believes that organic farming is the only real solution to famine in Africa.Sally J Hall meets the quiet but formidable Ethiopian who has become a thorn in the side of the GM foods lobby 27 June 2005 Organic farming is a slow-to-grow, low-yield industry favoured by middle-class parents who have the time and money to meander the overpriced aisles of Waitrose, deliberating over wild rocket or white asparagus. Right? Wrong, says Tewolde Berhan. He thinks organic farming could be the solution to Ethiopia's famines. The chief of the country's Environment Agency has worked his way through academia and government to become one of the world's most influential voices in the biotechnology field. Berhan believes that, properly applied, his approach could save the lives of many of the thousands of Africans who die every day as a result of hunger and poverty.
He maintains that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) remove control from local farmers. He speaks for a growing number who believe that Africa should return to natural, sustainable methods of agriculture better suited to its people and environment.
Can one man hope to stand against governments and the huge multinationals? Visiting London, Berhan appears to be a frail - if nattily dressed - sexagenarian. But our conversation reveals his determination, intelligence and encyclopedic memory, combining to create an indomitable force.
Asked why bad harvests seem to have a greater impact on Ethiopia than its neighbours, he has a simple yet stark response. "It's largely because of the lack of infrastructure," he says. "The road system in Ethiopia has doubled in the past 10 years, but is still very poor.
"Ethiopia is still an agrarian society, and there isn't one such country that hasn't had famines," he adds. "The reasons are clear: some years you have plenty and others not enough. If you don't have the technological and financial capacity and the infrastructure to store in good years, you can't make provision for the bad. People here depend entirely on the crops they produce in their fields, so when one season fails, the result is famine." Born in 1940, Berhan graduated in 1963 from Addis Ababa University and took a doctorate at the University of Wales in 1969. Later posts as dean of science at Addis Ababa, keeper of the National Herbarium and director of the Ethiopian Conservation Strategy Secretariat kept him in touch with the agricultural needs of Ethiopia's people.
In 1995, he was made director general of the Environmental Protection Authority of Ethiopia, in effect becoming the country's chief scientist in agriculture. A strong critic of GMOs, he's a powerful voice in lobbying on food safety. His most notable triumph came in negotiations on biosafety in Cartagena, Colombia in 1999. Berhan acted as chief negotiator for a group of southern hemisphere countries. He helped to secure an agreement to protect biosafety and biodiversity, while maintaining respect for the traditional rights of the Third World population, gained against strong opposition from the European Union and North America.
So why is organic farming the answer? Given low yields, poor soil and drought, you'd think that industrial farming would help Ethiopia to maximise production. Not so, Berhan says. "Organic farming deviates little from the natural environment in supplying nutrients to crops. We've developed the ability to change things in a big way and, without considering the consequences, we create disasters. Look at what happened with DDT.
"Organic farming disturbs nature as little as possible and reduces those risks. Intensive farming has led to the exacerbation of pests and diseases, and loss of flavour in food."
These views are at odds with the "conventional" industry. Tony Combes, the director of corporate affairs for Monsanto UK, a big player in the GM market, says: "Going organic isn't the way to increase yields. But then, neither is going totally GM. Farmers need solutions suitable for local predicaments. This means choosing from a range of options - organic, conventional and GM. If yields can be increased, that surplus can be sold." Berhan is undeterred. He has persuaded the Ethiopian government to let him demonstrate his ideas in the Axum area of Ethiopia. Old field-management techniques have been resurrected, while methods new to the area, like compost-making, have been successful.
Those who think organic farming means low yields will be surprised by Berhan's evidence. "When well managed, and as fertility builds over years, organic agriculture isn't inferior in yield. Now, farmers don't want chemical fertilisers. They say, 'Why should we pay for something we can get for free?'" Berhan expresses gratitude for the West's famine-relief efforts, but he has reservations. "When countries want to help, they may not know how, so the intention has to be appreciated. But if you go beyond the intention and begin to dictate terms, it becomes more sinister. In times of shortage, making food aid available is helpful - for that year. If you keep making it available, you discourage production."
He believes there are times when food aid can be more about control by Western governments than assistance. "The feeling is strong that this is deliberate. I attended a meeting where farmers from the USA were present. I told them a story I'd read about how rice production in Liberia was depressed because of cheap imports from the USA. The American farmers said this was a deliberate policy by the US State Department to make countries dependent on them for food.
"I began to investigate and discovered that, while the EU has abandoned its policy of providing food aid, initially sending money so that food can be bought locally, the US still insists it will only give food in kind. This makes me feel those farmers were right."
Berhan insists on the necessity of further trials for GM crops, and believes extreme caution should be used in their growth and trade. His application for a visa to attend talks in Canada on GM labelling was turned down earlier this year, suggesting that his influence is feared. "We were finalising the labelling of grain commodities," he says. "A compromise had been reached in 2000 for labelling to say, 'This product may contain GMOs,' but we wanted to toughen it up, to say, 'This product contains these GMOs,' and to list them."
He also contests that GMOs give higher yield. "This is mainly hype. So far, there's not one GM crop that produces higher yields per acre than conventional crops. They offer an economical advantage to farmers as they can apply herbicide in large doses and not have to worry about weeds: that's all."
After protests from the media and groups such as Greenpeace, the visa was granted. Dr Eric Darier, GM campaigner for Greenpeace Canada, explained why it was so important that Berhan attended. "He is truly one of the key 'fathers' of the biosafety protocol," Darier says. "It was convenient for the Canadian government [to refuse the visa], as it prevented a major critic and opponent of pro-GM Canadian policy from attending two of the three days of the workshop on liability. Canada has failed to ratify the biosafety protocol. In view of the fact that the Canadian government has done everything to undermine the efforts of the international community to adopt a strict, effective biosafety protocol, the delays in issuing the visa are evidence of Canada's bad faith."
Is Berhan bitter? Far from it. "I think [the visa refusal] was based on a mistaken calculation. If anything, it gave the labelling issue higher
visibility. We told the Canadian government: either you accept multilateral discussions, or the Office for the Commission of Biological Diversity [based in Montreal], must move to another country." The threat worked.
Berhan's message is compelling - and he is in demand worldwide. In the past month alone, he has travelled to Austria, the UK, Tunisia and Norway. He returns to the UK in July to give a talk for the Soil Association, where he will ask: "Can Organic Farming Feed the World?" He is a huge force in trying to prove that it can. More >
|
|
|
|
27 Jun 2005 @ 22:18
New Safety Alert as Cancer Dye is Found in Salmon
The Sunday Times - Britain
June 05, 2005
A BANNED dye linked to cancer has been found in organic salmon sold at a leading supermarket chain.
A food safety alert has been issued to all European countries over organically farmed salmon that contained malachite green. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) said last week the presence of the banned chemical at any levels in fresh fish was “unacceptable”.
The alert over the contaminated salmon at Morrisons supermarket comes after the FSA earlier this year issued a warning over Sudan 1, a banned red dye discovered in many foods including sausages, cottage pie and pasta bakes.
Malachite green, which acts as a fungicide as well as a dye, was banned from use in British fish farms two years ago because it was suspected of causing cancer.
Morrisons said it did not believe banned substances were used in its organically farmed fish and the salmon may have been accidentally contaminated from dyed paper towels containing the toxic chemical.
A sample of organic fish was tested last November by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, which checks the safety of the food supply chain.
It found a level of 2.5 microgrammes per kilogramme, the first time malachite green has been found in organic salmon since 2000.
The FSA was informed but said any affected products would have been eaten by the time it was aware of the problem. A spokesman said that although the likelihood of any risk to human health was low, the chemical should not be found in any foods.
“We received the full supply chain details from the supplier of the affected salmon on April 27,” he said, “and after investigations into the precise method of sampling the [alert notification] was issued by the European commission on May 24.” The Irish authorities were told last week that the supplier of the salmon was Clare Island Sea Farm, operated by Marine Harvest, one of the world’s leading fish farming companies. The ban on malachite green also applies to Ireland, where a government spokesman said an investigation had been launched. The company denies any wrongdoing. Salmon farming has had a troubled recent history. A study published last year said chemical contaminants in farmed salmon were at unacceptably high levels and might increase the risk of cancer.
The study was criticised by supporters of the salmon farming industry as “utterly reprehensible and flawed”.
Malachite green was previously used as a fish fungicide and was declared illegal in fish production in Britain in 2002.
Morrisons said it was satisfied that the supplier was not to blame for the “minute” amounts of contamination. It said paper towels thought to be responsible have been withdrawn from use.
Pat Connor, a processing manager for Clare Island Sea Farm, said he was “100% confident” its salmon was clear of malachite green. He said tests were conducted on the fish prior to leaving the farm to verify no chemicals had been used in their production.
|
|
|
|
27 Jun 2005 @ 16:15
This has severe implications to the sustainability of the bioregions growing GMO cotton.
Half of the World's Cotton May Be Genetically Engineered in Two Years
Posted 6/27/05
Web Note: Monoculture GE cotton still uses tons of pesticides, chemical fertilizer, and produces superpests and superweeds that are resistant to pesticides and herbicides--damaging the environment and public health. Organic cotton production is superior to GE cotton in all regards.
______________________________________________________________________
BharatTextile.com Mumbai,India
GLOBAL: Half the world's cotton grown from genetically modified crops
NEW YORK: More than half the world's cotton may be grown from genetically modified crops within two years as farmers in India and Brazil embrace the technology that promises to raise incomes and boost output.
Increased usage of Monsanto Co.'s Bollgard II and other gene- altered varieties may propel the proportion of cotton grown from biotech crops to more than 50 percent by 2006-07 from about 35 percent now.
Scientists have developed cotton varieties that repel grubs and other pests, requiring less pesticide. A smaller chemical bill can lower farmers' costs of production, boosting their incomes. Rising sales of the biotechnology in countries such as Brazil may bolster supplies amid a global glut of the fiber.
The expansion of GM production, particularly in regions which already operate under a fairly low-cost production system, will have long-term implications upon the marginal cost of production and, subsequently, prices. Prices on the New York Board of Trade, the world's biggest cotton futures market, slumped 40 percent last year after larger crops in the U.S. and China swelled global supplies. Global output may exceed consumption by 2.5 million tons in the year ending July 31, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
India, the world's third-largest cotton-grower, planted 550,000 hectares (1.36 million acres) of biotech crops last year, up 460 percent from a year earlier.
Some estimates indicate that this area may officially double in 2005-06 to 1 million hectares and, coupled with a higher proportion of better performing seeds, there is talk of India surpassing U.S. production in the near future to become the second-largest cotton producer globally behind China.
St. Louis-based Monsanto, the world's biggest developer of genetically modified crops, said that it expects to sell enough biotech cotton in India to plant 2.5 million acres, double last year's sales.
Monsanto's Bollgard seeds contain a protein from a soil microbe called Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, that protects the crop from bollworms. "Bollgard II technology offers cotton growers efficient, effective pest control with fewer pesticide applications than in conventional cotton crops,' Monsanto said on its Web site.
The annual sales of companies providing biotechnology to farmers increased 15 percent to $4.7 billion last year, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications has said.
In the U.S., 54 percent of cotton crops were planted with gene-altered seeds. The proportion rises to 76 percent in China and 80 percent in Australia.
Brazil, the world's fifth-largest cotton-grower, will probably become the largest growth market for biotech cotton after the government officially approved the release of genetically modified varieties in March, Rabobank said.
The uptake is likely to be quick,' the bank said. The inherent cost savings will encourage the use of GM seed' and strengthen the South American country's cotton exports.
There is probably only enough of Monsanto's so-called Bollgard I, or BT1, seed to grow biotech crops across less than 10 percent of Brazil's cotton crop in the year starting July 1, said Haroldo Cunha, president of the Goias Cotton Growers Association. Goias is Brazil's third-largest cotton producing state.
The planting season that starts in November. Chinese have to have the seeds adapted to their conditions. Now that BT1 is approved, the approvals for the other varieties will come faster.' The proportion of Brazil's cotton planted with BT1 and other gene-modified varieties may climb to 20 the following year. The seeds reduce farmers' expenditure on pesticides, allowing them reduce production costs by as much as 20 percent.
The cost of producing a pound of cotton in Brazil has risen to 50 U.S. cents from 43 U.S. cents two years ago, partly as higher energy prices drove up the cost of ammonia and other fertilizers.
|
|
|
|
27 Jun 2005 @ 16:11
It's good diligence that the man mentioned in the first paragraph drives so far to go to Whole Foods (not that I'm that supportive of Whole Foods tactics in the organic marketplace) for organic food, but I'm wondering if his quest to be healthy wouldn't be better served by eating less packaged food, buying fresh food from local Farmers Markets and not using petroleum to drive 25 miles to the store.
Supermarket Chains Join the "Organic Revolution
By Susan Salisbury Palm Beach Post Staff Writer (Palm Beach, Florida)
Sunday, June 26, 2005
BOCA RATON < Melvin Markels doesn't want to consume anything that's bad for him. He shuns foods and beverages containing pesticides, chemicals or hormones.
That's why the retired postal worker drives 25 miles from West Palm Beach to Whole Foods Market in Boca Raton every few weeks to load up a shopping cart with organic food such as tomatoes and soy lattes, free-range chickens raised without antibiotics and even natural toothpaste.
"My wife thinks I'm crazy. It's more money, but it's better for you, and it tastes better, too," the 64-year-old Markels said during a recent visit to the Whole Foods store, the only outlet the Austin, Texas-based chain has in Palm Beach County or on the Treasure Coast.
Better for you, and it tastes better: That, in an unprocessed nutshell, is what's driving the quest for organic food and beverages right into the heart of the American mainstream.
The Organic Trade Association in Greenfield, Mass., projects sales of organic foods and beverages in the United States will reach $15 billion this year, up from about $1 billion in 1990. Organic sales have increased about 20 percent a year since 1997, compared with the 2 percent to 4 percent growth rate of total U.S. food sales.
"Organic foods started with the hippies of the '60s. Now it is more broad-based. You can find the products in almost any conventional supermarket," said Barbara Haumann, spokeswoman for the organic trade group. For most consumers, buying organic foods < those produced without the use of synthetic chemicals, antibiotics and hormones < is all about health, said Marty Mesh, executive director of Florida Certified Organic Growers & Consumers Inc. in Gainesville. In earlier decades, people bought organic food out of concerns about the environmental impact of conventional farming, Mesh said.
"They're asking, 'What's in it for me?' as opposed to 'What's in it for the earth?' " Mesh said. "People are concerned about their health and their family's health, and they're shopping their values."
Chains join bandwagon U.S. Department of Agriculture standards for organic food, implemented in October 2002, helped level the playing field for consumers, forcing companies to abide by a uniform set of regulations in order to put the "organic" label on their products, Haumann said.
As trendy as organics are, the products account for only 2 percent of U.S. food sales. That's hardly a critical mass, but still substantial in a country of 300 million, said Bob Messenger, publisher of The Morning Cup, a daily online newsletter focused on the food industry.
"You would not see the big supermarkets making these changes in their stores if it weren't of genuine interest to consumers," Messenger said.
Florida's dominant grocery chain, Publix Super Markets of Lakeland, introduced organic foods several years ago and keeps adding products to its GreenWise line of dairy, produce and packaged foods. Some organic products, such as certain juices and soups, are also found on shelves next to their conventional counterparts. A year ago Publix began offering its own GreenWise brand of canned vegetables such as corn and black beans, at 99 cents a can, said spokeswoman Anne Hendricks.
"We listened to our customers," Hendricks said. "When they tell us they want certain things, we respond."
Next year, Publix will debut its first stand-alone GreenWise stores. The first two stores are slated to be in Palm Beach County: One in Boca Raton, where an existing Publix at the Village Square shopping center off St. Andrews Boulevard will be converted, and the other is planned for Legacy Place off PGA Boulevard in Palm Beach Gardens.
When Publix gets to PGA Boulevard, it will find a familiar competitor. Whole Foods is opening its second area market there later this year in the new Downtown at the Gardens retail development.
The world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. of Bentonville, Ark., also has seen the appeal of organic food. Earlier this month, Wal-Mart's chief executive officer, Lee Scott, said the discounter needs to push premium perishables such as organic food to attract higher-spending shoppers.
Wal-Mart already carries organics, said spokeswoman Karen Burk. Selections at various Wal-Mart Supercenters may include organic dairy products, dry groceries, organic packaged salad and fresh produce, she said.
"It's all about providing our customers what they're wanting, and we're finding that many of them are looking for an organic alternative," Burk said.
Taste, variety trump price Everyone shopping at Whole Foods isn't there for health reasons, or even to buy organic. The store carries products that are natural, but not organic, such as conventional produce, orange juice, pudding and other items.
Take Boca Raton software salesman Richard Merrill, whose opinion of organic foods is blunt: "It's a hoax."
Nonetheless, Merrill stops in a Whole Foods in-store cafe about four times a week, lunching on a bounty of organic and natural foods at the hot buffet, and the salad bar at $6.99 a pound.
"I come here because it's convenient, it's quick and you don't have to wait. I like the variety. I've never had any of this before," Merrill said, taking bites of spinach lasagna and a couple of side dishes.
Kathleen Byrd, a student at Florida Atlantic University across Glades Road from Whole Foods, shops at the market especially for foods without wheat or dairy, but says there's a bonus to her health concerns.
"You find things you can't find anywhere else, then you find out they're really good," Byrd said during a trip to the grocery last week.
Expensive, too. Prices for organic foods at supermarkets and specialty stores can be anywhere from 20 percent to 30 percent higher to as much as double the price for comparable items. Organic products generally cost more to produce, and farmers receive premium prices for them.
According to an August 2004 survey of 1,000 Americans conducted for Whole Foods, price remains the primary barrier for most people to try organic products.
Despite that, organic foods continue to grow in popularity. The same survey, conducted by the Chicago-based research firm Synovate, found that 27 percent of Americans were eating more organic products than in 2003. More than half of Americans have tried organic foods and beverages.
That sales potential is recognized by major food manufacturers, who began acquiring organic and natural foods companies in the last five or six years, said Haumann, the spokeswoman for the Organic Trade Association.
A partial list: Kraft Foods now owns soy-based meat alternative producer
Boca Burger Inc. Kellogg's owns Kashi Cereal, Morningstar Farms and Sunrise Organic, while Coca-Cola North America bought juice company Odwalla Inc. in
2001. General Mills owns Small Planet Foods and its Cascadian Farm organic brand.
Just last year Dean Foods Co. acquired Horizon Organic, the nation's largest producer of organic dairy products. While long-time organic industry supporters view the sector's mainstreaming as positive, encouraging more farmers to grow organically, they worry about big business' involvement.
They don't want the organic movement's environmentalist roots to be forgotten.
"We like to see the availability of organic products for more people, yet we also want fair prices paid to organic farmers," Haumann said. "The trouble with our society is that a lot of people don't factor in the true cost of food. You are not paying upfront for costs such as water and farmworkers." Consumers such as Krista Blaszyk, a Coral Springs resident and land surveyor who stopped for a salad of organic greens at Whole Foods last week, like having more choices.
"It's encouraging that stores are carrying these foods. People are gravitating toward it," Blaszyk said. "It has to do with where people are in their lives."
|
|
| Friday, June 24, 2005 | |
|
|
|
24 Jun 2005 @ 17:44
The Rich Nations (G8) Summit: Making Poverty Inevitable
LOTS MORE ABOUT THIS HERE
In the build up to the G8 summit, where the world's most powerful leaders will gather to decide the global agenda, much of the talk has been about how this event will be an opportunity to promote development in Africa and so alleviate poverty and hunger.
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is anxious to demonstrate his compassionate leadership, and along with a massive public "Make Poverty History" campaign by development agencies such as Oxfam, is calling for debt relief and more aid to Africa. Blair's apparent proof of his sincerity was the setting up of a "Commission for Africa", who held 4 consultations in Africa with civil society, and have written a report which will be presented to the G8 summit at Gleneagles in Scotland, which will be held from the 5th-8th July. The Commission's report was ostensibly to advise policy for pulling Africa out of poverty.
Building up the public momentum for support for the "Make Poverty History" campaign have been two highly prominent rock stars, Bob Geldof (who created the massive "Live Aid" concerts to raise money for famine-struck Ethiopia 20 years ago) and Bono of the band U2. The two of them have been using every opportunity to emphasize the importance of the campaign, and how Africa urgently needs public pressure on the world leaders to make commitments for aid, debt relief, and an end to unfair trade practices. They have succeeded in getting a great deal of UK public support for the campaign, and are organizing a series of high-profile concerts. They have managed to make caring about Africa cool.
But while this all sounds very positive on the surface, the campaign is in fact based on an over-simplistic and deceptively convenient understanding of the problems facing the continent. In fact the reality is that the "Make Poverty History" campaign plays right into the agenda of the G8 leaders' plans to further exploit Africa all they can. The model of "Development" promoted by Blair, the African Commission and Oxfam, can only see a focus on export-led agriculture as a solution to Africa's problems. This completely ignores the repeated assertions of many development NGOs that Africa's priorities for dealing with hunger should focus on growing food for her citizens, and not growing export products that they cannot eat and that get ever-decreasing prices as they compete on the world market.
Furthermore, it seems that any concessions that the G8 countries are willing to make on debt relief or aid come at an unacceptably high cost. The conditionalities set by the recent and widely celebrated agreement for debt relief, force countries to open up to privatization by Western companies.
Aid conditionalities are likely to be the same. Calls for "Development" in Africa are likely to be seized upon as more opportunities for the West to dictate policies that allow them to exploit all they can from the continent, both in terms of resources and agriculture, and through privatizing services that will generate millions for multinational corporations.
This is not a model of development that will feed Africans. Nor will it end poverty, protect the environment, provide affordable and necessary services or increase sovereignty, democracy and grassroots people power. Blair¹s commitment to "Making Poverty History" is shallow and deceptive, for instead it will only serve to make poverty inevitable.
|
|
|
|
24 Jun 2005 @ 02:43
DID YOU KNOW...
_Globally, cotton production uses 25 percent of the agricultural chemicals and 3 percent of the cropland.
_Demand for cotton grown without chemicals has grown 300 percent since 2002. _Celebrities have boosted the profile of organic and fair-trade apparel. Bono and his wife, Ali Hewson, launched a fair-trade organic sportswear line earlier this year.
Retailers who offer merchandise to ethically motivated consumers are a very small part of the commerce picture. The Internet has become both an alternative marketplace and shopping guide for much of the merchandise.
Here is a small sample of the many Web sites that offer such clothing and accessories. Some can also be found in retail stores.
_No Sweatshop (www.nosweatshop.com); Offers sportswear made in union shops. Adam Neiman, president, says the idea was conceived by friends and family around the kitchen table in 2000. It launched in late 2002. A new sneaker in 2004 helped put the brand on the map.
_Global Girlfriend (www.globalgirlfriend.com); Sold only on the Internet. Colorado-based founder Stacey Edger started the company two years ago on a $2,000 tax rebate. Offers a marketplace for women artisans in cooperatives and nonprofit groups in low-income areas such as India and Africa. Has a wide range, from handmade jewelry to soap to handbags. She calls it a "women's rights" business.
_People Tree (www.peopletree.com); The London-based company works with 70 producer groups in 20 countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America to offer organic cotton and hand-woven fabrics. The selection includes striking prints and colorful, trendy items. The line is said to be favored by actresses Minnie Driver and Sienna Miller.
_Indigenous Designs (www.indigenousdesigns.com); The 11-year-old California-based company works with knitting cooperatives and other artisans in many communities around the globe. Offers assistance in quality control and planning management to market ecologically friendly fair trade apparel on the Web and in retail stores. More >
|
|
|
|
24 Jun 2005 @ 02:39
Genetically Engineered Trees Pose Risks to Natural Forests
Transgenic Trees Pose Risks for Natural Foresters, Orchardists PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, June 21, 2005
(ENS) - Participants at BioDemocracy 2005, the alternative conference to the Biotechnology Industry Organization's yearly gathering, are demanding a ban on the release of genetically engineered (GE) trees into the environment.
"Genetically engineered trees are already being researched in the field, and industry is moving rapidly toward commercialization without regard for the predictable and inevitable impacts they will have on ecosystems and communities," four conservation groups said in a statement today.
The Sierra Club, the Global Justice Ecology Project, Southern Forests
Network and STOP GE Trees Campaign say there has been little risk assessment on the impacts of gene drift from genetically modified trees, and they charge that regulatory agencies are acting as facilitators for industry rather than champions of the public interest.
"Gene drift has caused widespread contamination of non-GE seeds in farm crops less than a decade after commercialization," said Alyx Perry, coordinator of the Southern Forests Network. "GE trees will much more quickly contaminate forests with traits that could make them incapable of producing sawtimber and unable to support wildlife," said Perry.
Test plots of genetically engineered in the Southeast threaten to contaminate the forests of Pennsylvania and the entire east coast of the United States and Canada, the groups warn.
"Transgenic forestry focuses on native trees species that have pollen and seeds historically known to travel for hundreds if not thousands of miles," they said today.
Legal concerns are being raised about the potential escape of genetically modified tree pollen or seeds into native trees. The conservationists cite the Canadian case of canola farmer Percy Schmeiser who was successfully sued by Monsanto for patent violations when his crops were contaminated by Monsanto's transgenic canola. Schmeiser lost his canola crop and had to pay $160,000 in legal fees.
"This opens the very serious question about who will own trees on public or private lands that become contaminated by GE tree pollen, and what will be the legal and financial ramifications for the owners of that land," the groups said.
Proponents of transgenic trees say they offer potential solutions to forestry problems. In a 2004 study, Roger Sedjo of Resources for the Future, says, "Transgenic trees could increase the productivity of industrial wood, and benefit the environment by taking the pressure off of old-growth and natural forests."
Sedjo says other benefits include restoration of certain diseased or damaged tree species, as well as toxic cleanup and bioremediation, by creating trees to remove heavy metals and other toxics from contaminated soils in places where other forms of cleanup are too expensive.
"Just as in agriculture, biotechnology and transgenics are controversial topics in forestry," Sedjo acknowledges.
There are many aspects to the controversy, as today's comments of the conservation groups indicate.
"In addition to GE trees threatening Pennsylvania's native forests, GE apple trees, being researched in nearby Cornell University, threaten the millions of conventional and organic apple trees in production in Pennsylvania," said Dr. Neil Carman of the Sierra Club.
"GE contamination could lead to economic disaster for Pennsylvania's apple growers in much the same way that GE papaya in Hawaii has wiped out many conventional and organic papaya farmers there. The only solution is to ban the release of GE trees into the environment," Carman said.
"While the genetic engineering PR spin doctors are cranking out propaganda about how GE trees will solve our problems, the fact is GE trees will cause massive new problems, some of which we can't possibly foresee," said Orin Langelle, coordinator of the STOP GE Trees Campaign, an alliance of 13 organizations from the U.S. and Canada committed to banning transgenic trees.
|
|
<< Newer entries Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Older entries >> |
|
Sounding Circle - Category: Permaculture
