Peter's Permaculture Scrapbook

Month

June 2011

27 posts

Blame Drug Resistance in Humans on Cheap Chicken (Intensive Chicken Farming)
By Maryn McKenna, wired.com | Published June 29, 2011 10:57 AM

There’s a new paper out in the CDC’s journal Emerging Infectious Diseases that makes a provocative claim: There is enough similarity between drug-resistance genes in  E. coli carried by chickens and  E. coli infecting humans that the chickens may be the source of it.

If it is correct—and it seems plausible and is backed by past research—the claim provides another piece of evidence that antibiotic use in agriculture has a direct effect on human health.

Here are the details:

The paper is a collaboration by researchers from several hospitals in the Netherlands, plus the Netherlands’ National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection, the University of Birmingham and a section of the UK’s National Health Service. They isolated E. coli from patients in four Dutch hospitals over 2.5 months in 2009, and compared those with E. coli strains isolated from randomly chosen supermarket meat that was bought in the hospitals’ local areas during the same time period. They compared both those sets of isolates against a third set, of E. coli from blood cultures taken from patients in the hospitals during the same months.

In each set of samples, they were looking at the E. coli to see whether they harbored genes for the type of resistance known as ESBL, for “extended-spectrum beta-lactamase,” an enzyme that denatures a category of drugs used for serious infections that occur mostly in hospitals. When the extended-spectrum beta-lactams no longer work, only a few last-resort drugs are left. (Back in the 1980s, the most common genes for ESBL wereblaTEM or blaSHV, but in the past 10 or so years there has been a rapid global increase in the occurrence of a different ESBL gene, blaCTX-M.)

Here’s what they found:

  • Out of 876 patients tested by rectal swab—because E. coli is a gut bacterium, carried in and spread by feces—45 (5 percent) harbored ESBL genes.
  • Out of 31 blood cultures in the hospitals’ labs, 23 (74 percent) contained ESBL genes.
  • Out of 262 meat samples, 79 (30 percent) harbored an ESBL gene. Broken down by type of meat, there was ESBL in 80 percent of the chicken samples, 5 percent of the beef, 2 percent of the pork, and 9 percent of ground or otherwise mixed meat.

When they broke down the organisms by type, they looked like this. Note the amount in each pie chart that is given over to the ESBL genes blaCTX-M, and the significant correspondence of blaCTX-M-1 in red.

When they put the genes through a second level of genetic analysis, multi-locus sequence typing, 57 percent of the rectal specimens and 57 percent of the blood cultures were closely related to the strains in the chicken meat.

There’s an important backdrop to this research. The Netherlands has one of the lowest rates of human antibiotic resistance in the world, thanks to especially stringent infection control and drug-conservation policies. Paradoxically, it has the highest rate of antibiotic use in agriculture in Europe. As a result, when something starts to move into humans, it is easier to distinguish, because there is no “background noise” of high rates of hospital and community drug resistance such as there are in the US. And because there are no competing resistance factors from other sources, it is easier to identify and explain.

Thus, the researchers can comfortably say:

We conclude that the high rate of ESBL contamination of retail chicken meat in the Netherlands, which involves many of the same ESBL genes present in colonized and infected humans, is a plausible source of the recent increase of ESBL genes in the Netherlands. The similarity of E. coli strains and predominant drug resistance genes in meat and humans provides circumstantial evidence for an animal reservoir for a substantial part of ESBL genes found in humans.

If something about this research sounds familiar, it’s because a similar study was published a few months ago, also from the Netherlands, with a partially overlapping analysis: chicken meat and blood-culture records, but no swabs from simultaneous patients. That study too found a high degree of correlation between ESBL-containing organisms in humans and in chickens.

These findings won’t come as a surprise to anyone who accepts—as most good science and a number of public health authorities do—that antibiotic overuse in large-scale farming creates drug-resistant organisms that affect human health. The question, for those who don’t accept such a link, is: how much evidence is enough?

(Footnote: In addition to being published in EID, this study was also presented by Dr. Jan Kluytmans, the senior author, during the World HAI Forum taking place this week in France. I’ll have more on the HAI Forum in a future post.)

Cite: Overdevest I et al. Extended-spectrum β-lactamase genes of Escherichia coli in chicken meat and humans, the Netherlands. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011 Jul. http://www.cdc.gov/EID/content/17/7/1216.htm

Jun 29, 20115 notes
British waste money on GM potatoes that are failing and the Professor that fails to disclose his Monsanto connections

1.The spuds don’t work. GM potato trial, Norwich
2.Jones backs down over Monsanto connection

NOTE: Item 2 is about the Monsanto connection of the head of the Sainsbury Laboratory who oversees the GM potato trial.
—-
—-
1.The spuds don’t work. GM potato trial, Norwich, 23 July
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/06/480991.html

*Norwich, noon, 23rd July 2011*

British trials of genetically modified blight resistant spuds have been failing for the last ten years. But a conventionally bred variety of blight resistant potatoes has been available for 3 years. So why are we still paying for their dangerous experiment?

Come ride with us on the back of a trailor load of safe effective spuds as we go to deliver them to the Sainsbury Laboratory outside Norwich. It’s one of only two possible open air trials for GM crops in Britain this year. Yet despite being publicly funded, it’s so secretive no one will even say if it’s been planted. Join us for tunes, chips and good cheer as we go and show them that we have already got the answers they say they’re looking for.

Meet outside the Forum in Norwich town centre at noon for free blight-resistant chips, followed by a bike ride (or coach trip, contact info [AT] stopgm.org.uk to book) to the research centre where we’re asking Sainsbury Lab reps to join us for blind spud-tasting and debate.

*********************************************************************

*A tale of two spuds…*

For the last 10 years, researchers at the Sainsbury laboratory at the John Innes Centre in Norwich have spent 1.7 million pounds of public money failing to develop a genetically modified potato resistant to the fungal disease blight. This project is so secretive and unaccountable that the laboratory has refused to even confirm if a trial has been planted this season, or if they’ve been forced to abandon any hopes of making the technology work. 

Public rejection of the risks associated with eating genetically modified food means that even if the engineering involved was successful, there would be no market for the crop. Meanwhile, 3 years ago a small Welsh research charity dedicated to conventional breeding techniques developed a spud that is spectacularly resistant to blight. Not only does the crop pose no threat to health, the environment, or neighbouring farmers; it works. Over 6 different varieties are now available, and being grown on a commercial scale.

*Delivering the answer to GM crops*

We think the Sainsbury’s laboratory and the government should be told that we’ve found the potatoes they’re looking for. So we’re going to deliver them to the doors of their research centre. We’ll be forming a carnival procession of families and farmers led by the next generation on pedal tractors, each towing a mini trailer of safe spuds. There’ll be pedal powered tunes, and a full sized tractor to jump on. There will almost certainly be chips.

*The rationale*

The campaign against GM crops ten years ago was so successful that GM almost completely vanished from our fields and supermarkets, and many people have forgotten the issues associated with the technology. But in many other parts of the world peasant farmers have been desperately fighting its spread, and laws are changing in Europe that would make it much easier for GM to be grown in Britain. Despite pre-election promises to the contrary, the coalition claims it intends to be ‘the most pro GM this country has ever seen’.

Let’s call time on an outmoded technology that continues to waste money in failing projects, while simultaneously threatening the very science that’s actually producing working alternatives quickly and cheaply. For too long the biotech companies have gone unchallenged in their claims that GM can create genuinely useful crops when in fact all the significant advancements in the last decade have come through conventional breeding.

With the renewed threat of GM on the horizon campaigners need to get together again to show the rest of the country (and each other) that we’re still here, and we’ve got an even better case than ever. This is a chance to take the initiative with the media, to tell a story which explains clearly and practically why the pro GM lobby is wrong. That it’s us, and not the corporations that have the answers to the food crisis. And we know how to turn them into an irresistible photo shoot.

*Our Key media messages*

Genetic Modification is unaccountable, expensive, and it doesn’t work. We need to stop wasting public money on something that no one wants and start celebrating the real advances in agriculture.

*What we need*

You, and the people you know, and anyone you think might be interested.

This project is being worked on by Stop GM in conjunction with the Genetic Engineering Network. It’s a grassroots initiative that evolved after one national gathering, several months of pondering and an over excited long weekend in Wales. Several experienced grassroots campaigners will be working on the project from now until the event, but we need help getting the word out. If you think you could help by distributing email
information about the event, dropping it about in any social media you may be involved in, letting your local growing projects or social justice groups know, distributing our soon to be produced ‘Little Red Tractor and the Quest of the GM-free Spuds’ leaflet or even organizing a coach to attend from your area, we’d love to hear from you.

For more information please check briefing to help you object to the proposed field trial of GM potatoes, and how to get hold of the solution www.sarvari-trust.org.

Please put it in your diary, forward this message on to anyone who might be interested, and hopefully we’ll see you there.

All the best,
The Stop GM Crew.
—-
—-
2.Jones backs down over Monsanto connection
GMWatch, 20 July 2010
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12370

On Sunday (18 July) an article appeared in The Observer newspaper detailing Prof Jonathan Jones’s failure to make clear his busines links to Monsanto in a recent article for the BBC. (Scientist leading GM crop test defends links to US biotech giant Monsanto)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/18/gm-scientist-defends-monsanto-links

The article quoted GMWatch editor Jonathan Matthews as saying, “The frontman for the latest GM push in the UK is being portrayed as a dedicated public servant doing science in the public interest, but it now appears he not only has vested interests in the success of GM but even commercial connections to Monsanto.”

And Helen Wallace of GeneWatch UK was quoted as saying that Monsanto’s “PR strategy relies on seemingly independent scientists making empty promises about the future benefits of GM crops”.

In a statement to the Observer, Prof Jones insisted: “It is not true to suggest I have attempted to hide my role as co-founder and science advisory board member of Mendel Biotechnology, which has contracts with Monsanto, Bayer and BP. The information that I am co-founder… of Mendel has been in the public domain on the Mendel website for at least 10 years.”

The publication of the Observer article prompted a storm of criticism of Jones online and in the Comments section of the Guardian/Observer website.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/18/gm-scientist-defends-monsanto-links?showallcomments=true#comment-51

One reader wrote:

“If Prof Jones cannot see that, no matter how fair and balanced his judgement in this case, his links with Monsanto will cast suspicion and doubt on a positive report on GM potatoes, he must be barking.”
 
Jones himself posted a comment saying he had disclosed his interest in Mendel:

“I told Jamie Doward [the journalist who wrote the Observer article] before today’s Observer article that in a commentisfree [article] in 2007 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/28/jonathanjonesscientist) I specifically pointed out that I had cofounded Mendel Biotechnology.”

Jones added: “My [recent] BBC website piece was invited in the context of my GM blight resistance potato trial, which has nothing to do with Mendel or Monsanto, neither of whom have any business in potato.”

A reader responded:

“Had to laugh that Jones thinks that declaring his interests in Mendel/Monsanto 3 years ago is enough. Try writing an article for any reputable scientific journal these days. You have to fill out a new conflict of interest form every time. This makes sense because how can you expect readers to look back at an author’s publication history every time he/she writes a new article?

“Also very funny is his claim that Mendel/Monsanto has no interest in spuds. It does have an interest in the acceptance of GM technology in the UK, and this spud trial will be used by GM proponents to leverage that. Also Mendel has patents on GM technologies that could be used in a variety of plants. http://www.mendelbio.com/newsevents/issuedpatents.php … Monsanto did create a GM potato which was rejected by consumers even in the US. Clearly the company is hoping for a turnaround in consumer feeling. This is from Monsanto’s current website: ‘Potatoes are an important crop and there may be a day in the future when Monsanto re-enters the potato business.’

“Monsanto also owns De Ruiter Seeds and Seminis Seeds, both suppliers of veggie seeds. It would be extremely funny if they made a vow that they would never deal in potatoes.

“Hilarity apart, I think it is a wise principle to know with whom one is in bed.”

Another reader disputed even Jones’s claim to have declared his interest in Mendel/Monsanto three years ago:

“Prof Jones seems to think that mentioning his connection to this company once in passing in an article on a website 3 years ago constitutes full and frank disclosure!

“What makes this worse is, if you look at the actual piece, Jones doesn’t even name the company he founded. You have to click a link to find out it’s Mendel Biotechnology and you’d have to dig around still further to discover Monsanto regards Mendel as a key collaborator.http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=544

“Even this indirect disclosure is a complete one-off. In Jones’ other Comment is Free article, there’s absolutely no reference to Mendel or his having any commercial interests: 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/07/haltinggrowth

“Likewise in the recent BBC piece promoting GM, there’s absolutely nothing to suggest he’s a cofounder of a company that has Monsanto as its principal client. And any time I’ve heard Prof Jones speak on TV or radio, there has been no reference to his having founded Mendel or sitting on its board. His self-description is exactly like the BBC piece - he is a senior scientist at a non-commercial research centre.

“I would wager a guess that absolutely no one who interviewed Prof Jones, or offered him comment space during his recent wave of PR activities related to the GM potato trial had a clue about his involvement in a company with ‘very effective mechanisms of collaboration’ with Monsanto, ‘including the exchange of extensive proprietary information.’

“Yet it’s vital that people benefiting from the label ‘public science’ are completely upfront about the extent of any commercial interests. After all, if Jones were successful in gaining acceptance for GM potatoes, it would almost certainly open the door to Monsanto’s products.

“Unfortunately, Prof Jones’ failure to be completely upfront about his ties to Monsanto fits an all too familiar pattern with GM promoters: 
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=405427 ”

Another reader’s comment also confirmed that Jones’s failure to declare conflicts of interest was part of a consistent pattern rather than a one-off event:

“I found out about Prof Jones’ involvement in an American based biotech firm back in 2001 when someone told me there were jobs going there. I was quite surprised to find Prof Jones, and if my memory serves me correctly a couple of other leading British plant scientists on the directorial board. The thing that surprised me back then was that having worked in their field for over ten years and having heard them speak on numerous occasions at conferences etc that I had never heard them mentioned their clearly relevant commercial interests. If my memory serves me correctly they always stuck to their wholly impartial for ‘the public good’ scientist persona.

“Now following the thieving banks [and] the thieving politicians, I am not surprised at all. Our leading lights are all the same, out for number one.”

Placing the Jones/Mendel/Monsanto episode in a wider context, a reader criticised the public-private partnerships at academic institutions that inevitably give rise to often undisclosed conflicts of interest. The reader wrote that scientists who speak out against such deals are victimized:

“Scientists who point to the obvious conflicts of interest in the public-private partnerships that dominate American and British academic institutions these days are blacklisted from ever having senior appointments - and that’s why lead scientists on GMO trials have ties to the corporate agribusiness lobby. Those ties are encouraged by university presidents, who might hold stock in Monsanto, and who will give financial favors, lab space, and important positions to those who support their agenda. …

“For example, the University of California jointly controls the patent (with Monsanto) on rGBH milk production. The UC expects to receive $100 million in royalties from sales of rGBH. You think the UC administrators would be pleased if some associate professor published studies pointing to health problems with rGBH, or even wrote a grant to do that? Would they get tenure? Probably not - they’ve canned people repeatedly for similar violations of their ideological principles.”

Towards the end of the storm of comments from readers, Jones himself left a comment, saying he had asked the BBC to update his bio note on the BBC website to include his interests in Mendel and Monsanto.

Late yesterday the BBC did so – better late than never. Let’s hope this sets a precedent for media outlets to require full disclosure of interests when “experts” are given a platform for their views on controversial issues. As one reader commented:

“I congratulate Prof Jones on revising his affiliation information. I know that he regards his commercial ties as purely incidental but that’s really for his readers to decide. As Richard Smith pointed out when editor of the BMJ [British Medical Journal], ‘These competing interests are very important. It has quite a profound influence on the conclusions and we deceive ourselves if we think science is wholly impartial.’”
…
For the sake of clarity, GMWatch has made minor corrections of typos, spelling etc. to the Comments posted at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/18/gm-scientist-defends-monsanto-links?showallcomments=true#comment-51

More information can be found at
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php?title=Jonathan_Jones
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php?title=Mendel_Biotechnology

Jun 29, 20111 note
WA Government caught withholding facts from WA farmers that no one has been buying GM Canola crops!

No-one is buying GM canola in WA
Media release: GM canola unsellable
Office of Lynn MacLaren MLC, 29th June 2011
 
The WA Agriculture Minister has admitted in Parliament that none of the genetically modified (GM) canola grown in Western Australia last year had been sold, sparking renewed calls for an inquiry into the lifting of the moratorium on GM canola from Greens spokesperson on GMOs Hon Lynn MacLaren MLC. [1]
 
Ms MacLaren says “When lifting the moratorium, Agriculture Minister Terry Redman claimed that the introduction of GM canola would have no impacts on markets - this revelation raises serious questions about that claim. Farmers should be asking why they weren’t told that there was a danger their canola couldn’t be sold before the current growing season, so they could make an informed decision about whether to plant GM canola or not.”
 
“At a recent forum in Manjimup, DAFWA’s executive director, David Bowran stated that last year’s GM canola had been sold to Pakistan. Farmers rely on DAFWA for reliable information, so I have to question on what evidence this claim is based,” added Ms MacLaren.
 
“Ninety-five per cent of WA’s canola went to Europe last year - a market with no tolerance for GM canola. Canola is an open pollinated crop, so now that GM canola has been introduced in the state it is only a matter of time before our non-GM shipments get contaminated and start being rejected,” said Ms MacLaren.
 
“Canada completely lost its canola exports to Europe and WA risks the same thing happening here if it continues down the GM path,” added Ms MacLaren.
 
“Questions also need to be asked about the WA Government’s ‘New genes for new environments’ program. Why is the Government wasting $9 million of taxpayers money developing GM crops when there is no market for them, and traits such as drought and frost tolerance can be more easily developed using other means?” concluded Ms MacLaren.
 
Ms MacLaren is supporting calls for an inquiry into why the GM canola ban was lifted and an investigation into the process behind the recent sale to Monsanto of a 19.9 per cent stake in the Government owned crop breeding company InterGrain.
 
Media contacts
 
Hon. Lynn MacLaren, MLC, Greens WA Spokesperson on GMOs: 0403 721 951
Louise Sales, Research Officer: 0428 207 007
 
1) Extract from Hansard: Question without notice 464 - Genetically modified food - honey and canola, avail

Jun 29, 20113 notes
A New Permatecture Toolbox! (From Nikos A. Salingaros)

by Øyvind Holmstad

The goal of permaculture is to reunite man with nature and man with man through design systems, and here patterns play an important role. Still, patterns can only reunite humans with natural systems and with each other, not with the geometry of the universe. Surely in what I like to call permatecture, better known as biophilic architecture,biotecture or neurotecture, patterns are crucial. But for the creation of wholeness and life we need a whole range of tools.

When “A Pattern Language” was first published in 1977, architects immediately assumed that it was a design manual, and used it to generate some very interesting buildings. Those buildings, despite their positive human qualities, lack an overall coherence, and people did not understand why this was happening. The reason is that the Patterns provide essential and necessary constraints, and not a design method in itself. The actual design algorithm was developed by Alexander, but only many years later. – Twelve Lectures on Architecture, by Nikos A. Salingaros, page 106

The new book by Professor Nikos A. Salingaros, Twelve Lectures on Architecture; Algorithmic Sustainable Design, is like a Swiss Army Knife of tools for creating ultimate human habitats, or EEAs. Nobody cares about something they don’t love, and nobody loves anything that contradicts nature, because the human biophilia is nature!

Still, what Nikos has done is more like the work of an archaeologist, rediscovering old tools from the past, serving humanity through millennia. And he explains how to use these tools to rediscover the old form languages of our world, or even to create new form languages carrying the truth and poetry found in the form languages of all times. What do these thousands of form languages from throughout human history have in common? The answer is that they reflect the innate geometry of nature and that they don’t contradict the laws of physics.

This was the goal of human architecture, to become one with nature, to make our world whole! Until Le Corbusier and the realm of Modernism, when the nature of order got broken!

The Nature of Order as a “Pocket Book”


Afghan carpet

For those reading the groundbreaking Nature of Order — books by Christopher Alexander (I must admit I’ve not finished this series yet) — it must seem impossible that they can be compressed to a pocket book. And of course this is impossible, and Nikos’ book is somewhat larger than a pocket book too. Still, in a way it’s true. Twelve Lectures on Architecture is in many ways a compression of this work by Alexander. And this is both impressive and important — important for all those put off by the size and the long philosophical discussions of the Nature of Order books. For example, Alexander’s 15 properties of life cover a whole book in his work, while Nikos has “reduced” them to ten lofty pages. Here it’s just to grab the very essence and start using every tool immediately, creating new and life-generating design!

Human beings, with their evolved physiology and perception mechanisms, are the most perfectly-tuned instruments for detecting the presence or absence of the 15 properties. At this time, however, architecture critics and architectural academics value forms that violate the 15 properties. The paradigmatic “good” architecture in a contemporary style clashes with the 15 properties, they are immediately perceived as contradicting the dominant architectural aesthetic, and are dismissed as irrelevant to design. The fact that they are supported by massive scientific research does not convince architects. Persons trained to value a certain “look” cannot be forced to admit that the dominant style generates psychological and physiological anxiety. Our genuinely good examples are judged because they provide emotional nourishment, which is found primarily in traditional construction and artifacts. – Twelve Lectures on Architecture, by Nikos A. Salingaros, page 124

I’ll recommend everybody who plans to read Alexander’s The Nature of Order to first read Nikos’ Twelve Lectures on Architecture. A better introduction you can’t get!

Anti-Gravity Anxiety

A tree is anti-anti-gravity anxiety! And the older a tree, or a forest, the more relaxed we feel sitting beneath it, or walking through it. This is because this force grows in strength together with the tree, as the roots, the stem and the crown widens. Just like with a column, with a base, a stem and the crown. Throughout history mankind always obeyed the law of a tree, until the modernists got the idea of breaking this law making pillars with no base or crown — some even sharpened on the top like a pencil, in every way contradicting the powers of gravity visually. Unfortunately this is just one of many examples of anti-gravity anxiety found in modernism. In fact, it has become the world standard!


Anti-anti-gravity anxiety in action

There is something profoundly disturbing about buildings that consist of horizontal slabs. We can understand this physiological/psychological reaction because of anti-gravity anxiety. A large number of horizontal buildings have been built around the world, their architects ignoring our negative reaction to them. In addition to affecting our senses, this method kills architectural design in three dimensions, since building facades cannot be created within this narrow design paradigm. – Twelve Lectures on Architecture, by Nikos A. Salingaros, page 52

Fractals and Symmetries

Is there more to learn from a tree? Yes, among its fruits are fractals and symmetries, needed to create sustainability and stability. Fractals are patterns or parts repeated on every scale, from the largest to the smallest, where the largest fractals dominate in size and the smallest in numbers. From the tree as a whole to the smallest leaf and the smallest part of a leaf we find a repeating structure and symmetry.

Every sustainable system consists of a fractal structure. In a tree these fractals are made up by visual patterns, while in a system design they consist of pattern languages. This is why in an agricultural pattern language the smallest farms should be more prevalent than larger farms, and again vegetable gardens (pattern 177) to be more prevalent than small farms. The same thing goes for an economical pattern language and so on. This way a fractal society creates life on every scale, where people can thrive and not feel lost (the human scale), like so many do today.


A fractal view (pattern 238 & 239)

Modernism, on the contrary, is anti-fractalism! (No wonder why corporations have embraced their ideology.) For windows, for example, they claim that large panes lacking fractal properties help to bring nature into your house. The opposite is true! A fractal structure is strengthening the view, whether it consists of small panes or plants filling up your window. Alexander discovered this truth a long time ago!

Universal Scaling

Nikos A. Salingaros has studied a lot of buildings from all continents and times, and his conclusion is that there exists universal scaling or fractal hierarchy.

I’m giving out a challenge by claiming that the vast majority of buildings all around the world before the industrial age obey universal scaling (and actually continuing into early industrial years). This holds for all different cultures, all different periods, and is not restricted to a few carefully-selected buildings that I might refer to here. This claim can be documented by on-site measurements, and then the term “universal” becomes apparent, since it applies to indigenous architectures, both vernacular and monumental. Universal scaling is therefore innate to how human beings create forms, and is not a feature tied to any culture. – Twelve Lectures on Architecture, by Nikos A. Salingaros, page 25-26

To apply universal scaling to what we make Nikos has given us several tools, some very accurate but which take more time, and some more approximate but faster. They all come out with about 2,618, and are so related to the golden mean. Scaling coherence is essential, because all natural environments obey this law, and if we contradict it we contradict ourselves. It’s essential to pay extra attention to the human scale, ranging from two meters down to two millimeters. One of the many tragedies of modernists is that they are completely neglecting the human scale, regarding it as “clutter”. And even worse, their hero Le Corbusier even thought of children as “clutter”!

Generative Codes are a Kind of Algorithm

The creation of complexity has to go stepwise, this is a fundamental law!

And the fundamental answer is, that there is a fundamental law about the creation of complexity, which is visible and obvious to everyone – yet this law is, to all intents and purposes, ignored in 99% of the daily fabrication process of society. The law states simply this: ALL the well-ordered complex systems we know in the world, all those anyway that we review as highly successful, are GENERATED structures, NOT fabricated structures. – The Process of Creating Life, by Christopher Alexander, page 180

Generative codes follow this law, like the DNA in the creation of an embryo, following an encoded instruction for each step. Or like an algorithm following certain rules going stepwise. But unlike for a mathematical algorithm the end result is not set; the code helps us to reach one out of several desired end results, while avoiding undesirable end results.

Codes used to create life:

  • DNA is coded information for all biological structure
  • Create life through genetic codes
  • Same process as with urban codes
  • Developing embryo uses both DNA information, and the existing geometry of the configuration at each step – Twelve Lectures on Architecture, by Nikos A. Salingaros, page 196


Life is not a blueprint but an algorithm

The need for adaptive algorithms:

  • Architects should apply algorithms that adapt structure to human needs
  • Simple algorithms connect pattern languages to form languages
  • Process successfully generates adaptive design, and corrects irrelevant forms that have corrupted memory
  • Use a proven memory bank that archives evolved solutions
  • Often just as good as computing a new solution
  • When architectural memory banks are corrupted, however, we need to recompute the solutions over again
  • Pattern languages prevent corruption – Twelve Lectures on Architecture, by Nikos A. Salingaros, page 142-143

The goal is always identifying and strengthening centers, where the many smaller centers focus upon the larger centers (like for a tree) to make a coherent, living whole!


Centers strengthens centers to make strong centers and a coherent
living whole, here seen in snow crystals

The theory of centers:

  • A “center” is a visual field that is the focus of a region
  • The region that focuses on a “center” can be of any size
  • Centers help to tie space together by reinforcement
  • Recursion leads to fractal properties – Twelve Lectures on Architecture, by Nikos A. Salingaros, page 97


Another strong center, Hamandir Sahib or Darbar Sahib (also known as the
Golden Temple). The holiest shrine in Sikhism located in
the city of Amritsar, India

The Form Language

A pattern language is system design or interactions, while a form language is what makes the pattern language beautiful. A pattern language has to be the basis of any neighborhood, while the form language is what brings the pattern language alive and makes the place distinct. Only when you mesh the form language with your pattern language your design is complete, or a living whole. Patterns are universal while form languages are local, still all reflecting the innate geometry of nature, which is so complex that millions of form languages can be created. Another name of Nikos’ book could have been A Form Language, and when you have A Form Language and A Pattern Language, you have the power in your hands to create the ultimate living design.

In old times the form languages changed from one valley to another, from one town to another, giving each place its innate poetry. While modernism (the International Lie) has in its arrogance rejected the very existence of a form language, this is why modernistic typologies look the same the world over. Making a global monoculture of architecture!


Poetry written in stone! Florence, Italy

With one stroke, we have hopefully laid to rest the common terror that traditional form languages restrict architectural creativity. This statement is mathematically false. We can use an adaptive design algorithm with a traditional form language to design different buildings depending upon different initial conditions. Classical and traditional architects know that. By adapting to local conditions, buildings and cities become unique while using the same algorithm. And there exist many distinct adaptive design algorithms that have evolved over the millennia of human existence. Using these algorithms with different local conditions makes possible an infinity of innovative results. – Twelve Lectures on Architecture, by Nikos A. Salingaros, page 85

A Better Focus

There are so many tools I should like to introduce for you from Nikos book, but as I don’t know how to draw I would have to copy the whole book for its illustrations. This is one of the strengths of the book, the many illustrations. I’m in no way an expert on how to use the tools of this book, and to become a master you need many years of practice. Using them was for generations a natural part of people’s cultural genetic code. We should be very grateful to Nikos for picking up the broken pieces, restoring them and giving them back to us. Sadly too many can’t admit that what we did over the last 100 years is fundamentally flawed, giving them cognitive dissonance.

This book by Nikos gives you a better perception of the world, both for what is ugly and what is beautiful. And while it can even break your heart when you realize the ugliness that modernism has created within it, you are more than compensated by gaining a new appreciation and acceptation of the innate beauty of our world.

When I wrote my article “Modernism & Disconnection from Life” I didn’t know really why I loved so much more being on a glacier than on the Norwegian Opera image of a glacier. There are of course many reasons, but one very important is that Engabreen, a glacier arm of Svartisen, consists of a very strong horizontal compression, just like the fluting on a column.

Two examples of horizontal compression:

Compression is a force that correlates to human biophilia. The image of a glacier lacked this force. But it also lacked another fundamental part of biophilia, the fractal dimension.

Space is perceived according to its fractal dimension, as established by the British architect Andrew Crompton (Environment & Planning B 28, 2001, pages 243-254). I believe this to be a property of our perceptual system that applies to all animals. We seek the protection of a fractal environment that has scales corresponding to our body and its parts and avoid non-fractal open spaces. Survival originally depended upon being able to physically fit into the environment. Whenever possible, children create fractal play environments using furniture and toys: for example, cubbies, dollhouses, and secret spaces in which they and their toys fit. By adding smaller components to the existing adult space (or by subdividing it), they experience a LARGER spatial complexity. On the urban scale, historic city centers with fractal structure are experienced as LARGE, whereas in fact they are dwarfed by contemporary non-fractal urban spaces that no one wishes to use. – Twelve Lectures on Architecture, by Nikos A. Salingaros, page 65

Toward a New Permatecture Future

By now the permaculture movement has focused upon patterns (pattern languages), and that’s good, but now it’s time to focus more upon forms (form languages). With this new toolbox from Nikos we have the tools needed to truly reunite man with nature both through innate biophilic patterns and geometry. To respect and care for nature we have to create nature through infusing all we create with the geometry found in nature, and to obey the laws of nature. A reason why so many don’t care about nature today is that our cities and towns are anti-nature. Modernism and modernistic ideology is pure hatred against nature!


Sunrise, Manaslu, Nepal, Himalaya. Photo: Ben Tubby

The machine aesthetic:

  • Ideology of the machine society
  • Crude mechanistic world view is not healing but does the opposite
  • It negates the complex mathematical properties of nature
  • Reduces nature and detaches human beings from the biosphere – Nikos A. Salingaros

If we don’t understand how to build nature into everything we create, then our pocket neighborhoods, ecovillages, village towns and transition towns will be both inhuman and anti-nature. For the future I hope these tools well be a part of every Permaculture Design Course!

I’d love to see a future with a permatecture institute in every city! The International Society of Bio-urbanism, where Professor Nikos A. Salingaros is a member of the Scientific Committee, is already highly influential in Italy. I’m sure they’ll help us to get started.

Twelve Lectures on Architecture can be used as a template for, just as the title says, twelve lectures of architecture. It could be held through a weekend. But it can easily be extended to a twelve week course to get in-depth training for using all the tools of the book.

We are now given the tools needed to reunite the man-made world with the natural world, so let’s start the work!

Watch the original lectures from which the book has evolved:

  • Archived videos, slides and notes of all the lectures

Buy the book:

  • Twelve lectures on architecture: algorithmic sustainable design, Umbau-Verlag, Solingen, 2010 (252 pages) is available in the USA HERE, HERE, and HERE, in the UK HERE, and in the EU from Germany HERE and HERE. Comment by David Brussat in the Providence Journal, 7 March 2011. Review by James Kalb onTurnabout. Review in Polish HERE.

Join the Salingaros Group:

  • The Salingaros Group

Further reading:

  • Neuroscience, the Natural Environment, and Building Design
Jun 28, 20111 note
From the Bottom Up – A DIY Guide to Wicking Beds

by Rob Avis

Wicking beds are a unique and increasingly popular way to grow vegetables. They are self-contained raised beds with built-in reservoirs that supply water from the bottom up – changing how, and how much, you water your beds. In this article, we’ll talk about how wicking beds work and why we love them. We’ll also show you some great examples and leave you with ideas and instructions for creating your own.

How Wicking Beds Work

A wick works through capillary action – the same force you observe when you dip a piece of tissue paper partially into a glass of water and watch the water climb the paper. Wicking occurs in many materials; cotton, wool, geo-textile, soil, gravel and even wood to some degree. Every material has different wicking properties which you can test by placing that material into a glass of water and watching the water “climb” up. When one end of the wick is saturated and the other end is dry, it creates a moisture gradient, which drives the wick until the gradient no longer exists or you run out of water. With the earth box, one of the more popular examples in North America, the soil is suspended above the reservoir with wicks dangling into the reservoir 

pulling up moisture. As the plants use the moisture in the soil, it creates a moisture gradient (the soil is drier than the reservoir) which drives moister through the wick into the soil.

Advantages of Wicking Beds

Wicking beds have a lot of advantages over standard raised beds and in-grown swale-based gardens:

  • They are water-efficient! Watering from the bottom up prevents evaporation of surface water (which occurs when you water beds from the top).
  • They are self-watering! Wicking beds are an especially great system to use in community gardens because they save people from driving every day during hot weeks to water their beds. A full wicking bed should irrigate itself for about a week.
  • They can be placed close to the house without risk of flooding your basement, since the water is contained in the bed. This makes wicking beds a great alternative to swales on properties with sump pumps or basement water issues.
  • No evaporation means no salting of soil. If you are watering your soils from the top with hard water, you risk accumulating salts, because the water evaporates and leaves the minerals behind. Eventually your soil will struggle to support plant life.
  • They provide a lot of drainage in the event of a large downpour.
  • Since they’re raised, they will warm up quicker in the spring.
  • You can easily attach cold frames to them.
  • They are great for people with less mobility and strength as you don’t have to haul heavy water containers.
  • By using an intermediary tank, you can automate the watering process… but more on that in a future blog.

Disadvantages of Wicking Beds

Wicking beds do have some disadvantages as well:

  • They cost more to install than in-ground swales and standard raised beds.
  • They will freeze sooner in the fall than non-raised beds.
  • There are additional freeze/thaw considerations that need to be taken into account, which is not required for conventional gardens.

Types of Wicking Beds

Reservoirs with Media

Most of the DIY sites for wicking beds focus on building beds that use media, a layer in between the soil and the water reservoir, as their wick. This is an easy and cheap way of supporting the soil on top of the reservoir. Gravel is the most common medium, but there are a number of materials that do the trick. Here’s a good DIY blog on media wicking beds.

Media-less beds

Beds without media require a false bottom that will allow the soil to be suspended above the water reservoir. Again, this wick system can be made from a variety of materials. Here are some examples of media-less wicking beds:

  • Global Buckets
  • Earth Box
  • Phytopod

And a video example….

Design Considerations for Media-filled Reservoirs

When designing your wicking bed, it is important to keep the depth of the media-filled water reservoir at or below 300mm as the capillary action struggles to lift the water higher than that. The soil above the reservoir acts as a wick as well, so it is important that the soil layer stay between 300 – 320mm. The soil could technically be deeper than this, however, the soil at the top will likely be much drier than the lower soil, so you’d want to make sure to that the plants you use can access this deeper soil moisture, like tomatoes, which can buried deep into the bed.

Once you have determined how deep your soil and media is going to be, you need to create a containment device. There are many ways of doing this, for example, in our last blitz we experimented with four different techniques: the global bucket, a food-grade plastic tote, above-grade planter boxes, and an in-ground wicking bed.

A key element of the containment device is the overflow pipe. This pipe allows water to escape once it reaches the top of the media, ensuring you don’t drown your plants with too much water.

Above-Ground Planter Box

Because saturated soil is so heavy, we designed the beds the same way that concrete forms are designed. A carpenter friend of mine recommended that we use “whalers”, which are 2×4s with the thick end perpendicular to the plywood, and bound together using a lap joint. See the photo below. These whalers were spaced around the box to resist bending and bowing of the heavy soil. Pressure treated plywood was used to prevent rotting on the inside of the whalers and increase longevity, and then the whole box was clad with cedar fence boards. Ordinarily I don’t like to use pressure-treated wood in gardens, but since this bed was to be lined with plastic, the wood will not come in contact with the growing medium. Originally I was going to use pond liner, but it was cost-prohibitive at $0.90/sqft, so I decided to use 6 mil builder’s poly instead.

Layers in The Bed

  1.  Landscape fabric stapled to the wood which protects the poly from sharp edges.
  2. Poly liner.
  3. Landscape fabric on bottom of bed to protect poly from punctures from the gravel.
  4. Weeping tile to increase rate of water communication in bed as well as reservoir capacity. If you have a long enough weeping tile you can bend it up the side of the bed and use it as a water fill pipe.
  5. Drainage pipe the length of the bed to encourage even drainage from the bed. This pipe is connected to the bulk head fitting and has holes drilled in one side facing down.
  6.  300 mm or less of gravel. Note you want to make sure that you have enough gravel to cover the weeping tile as you want to make sure that the gravel is in contact with the soil, not the weeping tile.
  7. Landscape fabric to segregate the soil from the gravel and preserve the pore space in the bed.
  8. High carbon soil

Other considerations:

To account for the freeze/thaw issue in this climate, I set my drainage hole to the bottom of the beds so that I can drain the bed before winter. The amount of water held in the bed is determined by an elbow and stand pipe which can rotate on the outside of the bed. I like this method of water control as it allows me to infinitely control how much water the bed can store.

ICU Totes

When it comes to raised wicking beds, cheaper alternatives to the raised wood boxes are food grade 1000 L totes cut in half. We decided to use this method for our passive solar greenhouse as these tanks were inexpensive (they cost me roughly $100 each, and one tank cut in half can make 2 wicking beds). This is far more affordable than the wood variety, which are roughly $600 each, not including the time they take to build.

Layers in the ICU

  1. Weeping tile to increase the rate of water communication in the bed as well as reservoir capacity. If you have a long enough weeping tile you can bend it up the side of the bed and use it as a water-fill pipe.
  2. 300 mm or less of gravel. You want to make sure that you have enough gravel to cover the weeping tile so that the gravel is in contact with the soil and not the weeping tile.
  3. Landscape fabric to segregate the soil from the gravel and preserve the pore space in the bed.
  4. High carbon soil

In-Ground Wicking Beds

For our blitz we built one in-ground bed. The in-ground bed is cheaper than the other two because you use the earth as the support for the water reservoir. This means you only need a containment device for the soil above grade. For our bed we chose to use cedar planks to build the above-ground bed and we made a small dugout to contain the gravel. To allow the excess water to spill out, you need to make sure that the water can leave the bed either with a designated spillway as we did, or just raise the bed up on shims so the water can leave the periphery.

Layers For The In-Ground Bed

  1.  Landscape fabric on the soil to protect the poly from holes.
  2. Poly liner.
  3. Landscape fabric on the bottom of bed to protect poly from punctures from the gravel.
  4. Weeping tile to increase both the rate of water communication in the bed, as well as the reservoir capacity. If you have a long enough weeping tile you can bend it up the side of the bed and use it as a water fill pipe.
  5. 300 mm or less of gravel. You want to make sure that you have enough gravel to cover the weeping tile so that the gravel is in contact with the soil and not the weeping tile.
  6. Landscape fabric to segregate the soil from the gravel and preserve the pore space in the bed.
  7. High carbon soil.

A Neat Blog on In-Ground Beds

Milkwood Permaculture has pioneered an in-ground wicking bed using builder’s plastic and a round galvanized culvert ring. We have also seen people use stock watering tanks.

Materials

Soil

We chose to use a garden mix from Western Canadian Compost which is combination of loam, compost and peat. I was really impressed with the quality of the soil and I will give updates on the results over the course of the summer.

We selected gravel as our resevoir/wicking material. Generally speaking, gravel has about a 33% pore space which means that 1 cubic meter of gravel in a container will only have enough room between the gravel to hold 333 litres of water.

We also used 4-inch weeping tile in the bottom, which increases the amount of water that the bed can hold (because it is hollow) and increases the rate at which the gravel bed disperses water. The dispersement action of the weeping tiles ensures that one side of the bed does not get initially over-saturated. The weeping tile also doubles as the watering pipe.

Other Adjustments

There are all sorts of design elements that can be added or modified to change how the beds work. One popular tweak is to insert a worm composting tube into the soil portion of the bed. Food scraps can be added to the tube for the worms to process, and the resulting vermipost and worm juice will be distributed throughout the bed keeping the nutrient levels high in your soil. The worms also help to keep the system aerated and therefore prevent the system from going anaerobic. I do not think that the red wriggler can survive our cold winters, so I would recommend having an indoor worm system ready when it starts getting colder out, so that you can keep them alive until the next growing season.

As my students know, I am a big fan of cover crop systems. Typically I recommend nitrogen fixing legumes that build carbon and nitrogen into the soil through their root systems. Since these wicking beds are segregated from the subsoil, strategies are needed to keep up soil fertility. This could include cover cropping or the addition of compost, blood and bone, and rock dust. Cover cropping also reduces weeds, shades the soil, and provides a built-in mulch system.

As you can see, the sky (or the soil) is the limit when it comes to wicking beds. They are an effective and water-efficient DIY gardening implement that can be created and adjusted according to your budget, materials, space, and garden plan.

Even though we’ve built our fair share of wicking beds now and have gained a great deal of knowledge from other people’s designs and experiences, we are still learning as we go. Stay tuned throughout the summer for updates on our wicking beds, and hopefully you can learn with us!

Jun 27, 201112 notes
Westminster realising GM doesn't deliver?

New Coalition Government GM Policy – Westminster realising GM doesn’t deliver? 

GM Freeze, 21 Jun 2011
http://www.gmfreeze.org/news-releases/157/

*Meanwhile Rothamsted Apply for UK GM wheat trials in 2012 

The Coalition Government posted its first GM policy statement on the Defra website Friday, 17 June. [1]

Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said:

“This is a tepid response from the Coalition Government that falls miles short of a ringing endorsement of GM crops. There may be scope in the language used to back GM crops in the future, but the biotech industry have not been given a green light for now.

“We welcome the prioritisation of human health and environmental protection, but the Government needs to demonstrate it really mean this by adopting a precautionary approach. This means blocking new GM crops at European level in every instance where there is scientific dispute or uncertainty.

“The new policy does not indicate that the Coalition sees GM crops as a means to putting agriculture on a sustainable footing. Scotland and Wales have long had strong no-GM policies. We now want clear guidance from Number 10 giving agroecological and other non-GM approaches overdue research support by transferring money from the numerous publicly-funded GM projects that are not delivering.

“We very much welcome the commitment to listen to the public’s views, and reiterate that the public want to know where GM is used in the food chain. [2] We are still waiting for the Government to make good on its labelling rhetoric by ending the use of unlabelled GM animal feed.

“After 30 years of failure the biotech industry still can’t deliver on much-hyped crops, like drought tolerance. The preoccupation with manipulating a handful of genes to benefit biotech companies first and foremost is going nowhere. It’s time to move on from GM and concentrate instead on looking after the environment in which crops grow by improving soils and building more resilient farming systems overall.”

By coincidence, Defra announced on 20 June that Rothamsted Research at Harpenden has applied to trial GM wheat in the UK 2012. [3] The GM wheat is said to repel aphids and attract aphid predators to the crop using genetic constructs, which include synthetic sections.

Monsanto stopped previous GM wheat development in the UK and elsewhere in 2004 due to lack of markets following rejection by consumers and farmers.

Canada’s National Research Council announced in April 2011 it has no intention of researching GM wheat, with the President of NFU Canada saying, “Wheat improvements can and must happen without the use of transgenics. GM wheat would spell disaster for Canada’s wheat growers.” Similarly in March the Premier of Australia’s largest wheat growing state rejected GM wheat saying, “We are not contemplating GM wheat and I did note Japanese consumers would not support GM wheat.”

Commenting on the new application for a UK GM wheat trial Pete Riley said:

“This is strange choice of crop to genetically modify because GM wheat has been rejected right around the world, even in North America where the vast majority of GM crops are grown. This approach is designed to fit intensive monocultures of wheat where pests thrive at a time when many experts are calling for a complete rethink on agriculture toward approaches like mixed cropping. Why is the Coalition Government even considering pouring scarce public money into Rothamsted to produce a GM crop for which there is no market when other science budgets are being squeezed?” — NOTE: Except Australia is now growing GM wheat for Monsanto

ENDs

Calls to: Pete Riley 07903 341 065
Notes

[1] See “Government policy” at www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/gm/

[2] See “GM is unwanted”
http://www.gmfreeze.org/why-freeze/unwanted/

[3] See http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/gm/regulation/registers/applications/11-r8-01.htm
Jun 27, 20111 note
The inside story on Monsanto and the glyphosate birth defect data

The inside story on Monsanto and the glyphosate birth defect data
Claire Robinson
The Ecologist
13th June 2011

http://bit.ly/k6om2P

The pesticide industry and regulators have repeatedly misled the public with claims that glyphosate is safe, says Claire Robinson. As a result, Monsanto’s Roundup is used by gardeners and local authorities, in school grounds, and in farmers’ fields

Industry and EU regulators knew as long ago as the 1980s-1990s that Roundup, the world’s best selling herbicide, causes birth defects but they failed to inform the public. This is the conclusion of our new report, ‘Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?’, authored by a group of international scientists and researchers.

The report reveals that industry’s own studies (including one commissioned by Monsanto itself) showed as long ago as the 1980s that Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate causes birth defects in laboratory animals. Industry submitted these studies to the European Commission in support of its application for glyphosate’s approval for use in Europe. As the ‘rapporteur’ member state for glyphosate, liaising between industry and the Commission, Germany took an active role in minimising the problems with glyphosate and must shoulder a chunk of the responsibility for allowing it onto the market.

The facts are these:

  • Industry (including Monsanto) has known from its own studies since the 1980s that glyphosate causes malformations in experimental animals at high doses
  • Industry has known since 1993 that these effects also occur at lower and mid doses
  • The German government has known since at least 1998 that glyphosate causes malformations
  • The EU Commission’s expert scientific review panel knew in 1999 that glyphosate causes malformations
  • The EU Commission has known since 2002 that glyphosate causes malformations. This was the year it signed off on the current approval of glyphosate


But this information was not made public. On the contrary, the pesticide industry and Europe’s regulators have jointly misled the public with claims that glyphosate is safe. As a result, Roundup is liberally used by home gardeners and local authorities on roadsides, in school grounds, and other public areas, as well as in farmers’ fields.

The latest whitewash attempt by regulators came in the wake of an independent scientific study published last year by Argentine scientists. The study showed that Roundup and glyphosate cause birth defects in frogs and chickens at concentrations much lower than those used in agricultural spraying. The research was prompted by reports of escalating levels of birth defects and cancers in areas of South America where glyphosate is heavily sprayed on genetically modified glyphosate-tolerant crops.

After members of the European Parliament and NGOs raised concerns about the study, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, BVL, dismissed it with a claim that the ‘huge’ database of studies on glyphosate showed ‘no evidence of teratogenicity’ (ability to cause birth defects).  Interestingly, BVL cited as proof of glyphosate’s safety the very same industry studies that our report reveals as showing evidence of teratogenicity.

Our report shows how during the EU approval of glyphosate, the rapporteur Germany explained away the birth defects in the industry studies with bizarre excuses. For example, Germany creatively redefined a recognised skeletal malformation found in glyphosate-exposed animals as merely a ‘variation’. It repeatedly ‘disappeared’ findings of birth defects in glyphosate-exposed groups of animals by using historical control data – which have a wide variability because the experiments were performed under different conditions – instead of the valid control data from the experiment in hand.

Welcome to the Alice-in-Wonderland world of pesticide regulation, where pesticide-induced birth defects are ‘variations’ and if you don’t like the findings of one experiment, you can borrow data from another to make them go away.

The EU Commission’s expert review panel followed Germany in dismissing the birth defects, and the Commission signed off on the final approval of glyphosate in 2002.

In response to our report, Monsanto published a statement on its website,  claiming, ‘Regulatory authorities and independent experts around the world agree that glyphosate does not cause adverse reproductive effects…or birth defects.’  But this is the nub of the problem. Regulators are ‘agreeing’ that glyphosate is safe in clear contradiction of the scientific evidence before them.

Monsanto also repeats the usual industry claim that the studies that show problems with glyphosate are ‘flawed’. But as our report proves, studies that show glyphosate causes birth defects include industry’s own, Monsanto’s among them. Is Monsanto saying its own studies are flawed? If so, we have all the more reason to worry, as these are the studies on which the current approval of glyphosate rests.

Commission delays review of glyphosate

A new pesticide regulation comes into force this June. It’s more stringent than the existing rules and an objective review of glyphosate under this new regulation may have resulted in a ban. This is partly because under the new regulation, independent (non-industry) studies have to be taken into consideration. Many independent studies, summarised in our report, show that glyphosate and Roundup cause birth defects, cancer, genetic damage, endocrine disruption, and other serious effects, often at low, realistic doses.

Glyphosate was due to be reviewed in 2012. But late last year, after the Argentine study was presented to the EU Commission, the Commission quietly passed a directive delaying the review of glyphosate and 38 other pesticides until 2015. 

In 2015, glyphosate will be reviewed under lax, outdated standards. This is because the Commission has failed to complete the data requirements (the tests that industry has to do) for the new regulation in time for industry to do the new tests. Glyphosate will likely sail through its 2015 review and may not be reviewed under up-to-date, more stringent data requirements for another 15 years. 

So glyphosate could get a free regulatory ride until 2030, at a time when companies are applying to the EU for permission to cultivate genetically modified glyphosate-tolerant seeds in Europe. This would lead to a huge increase in the use of glyphosate, as has happened in North and South America. The beneficiary of the Commission’s delay will be the pesticide industry; the victim will be public health.

We are asking the Commission to cancel the delay and conduct an immediate objective review of glyphosate and Roundup. In the meantime, it must use its powers to withdraw the herbicide from use in Europe.

Jun 27, 20113 notes
AgResearch stalls 'damaging' report

EXTRACT: Prof Heinemann said he had tried to engage with AgResearch over his study throughout the entire process. He was not surprised to read of the lengths it went to find scientists to refute his research. “That’s where they go for the shoot the messenger smear campaign.”—-
—-
AgResearch stalls ‘damaging’ report
KIRAN CHUG
The Dominion Post, 23 June 2011
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5180258/AgResearch-stalls-damaging-report

Attempts to shut down a scientific report critical of AgResearch’s practices at its genetic engineering laboratories have been revealed through the company’s internal documents.

The report has sparked a war of words between the Canterbury University professor who wrote it, and the Crown research institute he criticises.

Professor Jack Heinemann, from the university’s Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety, wrote the report, which was published in an international peer-reviewed journal last month.

Its publication came about a year after he was asked by GE Free New Zealand to look into AgResearch’s monitoring of the risk of horizontal gene transfers at its Ruakura facility.

AgResearch receives a mixture of taxpayer funding and commercial backing, with about three-quarters of its funding for research carried out at Ruakura coming from public funds.

The report looked at the agency’s offal holes containing genetically engineered cow carcasses and its monitoring of the risk of material from those pits contaminating the soil.

Correspondence made available to The Dominion Post under the Official Information Act reveals that staff who saw a draft of Prof Heinemann’s critical report found it to be “at face value quite damaging”.

“Generally the report looks and sounds authoritative and thorough. The response should be to take it seriously. This is particularly important as it questions the rigour of AgR scientific processes – an issue that any scientific institute must regard as an issue of core competency.”

Staff then decided on a plan of action, involving asking Prof Heinemann for more time to respond to a copy of the draft report he had shared with them, working up a “media position”, bringing the report up with the risk and audit committee, and finding international experts who could refute the claims.

Staff members’ names are blocked out in the emails, but one of the most recent refers to the “bad press” the report has led to.

In the same email, the staff member states they have found a scientist who could respond to the report in case accusations resurfaced, and also describes a letter allegedly showing Prof Heinemann had a track record of twisting results to fit his own agenda.

After viewing the draft report, staff discuss contacting an expert who had a history of attempting to refute Prof Heinemann’s work.

Prof Heinemann said he had tried to engage with AgResearch over his study throughout the entire process. He was not surprised to read of the lengths it went to find scientists to refute his research. “That’s where they go for the shoot the messenger smear campaign.”

He stood by his findings, and said the regulator, the Environmental Risk Management Authority, was effectively asking AgResearch to monitor itself for findings that would jeopardise its entire commercial programme.

AgResearch’s general manager of applied biotechnologies Jimmy Suttie said he “emphatically denied” that AgResearch had tried to delay Prof Heinemann’s report being finalised.

“We replied to [Prof Heinemann] and made it clear we weren’t trying to delay but we needed additional support.”

He said the company was entitled to seek out whoever it wished to refute the report’s claims, and that its monitoring methods at Ruakura were sound.

He denied that the report damaged AgResearch’s reputation, saying he did not think the public understood the debate.

The research institute is restructuring its management team, and Dr Suttie is being made redundant. He refused to comment on the future of the genetic modification research team, and refused to comment on the possibility of other redundancies.

GE MONITORING FLAWS FOUND

Professor Jack Heinemann found what he described as fundamental flaws in the monitoring of horizontal gene transfer from genetically modified animals disposed of in offal pits.

His report said AgResearch was monitoring soil that was irrelevant because it was at the top of the offal pits, and not metres below, where the animals were buried.

Prof Heinemann said whenever signals were detected that the risk of a transfer existed, they were not rigorously pursued.

AgResearch says its monitoring programme is in line with best practice science, and in seven or eight years of practice has not detected any measurable transfer of genetic material.

It says the report writers are asking them to carry out a substantial research programme in its own right, which would go beyond monitoring.

Its current monitoring programme is appropriate, and meets all the conditions of its approval to carry out genetic trials.

Horizontal gene transfer from genetically modified organisms has been the subject of many international studies and AgResearch says it is well established that it is unlikely to occur in the conditions at its site.

Jun 27, 20111 note
Roundup: Birth defects caused by world's top-selling weedkiller, scientists say

Report available at 
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57277946/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5

EXCERPT from the HuffPo article: As recently as last year, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BLV), a government agency conducting a review of glyphosate, told the European Commission that there was no evidence the compound causes birth defects, according to the report.

The agency reached that conclusion despite almost half a dozen industry studies that found glyphosate produced fetal malformations in lab animals, as well as an independent study from 2007 that found that Roundup induces adverse reproductive effects in the male offspring of a certain kind of rats.
—-
—-
Roundup: Birth Defects Caused By World’s Top-Selling Weedkiller, Scientists Say
By Lucia Graves
Huffington Post
24 June 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/24/roundup-scientists-birth-defects_n_883578.html

The chemical at the heart of the planet’s most widely used herbicide — Roundup weedkiller, used in farms and gardens across the U.S. — is coming under more intense scrutiny following the release of a new report calling for a heightened regulatory response around its use.

Critics have argued for decades that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and other herbicides used around the globe, poses a serious threat to public health. Industry regulators, however, appear to have consistently overlooked their concerns.

A comprehensive review of existing data released this month by Earth Open Source, an organization that uses open-source collaboration to advance sustainable food production, suggests that industry regulators in Europe have known for years that glyphosate, originally introduced by American agricultural biotechnology giant Monsanto in 1976, causes birth defects in the embryos of laboratory animals.

Founded in 2009, Earth Open Source is a non-profit organisation incorporated in the U.K. but international in scope. Its three directors, specializing in business, technology and genetic engineering, work pro-bono along with a handful of young volunteers. Partnering with half a dozen international scientists and researchers, the group drew its conclusions in part from studies conducted in a number of locations, including Argentina, Brazil, France and the United States.

Earth Open Source’s study is only the latest report to question the safety of glyphosate, which is the top-ranked herbicide used in the United States. Exact figures are hard to come by because the U.S. Department of Agriculture stopped updating its pesticide use database in 2008. The EPA estimates that the agricultural market used 180 to 185 million pounds of glyphosate between 2006 and 2007, while the non-agricultural market used 8 to 11 million pounds between 2005 and 2007, according to its Pesticide Industry Sales & Usage Report for 2006-2007 published in February, 2011.

The Earth Open Source study also reports that by 1993 the herbicide industry, including Monsanto, knew that visceral anomalies such as dilation of the heart could occur in rabbits at low and medium-sized doses. The report further suggests that since 2002, regulators with the European Commission have known that glyphosate causes developmental malformations in lab animals.

Even so, the commission’s health and consumer division published a final review report of glyphosate in 2002 that approved its use in Europe for the next 10 years.

As recently as last year, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BLV), a government agency conducting a review of glyphosate, told the European Commission that there was no evidence the compound causes birth defects, according to the report.

The agency reached that conclusion despite almost half a dozen industry studies that found glyphosate produced fetal malformations in lab animals, as well as an independent study from 2007 that found that Roundup induces adverse reproductive effects in the male offspring of a certain kind of rats.

German regulators declined to respond in detail for this story because they say they only learned of the Earth Open Source report last week. The regulators emphasized that their findings were based on public research and literature.

Although the European Commission originally planned to review glyphosate in 2012, it decided late last year not to do so until 2015. And it won’t review the chemical under more stringent, up-to-date standards until 2030, according to the report.

The European Commission told HuffPost that it wouldn’t comment on whether it was already aware of studies demonstrating the toxicity of glyphosate in 2002. But it said the commission was aware of the Earth Open Source study and had discussed it with member states.

“Germany concluded that study does not change the current safety assessment of gylphosate,” a commission official told HuffPost in an email. “This view is shared by all other member states.”

John Fagan, a doctor of molecular and cell biology and biochemistry and one of the founders of Earth Open Source, acknowledged his group’s report offers no new laboratory research. Rather, he said the objective was for scientists to compile and evaluate the existing evidence and critique the regulatory response.

“We did not do the actual basic research ourselves,” said Fagan. “The purpose of this paper was to bring together and to critically evaluate all the evidence around the safety of glyphosate and we also considered how the regulators, particularly in Europe, have looked at that.”

For its part, Earth Open Source said that government approval of the ubiquitous herbicide has been rash and problematic.

“Our examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable,” wrote the report’s authors. “What is more, we have learned from experts familiar with pesticide assessments and approvals that the case of glyphosate is not unusual.

“They say that the approvals of numerous pesticides rest on data and risk assessments that are just as scientifically flawed, if not more so,” the authors added. “This is all the more reason why the Commission must urgently review glyphosate and other pesticides according to the most rigorous and up-to-date standards.”

Monsanto spokeswoman Janice Person said in a statement that the Earth Open Source report presents no new findings.

“Based on our initial review, the Earth Open Source report does not appear to contain any new health or toxicological evidence regarding glyphosate,” Person said.

“Regulatory authorities and independent experts around the world agree that glyphosate does not cause adverse reproductive effects in adult animals or birth defects in offspring of these adults exposed to glyphosate,” she said, “even at doses far higher than relevant environmental or occupational exposures.”

While Roundup has been associated with deformities in a host of laboratory animals, its impact on humans remains unclear. One laboratory study done in France in 2005 found that Roundup and glyphosate caused the death of human placental cells and abnormal embryonic cells. Another study, conducted in 2009, found that Roundup caused total cell death in human umbilical, embryonic and placental cells within 24 hours. Yet researchers have conducted few follow-up studies.

“Obviously there’s a limit to what’s appropriate in terms of testing poison on humans,” said Jeffrey Smith, executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, which lobbies against genetically modified food. “But if you look at the line of converging evidence, it points to a serious problem. And if you look at the animal feeding studies with genetically modified Roundup ready crops, there’s a consistent theme of reproductive disorders, which we don’t know the cause for because follow-up studies have not been done.”

“More independent research is needed to evaluate the toxicity of Roundup and glyphosate,” he added, “and the evidence that has already accumulated is sufficient to raise a red flag.”

Authorities have criticized Monsanto in the past for soft-peddling Roundup. In 1996 New York State’s Attorney General sued Monsanto for describing Roundup as “environmentally friendly” and “safe as table salt.” Monsanto, while not admitting any wrongdoing, agreed to stop using the terms for promotional purposes and paid New York state $250,000 to settle the suit.
Regulators in the United States have said they are aware of the concerns surrounding glyphosate. The Environmental Protection Agency, which is required to reassess the safety and effectiveness all pesticides on a 15-year cycle through a process called registration review, is currently examining the compound.

“EPA initiated registration review of glyphosate in July 2009,” the EPA told HuffPost in a written statement. “EPA will determine if our previous assessments of this chemical need to be revised based on the results of this review. EPA issued a notice to the company [Monsanto] to submit human health and ecotoxicity data in September 2010.”

The EPA said it will also review a “wide range of information and data from other independent researchers” including Earth Open Source.

The agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs is in charge of the review and has set a deadline of 2015 for determining if registration modifications need to be made or if the herbicide should continue to be sold at all.
Though skirmishes over the regulation of glyphosate are playing out at agencies across the U.S. and around the world, Argentina is at the forefront of the battle.

THE ARGENTINE MODEL

The new report, “Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?” comes years after Argentine scientists and residents targeted glyphosate, arguing that it caused health problems and environmental damage.

Farmers and others in Argentina used the weedkiller primarily on genetically modified Roundup Ready soy, which covers nearly 50 million acres, or half of the country’s cultivated land area. In 2009 farmers sprayed that acreage with an estimated 200 million liters of glyphosate.

The Argentine government helped pull the country out of a recession in the 1990s in part by promoting genetically modified soy. Though it was something of a miracle for poor farmers, several years after the first big harvests residents near where the soy cop grew began reporting health problems, including high rates of birth defects and cancers, as well as the losses of crops and livestock as the herbicide spray drifted across the countryside.

Such reports gained further traction after an Argentine government scientist, Andres Carrasco conducted a study, “Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling” in 2009.

The study, published in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology in 2010, found that glyphosate causes malformations in frog and chicken embryos at doses far lower than those used in agricultural spraying. It also found that malformations caused in frog and chicken embryos by Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate were similar to human birth defects found in genetically modified soy-producing regions.

“The findings in the lab are compatible with malformations observed in humans exposed to glyphosate during pregnancy,” wrote Carrasco, director of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology at the University of Buenos Aires. “I suspect the toxicity classification of glyphosate is too low.”

“In some cases this can be a powerful poison,” he concluded.

Argentina has not made any federal reforms based on this research and has not discussed the research publicly, Carrasco told HuffPost, except to mount a “close defense of Monsanto and it partners.”

The Ministry of Science and Technology has moved to distance the government from the study, telling media at the time the study was not commissioned by the government and had not been reviewed by scientific peers.

Ignacio Duelo, spokesman for the the Ministry of Science and Technology’s National Council for Scientific and Technical Research [CONICET], told HuffPost in an statement that while Carrasco is one of its researchers, CONICET has not vouched for or assessed his work.

Duelo said that the Ministry of Science is examining Carrasco’s report as part of a study of the possible harmful effects of the glyphosate. Officials, he added, are as yet unable to “reach a definitive conclusion on the effects of glyphosate on human health, though more studies are recommended, as more data is necessary.”

REGIONAL BANS

After Carrasco announced his findings in 2009, the Defense Ministry banned planting of genetically modified glyphosate-resistant soy on lands it rents to farmers, and a group of environmental lawyers petitioned the Supreme Court of Argentina to implement a national ban on the use of glyphosate, including Monsanto’s Roundup product. But the ban was never adopted.

“A ban, if approved, would mean we couldn’t do agriculture in Argentina,” said Guillermo Cal, executive director of CASAFE, Argentina’s association of fertilizer companies, in a statement at the time.

In March 2010, a regional court in Argentina’s Santa Fe province banned the spraying of glyphosate and other herbicides near populated areas. A month later, the provincial government of Chaco province issued a report on health statistics from La Leonesa. The report, which was carried in the leftist Argentinian newspaper Página 12, showed that from 2000 to 2009, following the expansion of genetically-modified soy and rice crops in the region, the childhood cancer rate tripled in La Leonesa and the rate of birth defects increased nearly fourfold over the entire province.

MORE QUESTIONS

Back in the United States, Don Huber, an emeritus professor of plant pathology at Purdue University, found that genetically-modified crops used in conjunction with Roundup contain a bacteria that may cause animal miscarriages.

After studying the bacteria, Huber wrote Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack in February warning that the “pathogen appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings.”

The bacteria is particularly prevalent in corn and soybean crops stricken by disease, according to Huber, who asked Vilsack to stop deregulating Roundup Ready crops. Critics such as Huber are particularly wary of those crops because scientists have genetically altered them to be immune to Roundup — and thus allow farmers to spray the herbicide liberally onto a field, killing weeds but allowing the crop itself to continue growing.

Monsanto is not the only company making glyphosate. China sells glyphosate to Argentina at a very low price, Carrasco said, and there are more than one hundred commercial formulations in the market. But Monsanto’s Roundup has the longest list of critics, in part because it dominates the market.

The growth in adoption of genetically modified crops has exploded since their introduction in 1996. According to Monsanto, an estimated 89 percent of domestic soybean crops were Roundup Ready in 2010, and as of 2010, there were 77.4 million acres of Roundup Ready soybeans planted, according to the Department of Agriculture.

In his letter to the Agriculture Department, Huber also commented on the herbicide, saying that the bacteria that he’s concerned about appears to be connected to use of glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup.

“It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders,” he wrote.

Huber said the Agriculture Department wrote him in early May and that he has had several contacts with the agency since then. But there’s little evidence that government officials have any intention of conducting the “multi-agency investigation” Huber requested.

Part of the problem may be that the USDA oversees genetically modified crops while the EPA watches herbicides, creating a potential regulatory loophole for products like Roundup, which relies on both to complete the system. When queried, USDA officials emphasized that they do not regulate pesticides or herbicides and declined to comment publicly on Huber’s letter.

A spokesman eventually conceded their scientists do study glyphosate. “USDA’s Agricultural Research Service’s research with glyphosate began shortly after the discovery of its herbicidal activity in the mid 1970s,” said the USDA in a statement. “All of our research has been made public and much has gone through the traditional peer review process.”

While Huber acknowledged his research is far from conclusive, he said regulatory agencies must seek answers now. “There is much research that needs to be done yet,” he said. “But we can’t afford to wait the three to five years for peer-reviewed papers.”

While Huber’s claims have roiled the agricultural world and the blogosphere alike, he has fueled skeptics by refusing to make his research public or identify his fellow researchers, who he claims could suffer substantial professional backlash from academic employers who received research funding from the biotechnology industry.

At Purdue University, six of Huber’s former colleagues pointedly distanced themselves from his findings, encouraging crop producers and agribusiness personnel “to speak with University Extension personnel before making changes in crop production practices that are based on sensationalist claims.”

Since it first introduced the chemical to the world in the 1970s, Monsanto has netted billions on its best-selling herbicide, though the company has faced stiffer competition since its patent expired in 2000 and it is reportedly working to revamp its strategy.

In a lengthy email, Person, the Monsanto spokeswoman, responded to critics, suggesting that the economic and environmental benefits of Roundup were being overlooked:

“The authors of the report create an account of glyphosate toxicity from a selected set of scientific studies, while they ignored much of the comprehensive data establishing the safety of the product. Regulatory agencies around the world have concluded that glyphosate is not a reproductive toxin or teratogen (cause of birth defects) based on in-depth review of the comprehensive data sets available.

“Earth Open Source authors take issue with the decision by the European Commission to place higher priority on reviewing other pesticide ingredients first under the new EU regulations, citing again the flawed studies as the rationale. While glyphosate and all other pesticide ingredients will be reviewed, the Commission has decided that glyphosate appropriately falls in a category that doesn’t warrant immediate attention.”

“The data was there but the regulators were glossing over it,” said John Fagan of Earth Open Source, “and as a result it was accepted in ways that we consider really questionable,” he added.

CORNERING THE INDUSTRY?

Although the EPA has said it wants to evaluate more evidence of glyphosate’s human health risk as part of a registration review program, the agency is not doing any studies of its own and is instead relying on outside data — much of which comes from the agricultural chemicals industry it seeks to regulate.

“EPA ensures that each registered pesticide continues to meet the highest standards of safety to protect human health and the environment,” the agency told HuffPost in a statement. “These standards have become stricter over the years as our ability to evaluate the potential effects of pesticides has increased. The Agency placed glyphosphate into registration review. Registration review makes sure that as the ability to assess risks and as new information becomes available, the Agency carefully considers the new information to ensure pesticides do not pose risks of concern to people or the environment.”

Agribusiness giants, including Monsanto, Dow Chemical, Syngenta and BASF, will generate much of the data the EPA is seeking as part of a 19-member task force. But the EPA has emphasized that the task force is only “one of numerous varied third-party sources that EPA will rely on for use in its registration review.”

The EPA is hardly the only industry regulator that relies heavily on data supplied by the agrochemical industry itself.

“The regulation of pesticides has been significantly skewed towards the manufacturers interests where state-of-the-art testing is not done and adverse findings are typically distorted or denied,” said Jeffrey Smith, of the Institute for Responsible Technology. “The regulators tend to use the company data rather than independent sources, and the company data we have found to be inappropriately rigged to force the conclusion of safety.”

“We have documented time and time again scientists who have been fired, stripped of responsibilities, denied funding, threatened, gagged and transferred as a result of the pressure put on them by the biotech industry,” he added.

Such suppression has sometimes grown violent, Smith noted. Last August, when Carrasco and his team of researchers went to give a talk in La Leonesa they were intercepted by a mob of about a hundred people. The attack landed two people in the hospital and left Carrasco and a colleague cowering inside a locked car. Witnesses said the angry crowd had ties to powerful economic interests behind the local agro-industry and that police made little effort to interfere with the beating, according to the human rights group Amnesty International.

Fagan told HuffPost that among developmental biologists who are not beholden to the chemical industry or the biotechnology industry, there is strong recognition that Carrasco’s research is credible.

“For me as a scientist, one of the reasons I made the effort to do this research into the literature was to really satisfy the question myself as to where the reality of the situation lies,” he added. “Having thoroughly reviewed the literature on this, I feel very comfortable in standing behind the conclusions Professor Carrasco came to and the broader conclusions that we come to in our paper.

“We can’t figure out how regulators could have come to the conclusions that they did if they were taking a balanced look at the science, even the science that was done by the chemical industry itself.”

Jun 27, 20114 notes
New plant disease linked to GM crops and pesticides

1.New plant disease linked to GM crops and pesticides
Flint Duxfield 
ABC, 16 June 2011
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2011/s3245624.htm

US scientists claim to have discovered a dangerous new plant disease linked to genetically modified crops and the pesticides used on them.

The research, which is yet to be completed, suggests the pathogen could be the cause of recent widespread crop failure and miscarriages in livestock.

Emeritus Professor Don Huber from Perdue University says his research shows that animals fed on GM corn or soybeans may suffer serious health problems due the pathogen.

“They’re finding anywhere from 20 per cent to as much as 55 per cent of those [animals] will miscarriage or spontaneously abort,” he said.

“It will kill a chicken embryo for instance in 24-48 hours.”

Professor Huber says it isn’t clear yet whether it is the GM crops or the use of the pesticide glyphosate that causes the pathogen. But he says his research shows both the pesticide and the GM crops also reduce the ability of plants to absorb nutrients from the soil that are necessary for animal health.

“If you have the [GM] gene present there is a reduced efficiency for the plant to use those nutrients.

“When you put the glyphosate out then you have an additional factor to reduce the nutrient availability to the crop,” he said.

Professor Huber’s concerns came to light in February this year after a private letter he wrote to US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary, Tom Vilsack, was leaked to the media.

The letter requested the USDA halt plans to approve GM alfalfa for the US market until further research could be done into the threats posed by the pathogen.

Following the publication of Professor Huber’s letter, the company that produces the genetically modified seeds, Monsanto, released a statement rejecting his claims.

“Monsanto is not aware of any reliable studies that demonstrate Roundup Ready crops are more susceptible to certain diseases or that the application of glyphosate to Roundup Ready crops increases a plant’s susceptibility to diseases,” the statement read.

The Australian plant science industry peak body, Croplife, also dismissed Professor Huber’s concerns.

“We’ve had more than a trillion meals of GM based crops served globally with no health incidents whatsoever,” said chief executive officer, Matthew Cossey.

Mr Cossey says it is premature to be raising concerns about GM crops or glyphosate until the data is published.

“There’s a whole range of claims out there, very few end up being backed up by data.”

Following Professor Huber’s letter six scientists from Perdue University published a statement saying the suggestion that glyphosate is having a significant affect on plant health is “largely unsubstantiated”.

While the scientists say that GM soybeans and wheat are no more susceptible to soil-borne diseases than non-GM varieties, they acknowledged that Prof Huber’s concerns are not unfounded.

“Research has indicated that plants sprayed with glyphosate or other herbicides are more susceptible to many biological and physiological disorders,” the statement says.

The final outcomes of Professor Huber’s study are expected to be published later this year. In the meanwhile he says it would be appropriate to adopt a precautionary approach to the use of glyphosate and the deregulation of GM crops.

“All the red flags are standing in a row for us,” he said. “I would certainly express serious concerns with deregulation of our genetically modified crops.”
—-
—-
2.Audio: A US scientist is concerned GM crops and the pesticide glyphosate could be causing a dangerous plant disease.

Prof Don Huber Full Interview
Download this mp3 file
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rural/201106/r784796_6781792.mp3

GM pathogen concern full story
Download this mp3 file
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rural/201106/r784804_6781912.mp3

Croplife Australia CEO, Matthew Cossey says GM crops and glyphosate have been proven to be safe
Download this mp3 file
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rural/201106/r784805_6781914.mp3

Jun 27, 201127 notes
GM wheat planted in Australia, on shelves in food by 2015 says Government

This year’s GM wheat trials have begun, with plantings in the ACT, NSW and WA and claims by the Federal Government that Australians will be eating GM bread by 2015.

GM wheat will be planted in field trials across Australia this year, and our government science body, the CSIRO, plans to have GM bread on supermarket shelves by 2015. This year’s field trials are scientific scale trials, which means most are under one hectare in size. But if CSIRO succeeds with their plan for Australia to become the first country in the world to approve GM wheat, we could be facing large-scale commercial field trials of GM wheat within the next two years.

That means two things; global biotech patents on our daily bread, and inevitable contamination of Australian farmers’ conventional and organic wheat crops.

While Australia’s GM wheat trials have been dressed-up as ‘objective’, scientific research, a Greenpeace investigation has revealed that global GM companies including Monsanto, Limagrain and BASF are the money behind the trials and are partnered with our so-called public research bodies to push GM wheat approval in Australia.

One of the clearest signs of the power of GM company dollars is the flimsy excuse for a risk assessment that the Australian Government performed before giving the all-clear for corporate scientists and their global biotech partners to release experimental GM wheat into the field. The Government recognises that “Gene technology has the potential to cause unintended effects due to random insertion of the introduced genetic material”, but they go on to dismiss the risk of genetic pollution as negligible.

They also dismiss any risk of contamination of non-GM crops from this year’s GM wheat field trials, even though all local and international evidence shows that GM can’t be contained in the field. The biggest GM contamination event in history started with a small scale field trial of Bayer’s GM rice. The single contamination event cost the rice industry $1.2 billion.

If you don’t want GM bread and pasta, if you don’t want our farmers to have to fight to prevent contamination of their wheat crop from Monsanto’s patented GMOs, tell our Agriculture Minister that you don’t want to eat GM bread and will hold his government responsible for any contamination from the GM wheat trials he has approved. Click here to email the Minister, or call his office on (02) 6277 7520.

Jun 17, 20112 notes
How to Establish a Small Space Intensive Food Garden

by Geoff Lawton

Case Study – Noela’s Garden, as installed by Geoff and Nadia Lawton

This is a story about a garden that Nadia and I were asked to establish in 2006. It’s a very small space – the area is 95m2. A friend of a friend asked if we could get involved to help to design and implement a garden. Nadia had only recently arrived in Australia and I wanted her and I to put a garden in together as a ‘start to finish’ job so she could get a feel for how we establish small space gardens in Australia, as she already had experience in small space gardening in Jordan.

 
The area on the North side of Noela’s house.

Noela, a friend of a friend at the time, is now a very close friend of the institute, due to the community friendship that this garden has created. On the north side of the house is the driveway, which is the south boundary of the garden space. The first thing we had to do was to define the area required and then fence that area. A fence was only needed on three sides of the garden because it joined the house on the south side allowing sun into the garden from the northern side. This created a typically ‘Zone 1’ urban garden design. The house was on an excavated site, slightly lower than the rest of the landscape, which allowed for an eye level view into the garden from three windows of the house – the kitchen, the lounge room and bedroom.

Next to the house was a rockery, which was already established in ornamental plants and our intention was to convert that over to a herb garden with useful culinary and medicinal herbs and nice scented herbal plants that would give a nice aroma as the breeze would blow through the house from the garden.


Nadia and Geoff establishing the initial fence posts
and digging the trench between the posts.

Below we’re digging the small trench around the garden between the fence posts:

This trench was dug so that we could sink the wire underneath the ground so it completely excludes any wildlife that might dig under the fence. In this part of Australia, as in many other climates and landscapes, there are all kinds of animals that would like to get in and eat your garden. We have bandicoots, wallabies and kangaroos, to name a few, so to avoid these animals identifying your garden as a food source, it is worth making sure that it is well secured from the outset to avoid problems later on.

Tip: For especially troublesome animals, like rabbits, you can bend the wire at bottom outwards for several inches – if you dig a wider trench – then cover with soil. The rabbits will try to dig under, but will get discouraged to continue when they discover they’re hitting a floor of wire.


A low height of wire being sunk down into the trench so that it can be buried.

Also in the photo above you can see that we’re starting to shape the garden beds with a ‘reach factor’ for a completely functional food garden. There are ’single and ‘double reach’ garden beds (double reach = you can reach to the centre from each side). All garden beds and footpaths are on contour, completely level across the slope, and the soil for the garden beds is literally dug out of the footpaths, which gives the garden a slightly raised bed form and extra topsoil depth to grow your plants in. This is the beginning of the terra forming (earth shaping) of the garden.

The shot above shows the newspaper we put down either side of the wire before backfilling so that there is no soil between the newspaper (no soil contacting the wire). This creates an absolute soil cover and weed exclusion zone which means you don’t get any weeds growing against the fence of your garden for the first few months, allowing you enough time to establish useful and beneficial plants which will completely dominate that space. The newspaper simply gives you more time to get on with gardening, and the carbon in the paper enriches the soil as it breaks down.


We’ve now added some taller fence wire bringing it up to about 1.2m/4ft 
high and we’re starting to put down donkey manure, straw mulch and 
some compost to inoculate the soil with beneficial organisms.

We’ve now added a thin layer of straw mulch on top of that plus we’ve put in a worm farm for Noela (pictured further down this page), half filled with donkey manure and the rest with green leaves and vegetable scraps. Every 3 months we can empty the farm of worm castings by attracting the worms to one end with some lush fruit and veg scraps, pulling them all out 2 days later, taking out the castings and then re-filling it with manure and the worms with fruit scraps.

On each garden bed we’ve put one bale of straw to 25-30m2 of growing bed – a very thin layer of straw, loosely fluffed, as a scatter mulch. Into this we’ve sowed a cover crop seed of a vetch, a field pea, and lupin scattered into the straw mulch. As this was winter on the subtropical east coast of Australia, we use the same cover crop as you use in summer in a temperate climate. Before we put the seed down we mixed an inoculant into the seed mix, which is a bacteria suspended in peat with a natural glue. We mix this with some water into a black sticky paste and then stir through the seed, so the bacteria that is associated with those particular plants, are already attached to the seed. When the seeds go into the fluffy mulch water is added. It then quickly germinates and the bacteria adds nitrogen (that is available through the air in the soil) to the plants and the bacteria gets starch from the plant through photosynthesis.

We sow the cover crop seeds 4 times thicker than agriculturally recommended so that we completely dominate the planting area and useful plants take up the potential weed space. The interactions in the soil from the root exudates, not only from their rhizomes, but the plethora of diversity that’s added in the scattering of compost is quickly added to the soil and the organisms start to work with the organic matter and produce soluble plant food.

As you can see, we’re mulching the footpaths with paper and cardboard, quite thickly, then we’re covering it with gravel and fine crushed gravel dust thereby making a footpath that’s quite quick and easy and is absolutely weed free for the first few months, whilst we get the garden established. We’re doing the opposite to most people in this case by then putting into the footpath some low ground cover plants that can handle light foot traffic, for example Pennyroyal, which also lets off quite a strong smell that is very distracting to any potential pests coming through the garden.

Within 6 weeks you can see that the garden is completely dressed in a cover crop. There are actually vegetables already growing underneath that, which were planted on the day of sowing the cover crop. All Noela has to do is take her kitchen scissors and trim the cover crops if they are overpowering and overshading the vegetables, which in turn becomes the initial fertilising mulch to our seedlings. She also needed to set off a little irrigation timer, purchased from a local farm supply store, to start up the two moveable low pressure sprinklers for just half an hour every day to wet down the garden.

After 2 or 3 months the garden starts to show more vegetables and less cover crop as Noela starts to go to work with her kitchen scissors, freeing the cover crop away from the vegetables as they start to emerge. You can see the edge of the rockery, which we’ve started to convert from an ornamental to a herb rockery.


Views from the house into the garden.


The garden after the initial clean up – we’ve pruned plants that have finished,
removed any weeds that have come through, there is hardly any cover
crop left. We’ve put down more donkey manure, compost, worm castings and
more straw on top, ready for more seedlings for the next season of cropping.


The garden is coming through quite well in the next cropping stage.


View of the rockery, covering up with herbs quite well.


Perennial plants growing well, rosemary in corner of garden.


View of the rockery, covering up with herbs quite well.


Garden becoming quite full.

In the pictures that follow, the garden is at a much later stage – further established, more perennial plants, footpaths very stable, fence completely covered with crop, 7 yr bean dominating the fence, and gourds, loufahs, passionfruit, grapes in profusion, etc. The outside garden bed now has permanent perennial plants; inside garden bed with annual, perennial and medicinal plants:

The herb rockery is now almost maintenance free, with coloured and scented plants and different forms and patterns of distractions to pests, along with lizard rockeries, birdbaths and ponds, thus favouring predators within the system. No chemicals are being used, only natural fertilisers – very little mulch, manure and compost is required, mainly only worm castings every 3 months.

Noela is now almost completely self-sufficient with fresh food for her vegetarian diet. She picks fresh food out of her garden every day, and all she has to do is look out of her own house windows every day to decide what she’s going to eat – as it is right there in front of her. It is so easy to manage and it allows her time to relax in her garden, spend time planting more trees and getting other fruit and orchard systems and ornamental aesthetic gardens established. Surplus food is given away to her family and friends.

This is an example to show that not a lot of space is needed to grow your own food, you can do it very easily as long as you keep it close to your house and follow the basic patterns of establishment so that you avoid most problems.

 
Noela’s donkeys creating manure for the garden.


The garden now 4 years old.


The birdbath to attract birds, i.e. favouring predators.


The established 4 year old garden.


The tap timer that controls the irrigation.


The low pressure sprinkler head.


The donkey stable that supplies the manure and urinated straw for
the garden and worm farms.


The 3 worm farms that are fed on the donkey straw and manure, vegetable
and fruit scraps from Noela’s kitchen. The buckets below collect the
worm juice – which is part of the fertilising process.


View of the worm farms with the donkey stables behind.


Noela’s deep litter chook yard, which adds some fertility to the garden.
The chickens scratch through the straw and pull up the weeds, de-seed it,
take out any pest larvae, and manure it.


Noela’s 2 water tanks that supply all the water for the garden,
caught from her roof.


Jun 16, 201119 notes
Planning Our Organic Market Garden

by Milkwood Permaculture

I never thought we would get excited about, let along plan to do, the whole market garden thing. But while I’m all for no-dig polycultures like our domestic-scale kitchen garden, I’m also a pragmatist.

These days, we need more vegetables than we currently produce, especially from Spring through till Autumn. Way, way more. So I figure we’d better get ourselves into gear and learn how to grow ‘em.

Here at Milkwood Farm we have a highly oscillatory pattern of needs, when it comes to food. From May until August, in the winter months, it’s just our little family here. Our domestic food supply is easy to mostly supplement from our basecamp kitchen garden and our family’s wiltipol lamb, with additions from local friends.


Food inputs graph for Milkwood Farm, September thru to March

However, from September through to April, we now have many more mouths to feed. To start with, there are interns and wwoofers. On top of that, we’re now regularly running on-farm courses of every type imaginable – holistic management, food forest design, biofertilisers, permaculture design, beekeeping and so on.

The reality of having all those people on the farm for short periods (3 days up to 2 weeks, depending on the course) is that our food needs oscillate wildly from week to week. But any way you look at it, we need a lot of food. Good food. And, ideally, food that is primarily grown here, at the farm.

Up until now we have been able to supplement the massive amount of food inputs with our own lamb, and sprinklings of our own vegetables from our basecamp garden – herbs, a pile of potatoes here, a scattering of silverbeet there.

All very lovely and encouraging as a gesture, but when you come right down to it, we’re importing the vast majority of our food. And I want to stop.

The reality of this situation really sank in during last summer when we had a cook come in to cater for our two on-farm PDC courses. Before this, I was in charge of supplying and cooking all the food for PDC courses – 30 people for two weeks, three meals a day – and I was in such a whirlwind that I never really sat down to evaluate how much we used.

But now that someone else was cooking, I was relegated to food supply only, and I began to realize just how much food we went through in 2 weeks: 40kg of potatoes, 65 lettuces, 12 watermelons, 36kg tomatoes, 48 zucchinis and on and on and on. And that was just one course. Wow.

When Joel Salatin was at our farm last December, we asked him what advice he had for young farmers starting out. Trust Joel to walk straight up to the elephant in the room grab it firmly by the trunk:

Start with supplying your immediate needs, Joel said. Which in the case of this place (Milkwood), is sorting out all that food you guys buy in for course catering here. Figure out how to supplement whatever your basic costs are, and take it from there… you’ll figure out what to do next as you go.


Michael of Allsun and Polyface crew at Polyface farm. This kitchen garden has
now been superseded by their new market garden share-farmer…

Hmm. Okay, I had thought of that, but I was hoping that growing enough food for catering would just naturally happen somehow through a progression of our kitchen garden. But the reality is that it won’t. We need to apply a market garden style approach to fulfill the seasonal food input needs of Milkwood Farm.

And so we started reading. And thinking, and talking, and planning.

Our parameters are: a market garden to supply as many vegetables as possible for Milkwood Farm’s seasonal needs.

I don’t mind if this reduces the variety of veges we all eat at the farm – in fact, I would welcome being restricted to a seasonal, locally available diet. How exactly to make this happen, I’m figuring out this winter. There is a lot to consider:

  • placement and size of market garden
  • garden design
  • ground preparation (green manures, got to get them in asap)
  • graphing our timing of needs, based on our course schedule
  • preparing planting plans based on the above
  • figuring out what to plant where, next to what, and why
  • gathering tools needed for a first year of gardening
  • gathering other resources needed
  • making compost on a massive scale, starting right now
  • constructing a rabbit-proof fence around garden
  • probably a million other things I haven’t thought of yet…

Here are three books I have lapped up in the past month in preparation for this grand adventure. They are good for different reasons:

Four-Season Harvest – Eliot Coleman

Eliot Coleman is the most rockin’ organic market gardener i know of thus far. His techniques align with permaculture principles, he’s super energy efficient, and he knows his onions. This book has been a great starting point for getting our heads around the psychology of taking gardening from domestic to market scale.

Unlike many market gardens, Four Season Farm has a very large range of produce. We’re not just setting up to produce tomatoes and lettuces – we’re aiming for the lot! 

So this approach is invaluable to us.

The Winter Harvest Handbook – Eliot Coleman

This book has got me thinking about a bunch of ways that greenhouses can integrate into small-scale effective market gardening. Eliot uses unheated greenhouses and row covers to extend the season of many vegetables in a variety of funky ways which seem plausible to us, given our modest budget and labor availabilities, and our short growing season.

There’s also Eliot’s The New Organic Grower: A Master’s Manual of Tools and Techniques for the Home and Market Gardener, but we haven’t read this one yet.

Bioshelter Market Garden: A Permaculture Farm – Darrell Frey

This book has been really important to us for reasons other than we expected: it’s a quasi how-to/narrative about a bunch of permaculture-inspired folks starting a market garden farm using bioshelters.

It chronicles the process from starting with only no-dig beds through to a balance of more standard market gardening techniques for some vegetables, and no-dig bed production for others, as suited to the vegetable. Darn interesting reading, especially if you take it from a narrative point of view.

Bale Shelters. These got us thinking about semi-permanent raw bale structures…

In addition to reading the above books, planning to read many more, and spending many hours considering and pacing out sections of our creek flat in the winter rain, I’m trying to get my head around the basics of planting plans. The Eliot Coleman books have been great for this, as (surprisingly?) have been simple books like Eat Your Garden by Leonie Shanahan.

To keep my spirits up during planning such a daunting project, I’ve been tempering the planning with large doses of pictures of successful, happy farms with market gardens integrated into them. And looking at other young farmers who have succeeded in producing food while managing to have happy families.


Four Season Farm does a lot of interplanting,
underplanting and companion planting


Raw bale seedling-started cold frame thingy. Good idea.


Four Season Farm greenhouse. Not sure we’ll get this technical, but still…


Allsun Farm, near Gundaroo, southern NSW

Joyce Wilkie and Michael Plane of Allsun Farm down in Gundaroo are not only brilliant market gardeners, but their growing the growers project chronicles many amazing small farms (including PolyFace and Four Seasons) doing just what we’re planning to do.

There’s also The Greenhorns, a collective and doco crew in America supporting young farmers, and many other links and resources that I’m finding every day. It’s comforting to know that it can be done.

Happily, it looks like we have the excellent help and mentorship of Joyce and Michael of Allsun Farm during this undertaking. We’ve somehow convinced them to run a course in early spring at Milkwood Farm on how to start an organic market garden, which will run in parallel to our market garden’s setup.

We’re also planning to shortly offer a position on the farm for Spring which will be a market garden apprentice. This person will spend time at Allsun Farm prior to getting to Milkwood in September, and then manage the market garden (with help from us and the rest of the on-farm interns, wwoofers and crew) until Autumn under the remote mentorship of Joyce and Michael. Pretty exciting!

It’s a big project, but it’s a necessary one if we’re going to take responsibility for the impact and the nutrition of the food we feed our family, our crew and our students at Milkwood Farm. We’re not aiming for self-sufficiency, but we are aiming to be responsible for our inputs as much as we can. Wish us luck!

Oh yes and… any suggestions of resources, or stories from the land of sub-commercial organic market gardening? Please share! A good recommendation is worth a thousand browsing moments….

Jun 10, 2011
Get to know your Monsanto - the company feeding you GMO

Monsanto was created in 1901. The company’s first product was the artificial sweetener saccharin. In the 1920s Monsanto expanded into basic industrial chemicals. During the Second World War Monsanto contributed to research on uranium for the Manhattan Project, which lead to the atomic bomb. Monsanto continued to operate a nuclear facility for the U.S. government until the late 1980s. During the 1940s Monsanto also become a leading manufacturer of synthetic fibres and plastics, including polystyrene - ranked fifth in the EPA’s list of chemicals whose production generates the most total hazardous waste. From the 1940s onwards Monsanto was one of the top 10 US chemical companies.

Following the Second World War, Monsanto championed the use of chemical pesticides in agriculture. Its major agrochemical products have included the herbicides 2,4,5-T, DDT, Lasso and Agent Orange, which was widely used as a defoliant by the U.S. Government during the Vietnam War and which was later shown to be highly carcinogenic. The Agent Orange produced by Monsanto had dioxin levels many times higher than that produced by Dow Chemicals, the other major supplier of Agent Orange to Vietnam. This made Monsanto the key defendant in the lawsuit brought by Vietnam War veterans in the United States, who faced an array of debilitating symptoms attributable to Agent Orange exposure. Internal Monsanto memos show that Monsanto knew of the problems of dioxin contamination of Agent Orange when it sold it to the U.S. government for use in Vietnam.

Agent Orange contaminated more than 3 million civilians and servicemen, and an estimated 500,000 Vietnamese children have been born with deformities attributed to Agent Orange, leading to calls for Monsanto to be prosecuted for war crimes. No compensation has been paid to Vietnamese civilians and though some compensation was paid to U.S. veterans, according to William Sanjour, who led the Toxic Waste Division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “thousands of veterans were disallowed benefits” because “Monsanto studies showed that dioxin [as found in Agent Orange] was not a human carcinogen.” An EPA colleague discovered that Monsanto had apparently falsified the data in their studies. Sanjour says, “If [the studies] were done correctly, they would have reached just the opposite result.”

The success of the herbicide Lasso had turned around Monsanto’s struggling Agriculture Division, and by the time Agent Orange was banned in the U.S. and Lasso was facing increasing criticism, Monsanto had developed the weedkiller “Roundup” (active ingredient: glyphosate) as a replacement. Launched in 1976, Roundup helped make Monsanto the world’s largest producer of herbicides.

The success of Roundup coincided with the recognition by Monsanto executives that they needed to radically transform a company increasingly under threat. According to a recent paper by Dominic Glover, “Monsanto had acquired a particularly unenviable reputation in this regard, as a major producer of both dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) - both persistent environmental pollutants posing serious risks to the environment and human health. Law suits and environmental clean-up costs began to cut into Monsanto’s bottom line, but more seriously there was a real fear that a serious lapse could potentially bankrupt the company.”

Such a fear was not misplaced. By the 1980s Monsanto was being hit by a series of lawsuits. It was one of the companies named in 1987 in an $180 million settlement for Vietnam War veterans exposed to Agent Orange. In 1991 Monsanto was fined $1.2 million for trying to conceal the discharge of contaminated waste water. In 1995 Monsanto was ordered to pay $41.1 million to a waste management company in Texas due to concerns over hazardous waste dumping. That same year Monsanto was ranked fifth among U.S. corporations in EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory, having discharged 37 million pounds of toxic chemicals into the air, land, water and underground. In 1997 The Seattle Times reported that Monsanto sold 6,000 tons of contaminated waste to Idaho fertilizer companies, which contained the carcinogenic heavy metal cadmium.

Then in 2002 the Washington Post ran an article entitled, “Monsanto Hid Decades Of Pollution, PCBs Drenched Ala. Town, But No One Was Ever Told”. Monsanto began production of polychlorinated biphenyls in the United States in 1929. PCBs were considered an industrial wonder chemical - an oil that would not burn, was impervious to degradation and had almost limitless applications. Today PCBs are considered one of the gravest chemical threats on the planet.

Monsanto produced PCBs for over 50 years and they are now virtually omnipresent in the blood and tissues of humans and wildlife around the globe. These days PCBs are banned from production and some experts say there should be no acceptable level of PCBs allowed in the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says, “PCB has been demonstrated to cause cancer, as well as a variety of other adverse health effects on the immune system, reproductive system, nervous system and endocrine system.” But the evidence of widespread contamination from PCBs and related chemicals has been accumulating from 1965 onwards and internal company papers show that Monsanto knew about the PCB dangers from early on. For instance, toxicity tests on the effects of two PCBs in 1953 showed that more than 50% of the rats subjected to them died, and all of them showed damage.

With experts at the company in no doubt that Monsanto’s PCBs were responsible for contamination, in 1968 the company set up a committee to assess its options. In a paper distributed to only 12 people but which surfaced at the trial in 2002, Monsanto admitted “that the evidence proving the persistence of these compounds and their universal presence as residues in the environment is beyond question … the public and legal pressures to eliminate them to prevent global contamination are inevitable”. Monsanto papers seen by The Guardian newspaper reveal near panic. “The subject is snowballing. Where do we go from here? The alternatives: go out of business; sell the hell out of them as long as we can and do nothing else; try to stay in business; have alternative products”, wrote the recipient of one paper. In 1969 the company wrote a confidential Pollution Abatement Plan which admitted that “the problem involves the entire United States, Canada and sections of Europe, especially the UK and Sweden”.

The problem was particularly severe in the town of Anniston in Alabama where discharges from the local Monsanto plant meant residents developed PCB levels hundreds or thousands of times the average. As The Washington Post reported, “for nearly 40 years, while producing the now-banned industrial coolants known as PCBs at a local factory, Monsanto Co. routinely discharged toxic waste into a west Anniston creek and dumped millions of pounds of PCBs into oozing open-pit landfills. And thousands of pages of Monsanto documents — many emblazoned with warnings such as ‘CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy’ — show that for decades, the corporate giant concealed what it did and what it knew.”

Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group says that based on the Monsanto documents made public, the company “knew the truth from the very beginning. They lied about it. They hid the truth from their neighbors.” One Monsanto memo explains their justification: “We can’t afford to lose one dollar of business.” Eventually the company was found guilty of conduct “so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society”. 

But by the time that the Anniston pollution case came to court, Monsanto had already managed to hive off the old core of its business into a new company called Solutia. Although Monsanto and Solutia eventually agreed to pay $600 million to settle claims brought by more than 20,000 Anniston residents, Monsanto had by then relaunched itself as an agricultural biotechnology company.

Solutia was spun off from Monsanto as a way for Monsanto to divest itself of billions of dollars in environmental cleanup costs and other liabilities for its past actions - liabilities that eventually forced Solutia to seek Chapter 11 bankruptcy. According to a spokesman for Solutia, “(Monsanto) sort of cherry-picked what they wanted and threw in all kinds of cats and dogs as part of a going-away present,” including $1 billion in debt and environmental and litigation costs. Some pre-bankruptcy Solutia equity holders allege Solutia was set up fraudulently as it was always doomed to fail under the financial weight of Monsanto’s liabilities.

The key to Monsanto’s metamorphosis into a biotechnology company was the run away success of the herbicide Roundup. Within a few years of its 1976 launch, Roundup was being marketed in 115 countries. According to Glover, “Sales grew by 20 per cent in 1981 and as the company increased production it was soon Monsanto’s most profitable product (Monsanto 1981, 1983)… It soon became the single most important product of Monsanto’s agriculture division, which contributed about 20 per cent of sales and around 45 per cent of operating income to the company’s balance sheet each year during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Today, glyphosate remains the world’s biggest herbicide by volume of sales.”

By 1990 with the help of Roundup, the agriculture division of Monsanto was significantly outperforming Monsanto’s chemicals division in terms of operating income, and the gap was increasing. But as Glover notes, while “such a blockbuster product uncorks a fountain of revenue”, it “also creates an uncomfortable dependency on the commercial fortunes of a single brand. Monsanto’s management knew that the last of the patents protecting Roundup in the United States, its biggest market, would expire in the year 2000, opening the field to potential competitors. The company urgently needed a strategy to negotiate this hurdle and prolong the useful life of its ‘cash cow’.”

Biotechnology was increasingly seen not just as a valuable complement to Monsanto’s chemical technology but as a way of enabling it to further expand into agriculture and secure its “cash cow”. This lead to Monsanto selling off its plastics business to Bayer in 1996, and its phenylalanine facilities to Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (GLC) in 1999. Much of the rest of its chemicals division was spun off in late 1997 as Solutia, as already noted. This helped Monsanto distance itself to some extent not only from direct financial liability for the historical core of its business but also from its controversial production and contamination legacy.

By 2000 the current Monsanto had emerged from various transactions, including a merger for a time with Pharmacia, as a legally different corporation from the Monsanto that had existed from 1901-2000. This was depite the fact that both Monsantos shared not just the same name, but the same corporate headquarters near St. Louis, Missouri, and many of the same executives and other employees, not to mention much of the responsibility for liabilities arising out of its former activities.

As Monsanto had moved into biotechnology, its executives had the opportunity to create a new narrative for the company. They begun to portray genetic engineering as a ground-breaking technology that could contribute to feeding a hungry world. Monsanto executive Robb Fraley, who was head of the plant molecular biology research team, is also said to have hyped the potential of GM crops within the company, as a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Monsanto to dominate a whole new industry, invoking the monopoly success of Microsoft as a powerful analogy. But, according to Glover, the more down-to-earth pitch to fellow executives was that “genetic engineering offered the best prospect of preserving the commercial life of Monsanto’s most important product, Roundup in the face of the challenges Monsanto would face once the patent expired.”

Monsanto eventually achieved this by introducing into crop plants genes that give resistance to glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup). This meant farmers could spray Roundup onto their fields as a weedkiller even during the growing season without harming the crop. This allowed Monsanto to “significantly expand the market for Roundup and, more importantly, help Monsanto to negotiate the expiry of its glyphosate patents, on which such a large slice of the company’s income depended.” With glyphosate-tolerant GM crops, Monsanto was able ìto preserve its dominant share of the glyphosate market through a marketing strategy that would couple proprietary “Roundup Ready” seeds with continued sales of Roundup.

Although the first of Monsanto’s biotech products to make it to market was not a GM crop but Monsanto’s controversial GM cattle drug, bovine growth hormone - called rBGH or rBST, Monsanto’s corporate strategy led them for the first time to acquire seed companies. During the 1990s Monsanto spent $10 billion globally buying up seed companies - a push that continues to this day. It has purchased, for example, Holden’s Foundations Seeds, Seminis - the largest seed company not producing corn or soybeans in the world, the Dutch seed company De Ruiter Seeds, and the big cotton seed firm Delta and Pine. As a result, Monsanto is now the world’s largest seed company, accounting for almost a quarter of the global proprietary seed market.

Monsanto’s biotech seeds and traits (including those licensed to other companies) accounted for almost 90% of the total world area devoted to GM seeds by 2007. Today, over 80% of the worldwide area devoted to GM crops carries at least one genetic trait for herbicide tolerance. Herbicides account for about one-third of the global pesticide market. Monsanto’s glyphosate-resistant (Roundup Ready) seeds have reigned supreme on the biotech scene for over a decade - creating a near-monopoly for the company’s Roundup herbicide - which is now off patent. Roundup is the world’s biggest selling pesticide and it has helped make Monsanto the world’s fifth largest agrochemical company.

This concentration of corporate power drives up costs for farmers and consumers. Retail prices for Roundup have increased from just $32 per gallon in December 2006 to $45 per gallon a year later, to $75 per gallon by June 2008 - a 134% price hike in less than two years. Because gene technologies can be patented, they also concentrate corporate power - by 2000 five pesticide companies, including Monsanto, controlled over 70% of all patents on agricultural biotechnology. And this concentration again drives up costs. According to Keith Mudd of the U.S.-based Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM), “The lack of competition and innovation in the marketplace has reduced farmers’ choices and enabled Monsanto to raise prices unencumbered.”

At a July 2008 meeting, Monsanto officials announced plans to raise the average price of some of the company’s GM maize (corn) varieties a whopping 35 percent, by $95-100 per bag, to top $300 per bag. Fred Stokes of OCM describes the implications for farmers: “A $100 price increase is a tremendous drain on rural America. Let’s say a farmer in Iowa who farms 1,000 acres plants one of these expensive corn varieties next year. The gross increased cost is more than $40,000. Yet there’s no scientific basis to justify this price hike. How can we let companies get away with this?” What holds good for maize, also holds good for other GM crops. The average price for soybean seed, the largest GM crop in the US, has risen by more than 50% in just two years from 2006 to 2008 - from $32.30 to $49.23 per planted acre.

Patenting also inhibits public sector research and further undermines the rights of farmers to save and exchange seeds. Monsanto devotes an annual budget of 10 million dollars to harassing, intimidating, suing - and in some cases bankrupting - American farmers over alleged improper use of its patented seeds.

Recent price hikes have taken place in the context of a global food crisis marked by rapid food price inflation, which has exacerbated extreme poverty and hunger, and increased social tensions. The World Bank attributes 75% of this global food price inflation to “biofuels”, and Monsanto has been at the very heart of the “biofuels” lobby, particularly the lobby for corn ethanol. Monsanto has been accused of both contributing to and benefiting from the food crisis, while simultaneously using it as a PR platform from which to promote GM crops as the solution to the crisis.

In 2008 the President of the General Assembly of the United Nations condemned corporate profiteering: “The essential purpose of food, which is to nourish people, has been subordinated to the economic aims of a handful of multinational corporations that monopolize all aspects of food production, from seeds to major distribution chains, and they have been the prime beneficiaries of the world crisis. A look at the figures for 2007, when the world food crisis began, shows that corporations such as Monsanto and Cargill, which control the cereals market, saw their profits increase by 45 and 60 per cent, respectively.”

Jun 10, 201115 notes
Public kept in the dark on Roundup link with birth defects - new report

Public kept in the dark on Roundup link with birth defects 
*Industry knew since 1980s, regulators since 1990s*
Earth Open Source
Press release for immediate release, 7 June 2011
Contact: claire.robinson@earthopensource.org   

Industry and EU regulators knew as long ago as the 1980s-1990s that Roundup, the world’s best selling herbicide, causes birth defects – but they failed to inform the public. This is the conclusion of a new report, “Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?” co-authored by a group of international scientists and researchers and released today.[1]

The report reveals that industry’s own studies (including one commissioned by Monsanto) showed as long ago as the 1980s that Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate causes birth defects in laboratory animals. 

The German government has known about these findings since at least the 1990s, when as the “rapporteur” member state for glyphosate, it reviewed industry’s studies for the EU approval of the herbicide. The European Commission has known since at least 2002, when it signed off on glyphosate’s approval. 

But this information was not made public. On the contrary, regulators have consistently misled the public about glyphosate’s safety. As recently as last year, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, BVL, told the Commission there was “no evidence of teratogenicity” (ability to cause birth defects) for glyphosate. 

BVL made this comment in its rebuttal[2] of an independent scientific study published last year by Argentine scientists. The study showed that Roundup and glyphosate cause birth defects in frogs and chickens at concentrations much lower than those used in agricultural spraying.[3] The study was prompted by reports of high rates of birth defects and cancers in areas of South America growing genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready soy, which is engineered to tolerate being sprayed liberally with glyphosate herbicide.

In its rebuttal of the Argentine study, BVL cited as proof of glyphosate’s safety the industry studies submitted for the Commission’s 2002 approval of glyphosate (the approval that is currently in force).

But the authors of the new report obtained the approval documents and found that contrary to BVL’s claim, industry’s own studies, conducted in the 1980s and 1990s, showed that glyphosate/Roundup causes birth defects in experimental animals. In some cases, these effects occurred at low doses.

The German authorities and the EU Commission’s ECCO expert review panel[4] whitewashed the findings and the Commission approved the herbicide. 

Claire Robinson, a co-author of the new report and spokesperson for the sustainability NGO Earth Open Source, which published it, said, “This looks like a thirty-year cover-up by industry and regulators and it has certainly placed the public at risk. Roundup is used not only by farmers but by home gardeners and in school grounds and other public areas, in part because of false marketing claims that it is safe.”

Commission delays review of glyphosate

A new, more stringent pesticide regulation comes into force in the EU this June. An objective review of glyphosate under this new regulation would almost certainly result in a ban. This is because under the regulation, independent studies have to be taken into consideration. Many of these studies, summarised in the new report, show that glyphosate and Roundup cause birth defects, cancer, genetic damage, endocrine disruption, and other serious effects, often at very low doses. 

Glyphosate was due to be reviewed in 2012. But late last year, the Commission quietly passed a directive delaying the review of glyphosate and 38 other pesticides until 2015.[5] 

Moreover, in 2015, glyphosate will be reviewed under lax, outdated standards. This is because the Commission has failed to complete the data requirements (the tests that industry has to do) for the new regulation in time for industry to do the new tests. So glyphosate will likely sail through its 2015 review and will not be reviewed under up-to-date, more stringent data requirements for another 15 years, in 2030.[6] 

Claire Robinson said, “Glyphosate could get a free regulatory ride until 2030, at a time when biotech companies are pressuring the EU for permission to cultivate glyphosate-tolerant GM seeds in Europe. This would lead to a huge increase in the use of glyphosate in Europe, as has happened in North and South America. The beneficiary of the Commission’s delay will be the pesticide industry; the victim will be public health.

“The Commission must cancel the delay and conduct an immediate review of glyphosate and Roundup, taking into consideration the independent scientific literature. In the meantime, it must apply the precautionary principle and withdraw the herbicide from use in Europe until the review has been completed.”

ENDS

References

1. Antoniou, M., Habib, M., Howard, C.V., Jennings, R.C., Leifert, C., Nodari, R. O., Robinson, C., Fagan, J. 2011. Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? Earth Open Source. June. http://www.scribd.com/doc/57277946/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5

2. BVL, Germany. 2010. Glyphosate – Comments from Germany on the paper by Paganelli, A. et al. (2010): “Glyphosate-based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling”. October 19.http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/File:BVL2010.comments.Paganelli.pdf

3. Paganelli, A., Gnazzo, V. et al. 2010. Glyphosate-based herbicides produce teratogenic effects on vertebrates by impairing retinoic acid signaling. Chem Res Toxicol 23(10): 1586–1595.

4. This review role is now performed by the EFSA’s PPR Panel.

5. European Commission. 2010. Commission Directive 2010/77/EU of 10 November 2010 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards the expiry dates for inclusion in Annex I of certain active substances. OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.

6. The detailed reasons for this delay are explained in the new report. Details as above.

Jun 10, 20112 notes
Peru approves 10 year ban on GM crops

PLENARY SESSION OF THE CONGRESS APPROVED MORATORIUM OF TEN YEARS FOR THE ENTRANCE OF TRANSGENIC
via GENET-news 


SOURCE:  Andian, Peru
AUTHOR:  Machine translation of the Spanish text
URL:     http://www.andina.com.pe/Espanol/Noticia.aspx?id=RT87MrHPjyo=
DATE:     07.06.2011

SUMMARY: “The Plenary Session of the Congress, approved the opinion of the law project that declares a moratorium of ten years that prevents the import of Genetically Modified Organisms on the national territory for cultivation, breeding or of any transgenic production.”

Lima, jun. 07 (ANDINA). The Plenary Session of the Congress, approved the opinion of the law project that declares a moratorium of ten years that prevents the import of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) on the national territory for cultivation, breeding or of any transgenic production. It was sustained by the president of the Agrarian Commission, Aníbal Huerta (PAP), who declared that in the face of the danger that can arise from the use of the biotechnology a moratorium must be approved to take care of our biodiversity. It received the endorsement of congressmen Elizabeth Leon (BPCD), Franklin Sanchez (PAP), Mauritius Mulder (PAP), Oswaldo Luizar (BPCD), Jorge of Castillo (PAP), Oswaldo de la Cruz (GPF), Luis Wilson (PAP), Yonhy Lescano (AP), Aldo Estrada (UPP), Hilda Guevara (PAP), Gloria Branches (BPDC) and Maria Sumire (GPN). From different viewpoints, they agreed in the defense of the national biodiversity due to our greater climatic diversity, but they differed with regard to the moratorium. Congressman Alejandro Rebaza (PAP), made some precisions to the opinion and, like the colleagues Sanchez and Estrada, proposed a technical commission of prevention and investigation that issues a report in two years. The legislators Raul Castro (UN) and Juan Carlos Eguren (UN) expressed themselves against the moratorium, because they considered that already we consumed transgenic products and that the doors to biotechnology could not be closed because the transgenic production, that is necessary for covering the food needs, has 70% more sale than the organic production. The parliamentarian José Saldaña (AN) remembered that the biologists have asked to file the project in debate because already exists a law on the matter, whereas legislator Yaneth Cajahuanca (GPN) suggested to leave the project for the next session. On the other hand, congressmen Luis Giampietri (PAP) and Édgard Núñez (PAP) said that it is not possible to close the doors to science and that it is possible to decided on a prudential moratorium of five years. Finally, the president of the Commission of Andean Towns, Washington Zeballos (BPCD), informed on the modifications to the opinion and that the term of the moratorium would have to be of ten years. The proposal was approved by 56 votes to favor, zero against and two abstentions and exonerated from second voting by 50 votes to favor, four against and three abstentions. The approved norm establishes a moratorium of ten years, determines as competent authority of the subject to the Ministry of the Environemnt and creates a Technical Commission of Evaluation and Prevention of Risks of Use of GMOs, that in two years will have to issue a report on the subject.

Jun 10, 20111 note
Norway's regulators say no to BASF's GM potato

1.Regulator says no to GM potato
2.Summary of the impact assessment

—-
—-
1.The Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management 

Press release

The Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management [DN] considers that the cultivation and use of the genetically modified potato Amflora in feed and food should be prohibited in Norway.

The EEA Agreement obliges Norway to make a national decision on all genetically modified organisms that are approved in the EU. Amflora was given a green light by the EU on 2 March 2010 and therefore the Norwegian authorities have considered whether to allow Amflora in Norway.

DN has evaluated the available information regarding the product’s risk to health and the environment, social benefit, contribution to sustainable development and ethical issues in accordance with the Norwegian Gene Technology Act and Nature Diversity Act. DN has concluded that the potato should not be cultivated, nor used for industry purposes or in animal feed in Norway. DN has also recommended against allowing unintended mixing of the potato in food and feed products up to 0.9%.

The evaluation report has been forwarded to the Norwegian Ministry of the Environment who will make a final decision regarding the cultivation and use of the GMO potato Amflora in Norway. 

Resistance to antibiotics

The presence of the antibiotic resistance marker gene nptII in the potato is the main reason for DN’s recommendation to ban it in Norway. Senior Adviser Bjarte Heide elaborates: - Norway has a ban on feed and food products that contain genes which confer resistance to antibiotics. 

Furthermore, Norway has a general restrictive attitude towards the use of such genes in GMOs, for any purpose. Norway has previously laid down prohibitions against the use of other genetically modified organisms based on the presence of antibiotic resistance marker genes, says Heide. No need for the product Other reasons for the recommendation are that the applicant has not sufficiently assessed the risk to the environment, in particular with regards to effects on certain groups of non-target organisms. In addition, DN believes that the use of Amflora is of no benefit to the Norwegian society, as there is no need for the product in Norway and that the potato can result in increased costs for manufacturers and thereby has a negative impact. In Norway, it will not be possible to use waste products from the industry for feed due to the Norwegian ban on the content of antibiotic resistance genes in feed. The recommendation is based on the DN’s own assessments, as well as the Norwegian Food Safety Authority’s assessments of health, agriculture-related environmental risk and coexistence. The Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety has been the Food Safety Authority’s advisory body. The Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board has assessed risk to health and environment, sustainability, benefit to society and ethics. In addition, relevant information from the public consultation is taken into account.
—-
—-
2.The Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management

Summary of the impact assessment

Application (C/SE/96/3501) under Directive 2001/18/EC (the Directive) covers the use of the genetically modified potato line EH92-527-1 (Amflora) for cultivation and industrial purposes. Application (EFSA/GMO/UK/2005/14) under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (the Regulation) covers the use of the same potato line for feed and unintentional mixing in food and feed products up to 0.9%.

Amflora has increased content of the starch component amylopectin and reduced content of amylose. The purpose of the genetic modification is to make the potato more suitable for various industrial processes, particularly the paper industry. This is achieved by inhibiting expression of an enzyme (GBSS), which is important for the formation of amylose. In addition, Amflora contains the nptII gene that causes resistance to certain antibiotics, including kanamycin and neomycin.

The application under the Directive and the application under the Regulation were approved in the EU 2 March 2010, and the approvals are valid for a period of 10 years from the date of approval. The approval under the Directive applies only to the cultivation and industrial use, and the European Commission emphasizes that Amflora is to be kept separate from other potatoes at every stage of production from farm to delivery at specialized processing units. The approval under the Regulation allows the use of the by-products of the starch production for feed. The approval also allows unintended admixture of the potato in other food and feed up to 0.9%. The monitoring plan includes requirements for the case specific monitoring of potato-eating organisms in the area where Amflora is grown. Amflora has the identification number BPS 2527-9 and the name “amylopectin potato starch” is to be used for labeling.

The Regulation is presently not implemented in Norway, therefore, only the application for cultivation and industrial use will be applicable in Norway. The Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management (DN) has been commissioned by the Norwegian Ministry of the Environment (MoE) to finalize both the application under Regulation and the application under the Directive. Because the two applications concern the same product, DN has chosen to summarize the reviews in a joint conclusion.

DN has evaluated the available information regarding health and environmental risk, benefit to society, the product’s contribution to sustainable development and ethical issues in accordance with the Gene Technology Act and the Nature Diversity Act.

DN requested the Norwegian Food Safety Authority (MT) to conduct a risk assessment of Amflora within their own areas of responsibility, which involves an assessment of health risks, agriculture-related environmental risks and coexistence. MT has requested VKM to undertake a scientific risk assessment of Amflora in these areas. MT concludes, on the basis of VKMs statements, that it is unlikely that the intended use of the potato as animal feed and unintended admixture of the potato in food and feed up to 0.9% will result in altered risks for animal health or human health in relation to conventional starch potatoes. Furthermore, MT states: “By-products from starch production used as feed and unintended presence of the potato in certain food and feed, will be covered by the Norwegian total ban on such in food and feed”. In its assessment of the application under the 

Regulation

MT points out that since the Regulation is not implemented in Norway, they assume Norway will make a final decision at a later date when/if the regulation is implemented in Norway. MT concludes in their assessment of the application under the Directive that there will be minimal agriculture-related environmental risk resulting from the cultivation of Amflora compared to conventional potato varieties. MT believes it will be possible with co-existence of genetically modified potatoes and conventional and organic crops, but points out that Amflora is not very relevant in Norwegian agriculture.

The Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board (NBAB) was requested by DN to consider the potato’s contribution to sustainable development and benefit to society, and to make an ethical assessment of the marketing of the potato. The NBAB concluded that the marketing of genetically modified plants containing genes for antibiotic resistance should not be approved and that more environmentally friendly alternatives should be promoted.

The Norwegian Gene Technology Act does not prohibit cultivation of organisms containing antibiotic resistance marker genes (ARMG). However, the Norwegian Parliament has stated that permission to use ARMG should only be given if the risk is negligible and the products are of use to the society.

In DNs opinion, the greatest risk of the presence of ARMG in the potato is the possibility of transfer of antibiotic resistance to pathogenic bacteria. Although there may be a low probability of such an event the consequences can be very serious. Furthermore, equivalent products, which do not contain ARMG, exist. As Norwegian producers do not want to use Amflora, DN is of the opinion that the cultivation of Amflora may have an overall negative benefit to the Norwegian community.

In DN’s opinion the potential effects on non-target organisms that come into indirect contact with Amflora is not adequately assessed. There is a need for further knowledge about the effects of cultivation of potato with modified starch contents on microbial organisms in soil and biogeochemical processes in the cultivation area.

Furthermore, DN is of the opinion that the Notifier has given an inadequate description of the mechanism for down-regulation of the GBSS enzyme in Amflora, making it difficult to assess whether non-target genes may have been affected. VKM points out that it would be useful to have more information about the natural distribution, dynamics and prevalence of the nptII gene in Norway, the extent of overwintering potato tubers and the potential for insect dispersal of pollen from potato.

In light of the foregoing, especially given the risks of ARMG, insufficient information and because DN has concluded that the potato can be of negative benefit to the community, our recommendation is to prohibit marketing of potato line EH92-527-1 under Directive 2001/18/EC.

Information from the Notifier has shown that small amounts of nptII protein may be found in tubers, leaves and pulp (waste products) from Amflora. Also, it cannot be excluded that traces of nptII will be found in the feed. Due to these facts and based on the prohibition of ARMG in the Norwegian Regulation on feed products, § 5, DN recommends to prohibit the use of potato line EH92-527-1 for feed and unintentional admixture in food and feed under Regulation 1829/2003.

Jun 10, 2011
Pakistan' s chief GM regulator quits over attempt at clandestine approval of GM corn - Monsanto implicated

EXCERPT: Events related to a high-profile committee, established by the Ministry of Environment for commercialisation of the genetically modified corn in Pakistan took an ugly turn when it was discovered that large-scale trials of genetically modified corn/maize have been conducted. Not only this, an attempt was also made to adopt the so-called findings of these trials, which was allegedly prepared by a multinational seed company itself. 

Sources said 16-page report titled “TAC Sub-Committee Recommendations and Findings”, a copy of which is available with The News, was prepared by the Monsanto Pakistan, and certain members of the committee tried to adopt it, instead of evaluating the findings themselves.
—-
—-
Top man quits over bid to seek clandestine nod for GM corn seed
Munawar Hasan
The International News (Pakistan)
Friday, June 10, 2011
http://bit.ly/mvHcQ9 

The attempt of getting clandestine approval of genetically modified (GM) seeds in violation of the procedure invited fierce resistance from various quarters, forcing head of the official committee to tender his resignation on Thursday. 

According to sources in the federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture, all discussions, meetings and proceedings for introducing the genetically modified seeds of corn/maize, which is also a food crop, on mass level are going on between the government and representative of influential seed companies secretively. Sources claimed that other stakeholders such as farmers’ representative bodies, consumer, independent agriculture experts and environmentalists have not been taken into confidence at any level whatsoever. 

“It’s a deliberate attempt to keep these discussions and proceedings in low profile in order to avoid any outcry by the farmers and conscious citizens,” sources claimed. They added that instead of holding scientific debate on this important issue, involving large-scale cultivation of genetically modified corn, which could potentially pose serious threat to local varieties due to cross pollination besides other risks associated with the genetically modified organisms. 

“Besides holding pragmatic scientific debate, there should be extensive public debate on this important issue as it deals with what we eventually eat,” said various stakeholders. It also assumes immense importance because many countries, including India, Australia, UK and other several European countries, have not allowed cultivation of the genetically modified corn, despite successive attempts made by multinational companies in recent years. In India, certain states even did not allow trial of the genetically modified corn in its territory. 

Events related to a high-profile committee, established by the Ministry of Environment for commercialisation of the genetically modified corn in Pakistan took an ugly turn when it was discovered that large-scale trials of genetically modified corn/maize have been conducted. Not only this, an attempt was also made to adopt the so-called findings of these trials, which was allegedly prepared by a multinational seed company itself. 

Sources said 16-page report titled “TAC Sub-Committee Recommendations and Findings”, a copy of which is available with The News, was prepared by the Monsanto Pakistan, and certain members of the committee tried to adopt it, instead of evaluating the findings themselves.

Sources said Dr Zafar Khalid, director, National Institute for Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering (NIBGE), who is also co-chair/member of the sub-committee, openly resisted intervention by Monsanto and objected credentials of its reports. Sources said he strongly conveyed that any such move would not be allowed to succeed, as it is in clear violation of the laid down procedure and had been done without adhering to full regulatory details, environmental concerns and due diligence. 

Sources said that the Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad-led sub-committee first announced holding meeting of the committee to review a proposal regarding commercialisation of the genetically modified corn, but later cancelled it abruptly. Instead, an email was sent to the committee members with an attached file of Monsanto-engineering report, asking them to submit comments if any in a week. 

Sources said Dr Zafar Khalid and others expressed serious reservations about cancellation of meeting and attempts to adopt findings of Monsanto. They asserted that it is responsibility of committee to itself review progress on trials of GM corn instead of vetting external findings. 

Keeping in view this situation, sources said, Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad who is also Director General National Agriculture Research Council (NARC) tendered his resignation on Thursday morning.

According to his resignation note, copy of which is available with The News, he said TAC Sub-committee has been scandalized and an environment of prejudice has been created against the Committee. It is, therefore, not possible for him to carryout the work under the circumstances. Interestingly, he also proposed to reconstitute the committee.

Again there’s a misstatement in the Technical Assistance committee’s summary drafted by Monsanto for Dr. Iftikhar, sources alleged. Towards the end, the summary very cleverly states that Large Scale Field Trials were held in Autumn 2010. That’s factually wrong, sources claimed. Only regulatory trials were held and large scale trials approval was never given by National Bio-safety Committee/Ministry of Environment. “Two years mandatory regulatory trials are required before large scale trials of GM maize/corn can be conducted,” sources said. So the company has very cleverly drafted this report and tried to hoodwink the government body. 

Farmer bodies and environmentalists across the world especially in Pakistan have been raising alarm bells on the news of possible formal introduction of genetically modified seeds in Pakistan. 

They said it could have been in our best interest if we had taken all the stakeholders in confidence to review all the pros and cons of formally introducing the GM seeds in Pakistan and formulate a strategy to safeguard the interest of farmers and not of multinational companies. 

Ibrahim Mughal, Chairman Agri-Forum Pakistan, claimed biotech seed companies in Pakistan are continuously misleading the decision makers and farmers by claiming yield increase through Bt corn/maize in Pakistan. Further, Philippines example is being quoted which is in fact not very relevant to Pakistan due to sea change in weather pattern. 

Please note that in Pakistan, Temperate climatic condition prevails and the temperature rises above 40C and also can be less than 10 c during maize growing seasons. In tropical areas like Philippines, temperature is around 30C most of the year,” he observed. “So we cannot compare yield of hybrid seed used in Tropical region with temperate regions,” he observed. 

Mughal added such influential biotech firms have developed special liaison with officials and found ways for getting approval of GM seeds, ignoring concerns of farmers and general public. He stressed the need to take appropriate measures for streamlining process of seed commercialization by including representatives of farmers. 

About Monsanto’s forefront role in official approval process, Mughal said, “It seems the valid concerns expressed about the GM crops have been sidelined under pressure from the seed companies. We can evaluate ourselves how transparent, legal and ethically biotech/GM corps approval system is in Pakistan,” he observed.

Dr Tariq Bucha, Chief Coordinator Farmers Associates of Pakistan (FAP) also expressed concern on procedure being followed for granting approval to GM corn. He said new technologies should be first scientifically explored and given approval to only acclimatized varieties of seeds. 

Bucha was of the view that we should avoid such situation where Pakistani farmers would be completely left on the mercy of few multinationals for their seed requirements and this complete dependency on profit-hungry multinationals would lead to a new era of decay for Pakistani agriculture sector and poor farmers.

Dr Fauzia Tahir, President Pakistan Bio-Safety and Bio-Security Association (PBBSA) said standard procedure should be followed for exploring efficacy of GM crops. She added that open scientific and public debate should also be held on important topic of GM food crops as it has potential to directly affect every person. She agreed that precautionary measures for avoiding unwarranted cross pollination should be properly devised and strictly implemented if at all approval is granted to GM seeds. First do a proper risk-assessment of GM corn, she stressed. 

When contacted, Dr Iftikhar Ahmad said it was not fair to criticize process of GM corn commercialization before its completion. He said how anyone claims that we are not adhering to full regulatory details as process is still continuing. He declined to comment further. 

Dr Aslam Gill, senior official of Minfa, said he would not support any such move, if any. He was of the opinion that physical inspection of crop is a must to review various parameters. He underlined the need to properly follow laid down procedure for regularization of GM food crops in the country. 

When contacted, Aamir M Mirza, Country Head Monsanto Pakistan did not respond to specific queries about his company’s attempt to get approval of GM corn despite successive attempts. He finally said that he could be able to respond to queries, including about report of company containing findings of GM corn, not before next week.

Jun 10, 20111 note
How to Build a Permaculture Vegetable Garden

by Tiny Eglington

– Tiny Eglington’s method, educator Geoff Lawton

This is a photo report of a vegetable garden built for Ann Foster in Condobolin, NSW Australia, which shows basic steps that allow you to build your own permaculture veggie patch.

Needs:

You don’t need much, but you do need:

  • compost
  • any ruminant manure
  • lime
  • cardboard (or hessian bags)
  • Lucerne hay (or any acacia leaves)
  • straw (seedless)
  • water
  • plants and seed

The basic tools:

  • shovel
  • rake
  • sharp knife/screwdriver (for punching hole in cardboard)
  • hose/watering can
  • wheelbarrow

How to built a permaculture vegetable garden – the steps


Check out the site, discuss possibilities where to set up the garden.


Explore the present vegetation, and determine its qualities and uses.


Clearing the site of weeds and grass, evaluate locations and levels for the trenches.


Dig trenches (levelled), the soil from the trench is put on the garden beds.


Dig out the trenches a bit more, level the beds. Try and keep the bottom of the
trenches level, so they fill evenly with water.


Add manure (sheep manure in this case), put it on as thick as you can, don’t
worry if some falls down in the trenches. Then sprinkle a bit of lime.


Wet the cardboard and place it over the bed, in the trenches as well, 
approximately 3 layers thick.


Also hessian (jute) bags work, similar procedure, 1 layer thick.


Cover with Lucerne hay or any acacia leaves, then a layer of straw (seedless). 
Cover the trenches with straw as well to minimize evaporation.


Fill the trenches with water (you can check here how you’ve done with
levelling, by letting the water in from one point (set up dams) till completely
full and decided where your 1 watering point will be. You can put a short
pipe in the top of the dam to overflow into the next trench. Notice
capillary rise is working, the water making its way up into the bed.


Get your plants and seed! Check a companion planting guide for good
combinations of plants. I like to check the moon planting guide and practice
it when possible. Using hybrids or non hybrids is up to you but non hybrids are
sustainable by collecting your own seed.


Separate plants where possible and cut holes in the card board
(only big enough for the tap root to go through), make a cup in the
straw and fill with compost and plant the plants or seed.


Concerning planting space, consider the size of the plants when they are
fully grown; the whole bed is covered with vegetables, including down
the sides to the water mark. The new plants and seeds have to be watered
from the top (daily in the summer) until the tap root goes through the
hole, then it will receive its water from the trenches.

A permaculture vegetable garden can be built at any size. From a few pots to a 1000 acre property.

All about building a permaculture vegetable garden and more you learn in a permaculture design course (PDC). And there are loads of information to be found on the web as well!

How to Maintain – tips and tricks

Watering:

Again: The new plants and seeds have to be watered from the top until the tap root goes through the hole, then it will receive its water from the trenches. Every area is different (depending on rainfall and soil types). Eg. in Cunnamulla, western Queensland, temperatures were in the high thirties (in Celsius), with no rain, so had to fill the trenches every 7 days.

Harvesting:

If you cut a cabbage, trim the excess leaves off and chop them up and leave them on the bed (in permaculture terms; chop and drop). Leave the tap root where it is and plant a new plant or seed beside it, the new plant will feed off the old root as it composts.

Now the important thing: put compost around the new planting as to replace what the cabbage took away. Composting is the key to a sustainable garden.

What you have done

1. You have created an organic garden that’s water friendly
2. You have created a weed free garden, which will remain weed free as long as you keep composting (with seed free compost)
3. And most of all: you have created a sustainable food supply in your backyard

I was a monoculturalist for many years, this way is much too easy, it’s the GO!

Happy planting.

Jun 7, 201176 notes
Unglazed Clay Pots for Garden Irrigation


A Sri Lankan villager fills his olla
Photo copyright © Craig Mackintosh

I first encountered the concept of using unglazed clay vessels for sub-surface irrigation in Bill Mollison’s “The Global Gardener” film series.  Mollison comments that the technique might be, to paraphrase, “the most efficient irrigation system in the world.”  More recently I noted with interest that the fine folks at Path to Freedom were employing these clay pots for some of their raised beds, which led me to wonder about how I might experiment with them as a potential sub-surface irrigation system. Here’s what I found….

Ollas (pronounced “oy-yahs”) are unglazed clay/terra-cotta pots with a bottle or tapered shape that are buried in the ground with the top/neck exposed above the soil surface and filled with water for sub-surface irrigation of plants.  This irrigation technology is an ancient method, thought to have originated in Northern Africa with evidence of use in China for over 4000 years and still practiced today in several countries, notably India, Iran, Brazil (Bulten, 2006; Power, 1985; Yadav, 1974; Anon, 1978 and 1983) and Burkina Faso (Laker, 2000; AE Daka, 2001).

Ollas may be the most efficient method of local plant irrigation in drylands known to humanity due to the microporous (unglazed) walls that do “not allow water to flow freely from the pot, but guides water seepage from it in the direction where suction develops. When buried neck deep into the ground, filled with water, and crops planted adjacent to it, the clay pot effects s

ub-surface irrigation as water oozes out of it due to the suction force which attracts water molecules to the plant roots. The suction force is created by soil moisture tension and/or plant roots themselves.” (AE Daka – 2001.)  The plant roots grow around the pots and only “pull” moisture when needed, never wasting a single drop.  “Ollas virtually eliminate the runoff and evaporation common in modern irrigation systems, allowing the plant to absorb nearly 100 percent of water.” (City of Austin Water Conservation, 2006.)

To use ollas in a garden or farm, one buries the olla in the soil leaving the top slightly protruding from the soil (ideally the neck of the olla is glazed to prevent evaporation or it should be reasonable to apply a surface mulch that covers the neck of the olla without spilling into the opening). The olla is filled with water and the opening is then capped (with a rock, clay plate or other available material to prevent mosquito breeding, soil intrusion and evaporation).

“Depending on factors such as the plant’s water needs, soil type, time of year, and   environment ollas may need filling weekly or daily.  Water usually takes between 24 and 72 hours to flow through an olla.” (Bulten, 2006)   Water should be added to an olla whenever the water level in the olla falls below 50% in order to avoid build up of salt residues along surfaces of the olla that may prevent desired seepage.


Pottery production is an age-old skill and low-tech cottage industry
that should see a rebirth. Photo copyright © Craig Mackintosh

When assessed in the context of a movement towards local self reliance, the advantages of ollas seem to be astounding (the following list is provided by AE Daka’s research):

  1. Since clay pots are [can be] made by rural women [and/or men] they create employment and opportunities for small-scale home industries to manufacture them in rural areas. This will help generate rural income for household food security.
  2. They are affordable [when locally produced in rural locations] A 5 liter capacity clay pot costs US$0.25.
  3. Clay pot irrigation allows a farmer to raise seedlings in situ instead of transporting them from nurseries. Clay pots are installed directly where seedlings are to be planted and this allows a farmer to plant the seed next to the clay pot where it germinates and gets established.
  4. The system is suitable for vegetables as well as perennial horticultural orchard or plantation crops and woodlots [(it has been noted that plants with woody perennial plant root growth can and likely will break the pots, but they can still be used for system establishment)].
  5. Water savings of 50-70 % are realized, particularly for vegetable crops.  Loss of water due to deep percolation beyond the root zone is reduced if not avoided.
  6. Soil moisture is always available almost at field capacity giving the crop full security against water stress.
  7. The system inherently checks against over-irrigation.
  8. The much smaller quantities of water and less frequent watering required, reduce the amount of labour required for irrigation tremendously.
  9. Much less labour is required for weeding since weeds do not prosper, as the soil surface remains dry throughout the growing season.
  10. Domestic water effluent [graywater]from kitchens can easily be recycled and used in clay pot irrigation in backyards. The water used for cleaning utensils in the kitchen can be used to refill the pots in a backyard garden. This saves on scarce water and reduces the need to use fresh water.
  11. It saves on the amount of fertilizer to be applied [some studies suggesting up to 50% less] per unit area of land if the fertilizer is applied in clay pots and is later absorbed as solute via water movement to the plants.
  12. The soil of the seedbed under the clay pot system does not get sealed due to water impact but remains loose and well aerated.
  13. The clay pots can be installed on undulating ground.

Some of the disadvantages of ollas include the potential for winter breakage if left in the ground in areas with a winter freeze – “our research has shown damage to some Ollas (out of hundreds) when left buried in the ground over winter.” Bulten, 2006. Of course, for kitchen garden beds in temperate climates, digging up ollas at the onset of winter could be standard garden maintenance.  Prolonged use is likely to decrease porosity, some heavy soils may be inappropriate to site ollas and the longevity of ollas (without frost) is unknown but estimated in one study as 5 years or more.  Also, despite the purported efficiencies, and the long history of use and simple manufacturing requirements (more below), ollas are difficult to find locally, and may be, especially in the affluent, “over-regulated world,” prohibitively expensive to deploy.  Finally, there seems to be somewhat conflicting and insufficient research as to the optimal shape, volume and materials for ollas. 


Clay pots, like these in Sri Lanka, can also be used as water coolers 
in dry climates. See A Refrigerator that Runs Without Electricity 
to see how this works. Photo copyright © Craig Mackintosh

The consensus from available research is that the optimal size and shape of the olla is dependent on the plants being irrigated.  No research seems to be available on the consequences of using ollas in a dense polyculture.  One “should match olla porosity, size and shape to plants’ water needs, root size and root distribution.” (City of Austin Water Conservation, 2006.)  “As a general guide, smaller ollas are good for container gardening.  The larger ollas are good for larger containers or outside ground applications.” (Bulten, 2006.)  Intuitively, a more tapered, flat-bottomed vessel with a narrow neck (to reduce evaporation and contamination) should be more efficient due to an increased surface area and theoretically increased water spread, allowing for less ollas to be used to sufficiently irrigate a greater space.  Capacities of 5 liters to 12 liters have been described with 10-12 liter volumes being used to irrigate vine crops (tomatoes, curcurbits, etc.).  More empirical research would be beneficial to the world community.

Similarly, available research is not clear on the optimal spacing of plants around the ollas. Clearly spacing will be dependent on the shape and size of the ollas so this does not seem surprising.  Based on available research the following tables can be created to describe potential spacing of ollas based on a rough estimate of water spread.

Additionally, John Bulten provides the following notes and diagram:

“Plant seeds or plants within 2” – 5” radius based on olla size.”

In another study, “clay pots with a capacity of 5 liters each and made by rural women were installed at 0.5 m intervals in the study plots by burying them neck deep in the prepared seed beds.” (AE Daka – 2001.)

There appears to be similar, but distinct approaches to making ollas, mostly defined by the local availability of materials and technology.  I’ve included descriptions on making ollas verbatim with the intent of assembling a loose set of guidelines to inform local artisans to invent an appropriate approach for the San Francisco Bay Area (or wherever else olla manufacture is being attempted):


Ollas in Sri Lanka
Photo copyright © Craig Mackintosh

“Maria created her highly prized black pots by using the bottom of an old plate (puki)… Beginning by patting a tortilla shaped piece of clay in the puki, Maria then rolled a lump of clay between her palms, creating a long clay rope of uniform thickness.  Pinching and pressing this coil onto a clay tortilla while turning her puki with her other hand, Maria formed the base of the olla. Successive layers of coils were added until the vessel was completed.” (Hoxie)

“To make the urns, the ministry created plaster of Paris molds from pumpkins, squash and gourds of various sizes. Workers pour liquid clay into the molds to shape the urns and then fire them in the kiln to solidify the clay. The urns retail for $12 to $15 depending on size.” (City of Austin Water Conservation, 2006)

“The clay pots are made from a mixture of clay and sand in the ratio of 4:1 and with an effective porosity ranging from 10-15%. The clay pots are made by rural women using their hands to mould them into different shapes, i.e. cylindrical/round with somewhat flat bottom.  After they are made, glazing is not done so as to retain their natural porosity i.e. the walls remain micro-porous. The pots are then tempered by burning them in a pit fire from firewood at undetermined temperature. Small-scale earthen-ware manufacturers use kilns to temper such ceramic pots at 1200oC. This is done in order to eliminate the swelling and shrinking properties of clay, which would cause cracking of the pots. Women believe that the type of clay used to make the pots is very important and it requires an experienced old woman to identify clay that would not crack unduly during the tempering process and indeed when installed under field conditions.” (AE Daka – 2001)

“If suitable pots are not available, they can be easily made by hand or on a pottery wheel. Depending on the clay, sand, rice hulls, or sawdust may be added at a ratio of up to 1:4 to increase the porosity of the pots. Although closed-oven firing at temperatures exceeding 450 degrees Celsius is ideal, pots can be fired in open pits at temperatures of 200 to 300 degrees Celsius. Opening: narrow neck (reduce opening size to reduce evaporation and contamination) (Barak, 2006).
Composition: unglazed porous clay – you can either use a crude clay which has larger/mixed particulate sizes and is not quite pure which will result in larger pores during the firing process. Or you can mix 20% sand with 20% quality clays (the best option) or the same % of sifted rice hulls or sawdust. The firing process will of course burn out the filler leaving uniform pores and a high-quality pot.  (Barak, 2006)

The pots I use are low-quality clay with a low firing temperature so they are prone to breakage and/or having pores that transmit water very rapidly. As best as I can tell they use course red clay with sand impurities and some straw mixed in (probably less than 20%) and are fired are probably 800 F which is what you normally achieve in open firing pits.” (Barak, 2006)

This video shows a potter’s wheel technique:

This video shows a different technique:

Some links and references:

  • http://www.howtopedia.org/en/How_to_Use_the_Porous_Clay_Pots_and_Pipes_System%3F
  • http://www.oas.org/dsd/publications/Unit/oea59e/ch38.htm
  • http://www.continentaldrift.net/2006/03/17/68/
  • http://www.pakissan.com/english/newtech/pitcher.irrigation.a.water.shtml
  • http://www.seedandlightinternational.org/Photo%20Pages/One/photo_gallery_one5.htm
  • http://www.eastcentralministries.org/content.asp?CustComKey=336396&CategoryKey=336426&pn=Page&DomName=eastcentralministries.org
  • http://farmnatters.blogspot.com/2009/04/water-saving-garden-technique-using.html
  • http://urbanhomestead.org/journal/2008/05/29/ollas-2/
  • http://urbanhomestead.org/journal/2009/03/05/ollas-o-yeah/
  • http://urbanhomestead.org/journal/2008/03/24/using-ollas/
  • http://urbanhomestead.org/journal/2008/02/27/ollas/
Jun 4, 20117 notes
Why Learn Permaculture – for the Children and Ourselves

Permaculture is one of the only ways home for humanity. If one believes in modernism, industrial agriculture and better living through chemistry read no further. However, if you feel something is not right about the way we live, read on.

I have come to realize that it is because we have been taught from birth to be dependent on the systemor civilization that we have lost our connection to our home—the land, nature and its cultivars. Simply, because we have no connection to the land we have no reason to take care of it or limit our numbers. The skills and relationships with even the most common plants is not given to us as children.

Teach your children well

Permaculture is a modern translation of first people’s or native knowledge and wisdom. It is a step towards indigenizing the white man. We have to learn permaculture as adults because we were not taught about our home as children. The key may be for us as adults to learn permaculture design skills and then pass this knowledge and established perennial homesteads and communities on to our children.

Every child should be able to identify at least 100 plants and name their uses, how to growth them, where they are found and how to process them. Children should learn these skills through action, touch, feel, smell, taste and story.

Here is a picture of my kids and one of their best friends picking desert in the berry patch. My children know probably a dozen berries by the shape of the plant at a distance. They know which plant to go to at different times of the year. If I don’t keep a watchful eye though, they can eat much of the fruit before the U-pick customers can get it. Its all good; they are learning their plants the fun way.

A home medicinal herb patch is a also great way to teach kids about plants. The other day Charlie had a few bug bites on his foot that were bothering him. He knows how to make a healing clay with comfrey, aloe and coltsfoot. By the time the clay was dry on his foot, he was ready to go play again.

Bridge the gap between the garden book and the garden

Getting your first garden going can be difficult, especially if you were not taught about plants as a child. The easiest way to start gardening is to buy veggie starts from your local nursery. Get a season or two under your belt and then try starting seeds early and seed sowing directly in the ground after the last frost.

We believe learning how to establish your own garden is so important that the SOPI Permaculture Design Certificate (PDC) course emphasizes hands-on gardening skills.

Permaculture or regeneration begins when you start turning your lawn into a garden haven. One thing will lead to another, after plants will come compost, then fruit or nut trees and later preserving and sharing your surplus. There is nothing better than a preserving party in the fall—oh ya. Let some of your plants go to seed and save the seeds. Serious seed savers will want to look into a set of seed cleaning screens like the set of eight graduated screen sizes from Horizon Herbs.

Self-reliance allows you to begin stepping away from “the system”

We have to learn how to unhook ourselves from modern culture. Self-reliance is about reducing our need to work in the cash wage economy. It also enables us to begin making a living doing what we love at home with our family and friends.

The Amish call the process avoiding entanglements with modern culture. For example, old order Amish drive wagons with wood wheels because they do not want to be dependent on modern culture to fix or replace a rubber tire.

My ideal is to learn the skills to not only grow your own food but also to build your home from the materials on site. Here is a small home at the Cob Cottage Company in Coquille, Oregon. A dwelling like this can have a rocket mass stove, hypo-cast under a bench or sleeping loft, living roof and even an attached greenhouse. Imagine gathering a few of these together and have the community garden in the center.

Land is expensive enough, do your best to not pay more for the home than the land. I tell young people they are better off living in a yurt on a small piece of good land that you own with water near a community than you are living in a house the bank owns. For one person or family an expensive home can be the biggest boat anchor holding one back from self-reliance.

Our SOPI PDC not only covers how to grow food but also how to develop a group of friends with many of the skills that you need to be reasonably self reliant. Think in terms of group skills, not a nuclear family, think extended family. You need to find a small group with combined skills of farming, building, healing, water systems, energy and so on. One person cannot know it all, “look for skills not money” as Bill Mollison says. You personally need to develop at least one really strong skill, probably a couple.

This grid of suburban homes can be a bit of a prison system if used the way it was intended, each to their own cell. Urban/suburban communities can become small villages if people work together to relocalize. The Abundance Garden Cooperative is one such example here in Ashland, Oregon, where ten families are working together to grow their own food. It started with a permaculture design course.

Get started

The point of why permaculture is not about design, zones and sectors it is about finding a doorway that allows our generation to begin the journey away from modern culture. We need a holistic design system that gets back to using using nature as a model. Once future generations are living back with nature instead of through civilization then humanity will be sustainable or regenerative again—we will begin the healing process to reverse 10,000 years of exploitation since the agricultural revolution. Honestly that is a big job and a long road ahead but nature has the capacity to heal herself if we let succession continue uninterrupted.

At SOPI and Restoration Farm, I point out that we are one of the few farms I know of that actually builds topsoil, builds biodiversity and allows succession to continue uninterrupted. That is a start but we still have to drive to town more frequently than I would like.

Our generation is only awakening to the need to move to a new cultural direction away from the earth belongs to man to humanity belongs to the earth. We are only beginning the journey. Let’s get as far as we can, learn as much as we can, establish as much as we can and pass it along to the children.

We are just beginning but we can start somewhere—start where you are, attract others, share resources, surpluses and land that you may have. Have fun with it all; meet new friends. Life is a journey—it is time for the next chapter. Go out and find your community or tribe. Combine what you have of skills, energy, money, land or home. Think out side of the box. In fact – get rid of the box.

Jun 4, 20111 note
The Power of Enterprise Budgets: Permaculture, Holistic Management, and Financial Planning

Resource alert: At bottom of this blog post is a download option for more than a thousand enterprise budgets.

Permaculture designers: It’s time to get serious about profitability.

Farmers & Greenhorns: You already know what I’m talking about. I’ve been working on an integrated ecological farm design for the Ashokan Center in the Hudson River Valley bioregion. The design calls for a mega-diversity of organic enterprises: Multi-species rotational grazing, hardy kiwi vineyards, mixed-fruit orchards, agroforestry & silvopasture, no-till & greenhouse vegetables, gourmet & medicinal mushrooms, and more. There are 200+ edible & useful species spread across 13 acres of farm and 200+ acres of forest.

 
But to start an ecological farm (in the USA at this point in time) takes money. In order to justify the up-front capital expense that my clients will have to invest to get this farm going, I need to be able to show them that this mega-diverse permaculture system can be profitable. How can I do it? How can I predict the potential expenses, and calculate the possible profits? What can I show my clients to convince them that all of these great permaculture ideas make good economic sense? By using Enterprise Budgets.Enterprise budgets are summaries of actual data on the costs and yields of growing a particular crop – from asparagus to tilapia to black currants to walnuts to cattle to shitake mushrooms. The basic pattern is as follows:

INCOME – EXPENSES = NET INCOME

  • Income (aka revenue, receipts, gross revenue, gross income – sometimes shown with a break-even chart)
  • Expenses (aka costs – often divided into variable costs & fixed costs)
  • Net Income (aka margin, gross margin, annual returns over costs)

Pretty straightforward, right? For example, download a simple Bell Pepper Enterprise Budget from Penn State here (PDF) and take a look.

As you move into perennial crops (like this pear example), the enterprise budgets get a bit more complex. And, there are currently very few enterprise budgets that focus on small-scale, organic and post-organic permaculture enterprises. So we’ll need to develop based on the small-scale enterprises we initiate – this means learning the basics of good bookkeeping and accounting, and keeping good records of our expenses and yields. Some of the best current documentation on this scale comes from Joe Kovach at Ohio State University.

In Kirk Gadzia’s Holistic Management module during the Carbon Farming Course, our financial planning exercise focused on choosing agricultural enterprises to re-invigorate an ailing farm. To bring the whole-systems thinking of permaculture into play, I needed to propose viable multi-functional alternatives to simple and unprofitable hay production. Fortunately, I’ve been collecting every single enterprise budget available on the web for the last year – so I had many options, from seaberry & hazelnut orchards to perch & bullhead catfish aquaculture.

In order to support the ongoing development of ecological agriculture, I’m making available to you all the enterprise budgets I have collected in the last 2 years – more than 1090 of them. I ask only that you keep seeking out and creating new budgets to add to the collection – especially ones that use real data from small-scale organic and permaculture operations. Download ‘em here – careful, this is a 134mb zip file (best to right click and choose ’save as’).

Any questions?

Permies – are you ready to get realistic about profitability? Let’s get this sort of economic sensibility into our designs.

Farmers & Greenhorns – how can I make this information more available and useful to you?

Jun 4, 2011
Permaculture Reforestation With and For the Indigenous Tribes of Mindanao, Philippines

by Christian Shearer

Project Background

The Malungon area of the Sarangani province, located in the southern region of The Philippines, was once one of the richest forests in the world. Today the remaining old growth exists in small, fragmented stands which remain vulnerable to illegal deforestation and degradation. Frequently ignored, these last remaining areas are a vital core habitat for a wide range of fauna and flora. This forest has also been, for at least 2000 years, the centerpiece of the culture and lifestyle of the Blaan and Tagakaulo indigenous peoples.

Miraculously, throughout Philippine history these tribes have been able to hold on to basically independent status of their lands (though more than a few lives were lost fighting the Spanish). It was not until the Marcos era that their ancestral lands were stripped. Logging concessions were given out at an astonishing rate, and between the years of 1960 and 1990, over 85% of the 250,000 hectare Sarangani forest came under the saw. Large corporate interests from around the world were often given the rights to large swaths of land at a cost of $1 per tree. They would ship this internationally and sell the old growth mahogany for thousands of times that price. Today only 12% of that forest remains.

During the 1990s, under the Ramos administration, the fortunes of the indigenous people took a turn for the better. President Ramos immediately made further logging illegal and even canceled those concessions that had already been given. With passage of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act 1997 the Blaan and Tagakaulo tribes for the first time retained official title to their land. Together they were given 74,000 hectares (165,760 acres) on the Torrens Title System. And other tribal peoples retained titles to the vast majority of the entire Sarangani forest area.

This was an unprecedented milestone for these peoples, but left them with a largely denuded and eroded landscape. Since that time, they have worked to replant forest, and establish agricultural systems for themselves that do not harm their land even more, but often they are forced through the hardships of the land to farm on very steep slopes and to resort to production of charcoal as a means of generating an income. Both of these practices have led to further degradation.

Encouraging News

Though the rate of deforestation around the world has been slowing, it is expected to continue its rise as more forested land gets converted into agriculture to feed the planet. It is imperative that we act now to restore and revitalize degraded forest land so that the vital functions of this planet are maintained. There are inspiring examples from around the world of people working to restore forests, while at the same time benefiting the economic and social well-being of the local people.


Sabangan Falls, Philippines

Project Mission

  1. To initially plant 5 million trees in the Sarangani province, completely reforesting an area of 3000 hectares and restoring a biodiverse web of life. Ultimately this project can cover over 100,000 hectares of the Sarangani forest. When completed this process will:
    • provide habitat for countless species of birds, mammals, reptiles, insects and plants.
    • stabilize the soil / reduce erosion.
    • stabilize water levels in rivers. 
    • increase resiliency of watershed services under the threat of climate change impacts like extended droughts, and severe floods.
    • provide an ongoing source of agroforestry materials to the locals for their local use and income generation.
    • sequester carbon from the atmosphere, helping to counteract the effects of global climate change.
  2. To work with the local tribes and the cooperating organizations to increase the health, education, income and overall well-being of the local communities in the following ways (amongst others):
    • increase the economic well being of the local people, while substituting current harmful sources of income with others that benefit the overall well being of people and environment.
    • bringing locally generated electricity to the region (solar or micro-hydro where applicable).
    • sourcing funding for the improvement of the schools.
    • providing seeds and markets for their agricultural endeavors.
    • working with the government to improve roads.

How?

A forest plays an important role in ecological stability by serving as a natural water reservoir as well as a habitat of our wildlife and the indigenous tribes there within. Since our forests are mostly degraded, rehabilitating them is a lifetime activity.

Regenerating a natural forest (Philippine Mahogany, Apitong, Lauan, Molave Narrra, Dao, and other indigenous species etc.) is usually done through seeds and wildlings, along with the knowledge of the local people. The development program follows something called the framework species concept, wherein the forest is planted with a select number of starting species which encourage the return of birds, animals, insects and provide the ecosystems services which set the stage for the natural regeneration of a truly diverse and healthy forest. A forest planted in this way can start with 30 varieties and see over 150 varieties of trees growing in less than 10 years. Our focus is not on the success of the trees themselves, but on the forest in general.

We will also be working with the local people to establish areas of agroforestry, mixed orchards, perennial food systems and annual gardens. To meet all of our objectives and have long term success, these are of critical importance.

Favorable Conditions for Reforestation Work

No Fire – One of the largest challenges facing reforestation work is that of fire. This area of the Philippines has no known forest fires on record, and we have documentation from the local government confirming this.

Climate – Mindanao is located 6 degrees north of the equator in a humid tropical zone. There are two main monsoon times of year, but the area in question receives afternoon rains very regularly throughout the year. This creates perfect conditions for seedling success.

The People – The Blaan and Tagakualo tribes are very much in support of the project. They feel proud of the opportunity to replant the forest for their future generations. Having this cooperation is key to the success of the replanting.

Supportive Government – Under the leadership of Senator (and Boxing Champion) Manny Pacquiao, Mindanao has seen a surge in pro-environmental movements throughout the island. We have also met with and received support from the provincial government, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the local mayor and the Tribal Council.

Organizations cooperating with WeForest for this project:

  • Bentley House International Corporation, registered in the Philippines in 1996, is committed to advocate and work for Integrated Rural Development through Social Enterprise with marginalized sectors, particularly IPs, small migrant farmers in both rural and urban areas. It prioritizes food security, alternative fuel development ecological balance, utilizes appropriate eco-friendly technologies for agri-aqua development, sustainable communities and enlightened people.
  • Indigenous Peoples Center for Development Services, Inc (IPCDS)
  • Department of Environment and Natural Resources of Mindanao (DENR)
  • National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. (NCIP)
  • Terra Genesis International (TGI) is a permaculture consulting and education team focused on large acreage projects, working with water management (for ecological benefit), perennial food systems, and replanting indigenous forest (as well as other food and community systems). The team will be providing education and design services for the project, ensuring that the local community truly feels like part of the design process. We will give them a “WeForesters” certificate, and hopefully help them to feel pride and ownership over the reforesting work that they will do. This will also help the forest be protected in the long run.
Jun 4, 2011
Yummy American GMO Foods - Grown and Eaten since 1996

When U.S. regulators approved Monsanto’s genetically modified “Bt” corn, they knew it would add a deadly poison into our food supply. That’s what it was designed to do. The corn’s DNA is equipped with a gene from soil bacteria called Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) that produces the Bt-toxin. It’s a pesticide; it breaks open the stomach of certain insects and kills them.

But Monsanto and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) swore up and down that it was only insects that would be hurt. The Bt-toxin, they claimed, would be completely destroyed in the human digestive system and not have any impact on all of us trusting corn-eating consumers.

Oops. A study just proved them wrong.

Doctors at Sherbrooke University Hospital in Quebec found the corn’s Bt-toxin in the blood of pregnant women and their babies, as well as in non-pregnant women. (1) (Specifically, the toxin was identified in 93% of 30 pregnant women, 80% of umbilical blood in their babies, and 67% of 39 non-pregnant women.) The study has been accepted for publication in the peer reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology.

According to the UK Daily Mail, this study, which “appears to blow a hole in” safety claims, “has triggered calls for a ban on imports and a total overhaul of the safety regime for genetically modified (GM) crops and food.” Organizations from England to New Zealand are now calling for investigations and for GM crops to be halted due to the serious implications of this finding.

Links to allergies, auto-immune disease, and other disorders

There’s already plenty of evidence that the Bt-toxin produced in GM corn and cotton plants is toxic to humans and mammals and triggers immune system responses. The fact that it flows through our blood supply, and that is passes through the placenta into fetuses, may help explain the rise in many disorders in the US since Bt crop varieties were first introduced in 1996.

In government-sponsored research in Italy (2), mice fed Monsanto’s Bt corn showed a wide range of immune responses. Their elevated IgE and IgG antibodies, for example, are typically associated with allergies and infections. The mice had an increase in cytokines, which are associated with “allergic and inflammatory responses.” The specific cytokines (interleukins) that were elevated are also higher in humans who suffer from a wide range of disorders, from arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, to MS and cancer (see below).

Elevated interleukins and their ill-health Associations

  • IL-6 Rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, osteoporosis, multiple sclerosis, various types of cancer (multiple myeloma and prostate cancer)
  • IL-13 Allergy, allergic rhinitis, ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease)
  • MIP-1b Autoimmune disease and colitis.
  • IL-12p70 Inflammatory bowel disease, multiple sclerosis

The young mice in the study also had elevated T cells (gamma delta), which are increased in people with asthma, and in children with food allergies, juvenile arthritis, and connective tissue diseases. The Bt corn that was fed to these mice, MON 810, produced the same Bt-toxin that was found in the blood of women and fetuses.

When rats were fed another of Monsanto’s Bt corn varieties called MON 863, their immune systems were also activated, showing higher numbers of basophils, lymphocytes, and white blood cells. These can indicate possible allergies, infections, toxins, and various disease states including cancer. There were also signs of toxicity in the liver and kidneys. (3)

Natural Bt is dangerous

Farmers have used Bt-toxin from soil bacteria as a natural pesticide for years. But theyspray it on plants, where it washes off and biodegrades in sunlight. The GM version is built-in; every plant cell has its own spray bottle. The toxin doesn’t wash off; it’s consumed. Furthermore, the plant-produced version of the poison is thousands of times more concentrated than the spray; is designed to be even more toxic; and has properties of known allergens—it actually fails the World Health Organization’s allergen screening tests. (4)

The biotech companies ignore the substantial difference between the GM toxin and the natural bacteria version, and boldly claim that since the natural spray has a history of safe use in agriculture, it’s therefore OK to put the poison directly into our food. But even this claim of safe use of Bt spray ignores peer-reviewed studies showing just the opposite.

When natural Bt-toxin was fed to mice, they had tissue damage, immune responses as powerful as cholera toxin (5), and even started reacting to other foods that were formerly harmless.(6) Farm workers exposed to Bt also showed immune responses. (7) The EPA’s own expert Scientific Advisory Panel said that these mouse and farm worker studies “suggest that Bt proteins could act as antigenic and allergenic sources.” (8) But the EPA ignored the warnings. They also overlooked studies (9) showing that about 500 people in Washington state and Vancouver showed allergic and flu-like symptoms when they were exposed to the spray when it was used to kill gypsy moths.

Bt cotton linked to human allergies, animal deaths


Indian farm workers are suffering from rashes and itching and other symptoms after coming into contact with Bt cotton.

Now thousands of Indian farm laborers are suffering from the same allergic and flu-like symptoms as those in the Pacific Northwest simply from handling genetically engineered cotton plants that produce Bt-toxin. According to reports and records from doctors, hospitals, and pharmacies, as well as numerous investigative reports and case studies, workers are struggling with constant itching and rashes; some take antihistamines every day in order to go to work.

It gets worse.


All thirteen buffalo of a small Indian village died after grazing for a single day on Bt cotton plants.

When they allow livestock to graze on the Bt cotton plants after harvest, thousands of sheep, goats, and buffalo died. Numerous others got sick. I visited one village where for seven to eight years they allowed their buffalo to graze on natural cotton plants without incident. But on January 3rd, 2008, they allowed their 13 buffalo to graze on Bt cotton plants for the first time. After just one day’s exposure, all died. The village also lost 26 goats and sheep.

One small study in Andhra Pradesh reported that all six sheep that grazed on Bt cotton plants died within a month, while the three controls fed natural cotton plants showed no adverse symptoms.

Living pesticide factories inside us?

Getting back to the Bt-toxin now circulating in the blood of North American adults and newborns—how did it get there? The study authors speculate that it was consumed in the normal diet of the Canadian middle class. They even suggest that the toxin may have come from eating meat from animals fed Bt corn—as most livestock are.

I’d like to speculate on another possible source. But I warn you, it’s not pretty.

The only human feeding study every published on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) was conducted on Roundup Ready soybeans. Here’s their back story: Scientists found bacteria growing in a chemical waste dump near their factory, surviving the presence of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. The herbicide normally kills bacteria, but this organism had some special gene that allowed it to survive. So Monsanto scientists figured, “Let’s put it into the food supply!”

By forcing that genes from that bacterium into soybean plants’ DNA, the plants then survive an otherwise deadly dose of Roundup herbicide—hence the name Roundup Ready.

In the human study (10), some of the subjects were found to have Roundup Ready gut bacteria! This means that sometime in the past, from eating one or more meals of GM soybeans, the gene that had been discovered in the chemical waste dump and forced into the soy, had transferred into the DNA of bacteria living inside their intestines—and continued to function. That means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have dangerous GM proteins produced continuously inside of us.

When the results of the study emerged, the funding from the pro-GMO UK government mysteriously dried up, so they were not able to see if the same type of gene transfer happens with Bt genes from, say, corn chips. If it does, it means that eating Bt corn might turn our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories—continually manufacturing Bt-toxin from within our digestive systems.

I don’t know of a test that can confirm that this is happening, but the Canada study may be showing the results—where Bt-toxins are found in the blood of a very high percentage of people.

If the “living pesticide factory” hypothesis is correct, we might speculate even further. Bt-toxin breaks open the stomach of insects. Could it similarly be damaging the integrity of our digestive tracts? The biotech companies insist that Bt-toxin doesn’t bind or interact with the intestinal walls of mammals, and therefore humans. But here too they ignore peer-reviewed published evidence showing that Bt-toxin does bind with mouse small intestines and with intestinal tissue from rhesus monkeys.(11) In the former study, they even found “changes in the electrophysiological properties” of the organ after the Bt-toxin came into contact.(12)

If Bt-toxins were causing leaky gut syndrome in newborns, the passage of undigested foods and toxins into the blood from the intestines could be devastating. Scientists speculate that it may lead to autoimmune diseases and food allergies. Furthermore, since the blood-brain barrier is not developed in newborns, toxins may enter the brain causing serious cognitive problems. Some healthcare practitioners and scientists are convinced that this is the apparent mechanism for autism.

Thus, if Bt genes were colonizing the bacteria living in the digestive tract of North Americans, we might see an increase in gastrointestinal problems, autoimmune diseases, food allergies, and childhood learning disorders—since 1996 when Bt crops came on the market. Physicians have told me that they indeed are seeing such an increase.

The discovery of Bt-toxin in our blood does not confirm all this speculation, but it does provide food for thought. And hopefully, that food is non-GMO.

Our Institute for Responsible Technology joins other organizations worldwide calling for an immediate ban on GM food crops, and the commencement of rigorous independent scientific research on the safety of GMOs in general, and Bt-toxin in particular.

Action Alert: While we work for a ban on GMOs, in the mean time click here to sign a petition for President Obama to require labeling.

Jeffrey M. Smith is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, author of the #1 international bestselling book on GMOs, Seeds of Deception, and ofGenetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. To avoid GMOs, which is the advice of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, visit www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com.

References:

  1. Aris A, Leblanc S. Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Reprod Toxicol (2011), doi:10.1016/j.reprotox.2011.02.004http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670
  2. Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, Monastra G, Ambra R, Turrini A and Mengheri E. (2008). Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric Food Chem, 16 November 2008
  3. Seralini GE, Cellier D, Spiroux de Vendomois J. 2007, “New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity”. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2007;52:596-602; and Vendômois, JS, François Roullier, Dominique Cellier and Gilles-Eric Séralini. 2009, “A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health” . International Journal of Biological Sciences 2009; 5(7):706-726
  4. Gendel, “The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods,” Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998), 45–62. See also: G. A. Kleter and A. A. C. M. Peijnenburg, “Screening of transgenic proteins expressed in transgenic food crops for the presence of short amino acid sequences indentical to potential, IgE-binding linear epitopes of allergens,” BMC Structural Biology 2 (2002): 8–19; H. P. J. M. Noteborn, “Assessment of the Stability to Digestion and Bioavailability of the LYS Mutant Cry9C Protein from Bacillus thuringiensis serovar tolworthi,” Unpublished study submitted to the EPA by AgrEvo, EPA MRID No. 447343-05 (1998); and H. P. J. M. Noteborn et al, “Safety Assessment of the Bacillus thuringiensis Insecticidal Crystal Protein CRYIA(b) Expressed in Transgenic Tomatoes,” in Genetically modified foods: safety issues, American Chemical Society Symposium Series 605, eds. K.H. Engel et al., (Washington, DC, 1995): 134–47.
    Bt protein failed to break down quickly in a simulated digestive solution. In fact, it left fragments that were typically the size of allergens. The Bt also failed the heat stability test, and had shared 9–12 amino acid sequences of vitellogenin, an egg yolk allergen.
  5. Vazquez et al, “Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice,” 1897–1912; Vazquez et al, “Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice,” Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 33 (2000): 147–155; See also L. Moreno-Fierros, N. Garcia, R. Lopez-Revilla, R. I. Vazquez-Padron, “Intranasal, rectal and intraperitoneal immunization with protoxin Cry1Ac from Bacillus thuringiensis induces compartmentalized serum, intestinal, vaginal, and pulmonary immune responses in Balb/c mice,” Microbes and Infection 2 (2000): 885–90.
  6. Vazquez et al, “Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant,” Scandanavian Journal ofImmunology 49 (1999): 578–584. See also Vazquez-Padron et al., 147 (2000).
  7. I.L. Bernstein et al, “Immune responses in farm workers after exposure toBacillus thuringiensis pesticides,” Environmental Health Perspectives 107, no. 7(1999): 575–582.
  8. EPA Scientific Advisory Panel, “Bt Plant-Pesticides Risk and Benefits Assessments,” March 12, 2001: 76.
  9. Washington State Department of Health, “Report of health surveillance activities: Asian gypsy moth control program,” (Olympia, WA: Washington State Dept. of Health, 1993); and M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,”Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848–852.
  10. Netherwood, T. (2004) “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract”. Nature Biotechnology, 22, 204-209.
  11. Noteborn et al, “Safety Assessment of the Bacillus thuringiensis Insecticidal Crystal Protein CRYIA(b) Expressed in Transgenic Tomatoes,” 134–47.
  12. Vazquez et al, “Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis sp. kurstaki HD73 binds to surface proteins in the mouse small intestine,” 54–58.
Jun 2, 201116 notes

May 2011

40 posts

Bacteria – an Endangered Species!

3 types of lactic ferment

The world is full of bacteria but there are certain bacteria that are fast becoming an endangered species. The bacteria that live in the gut of homo sapiens, particularly those of Caucasian origin, are fast disappearing. These particular bacteria comprise of the good bowel flora that is needed to create vitamins, break down undigested food particles and generally be a dominating presence within the nether regions. The importance of these bacteria cannot be overestimated as more and more victims can attest to the symptoms that a lack of these organisms will create.

Another class of endangered species is food enzymes. These enzymes are needed for the optimum digestion of food. The body’s own supply is diminishing day by day by eating mostly cooked food, and these enzymes are not being replenished through our modern diets.

Food allergies, candida, irritable bowel syndrome and even cancer, are all symptoms of a lack of friendly bacteria and enzymes in the gut. It has been noted that no cancer patient has healthy bowel flora. That speaks volumes doesn’t it? The balance needs to be put back so that the pathogens don’t gain a foothold. We need to put back those organisms that are disappearing from our health and well being.

So what can be done about re-instating these important organisms?

There are plenty of supplements on the market that will help to put back those missing enzymes and bacteria, but this is not the real solution. I don’t believe that we can have the good health as nature intended us to have if we pop pills instead of having all our nutritional needs met through our food. It’s a well known fact these days that we are short-changed by the quality of the food we buy. Food grown with chemical input is not adequate to meet our mineral and vitamin needs. If our food isn’t grown in healthy, living soil then we won’t have all our nutritional needs met.

We must insist on having access to organic food and nothing else will do! Buying organic food is out of the reach of many people as it is more expensive. If you are able to grow some of your own fruit and vegetables then consider yourself privileged as growing your own food has so many benefits. When you have access to fresh organic produce then we can go to the next step of creating the life we need to put back into our daily diet.

Make your own living food — living food that is raw and fermented

You might be familiar with sauerkraut, a ferment made from cabbage. The cabbage is rich with lactic bacteria that will readily ferment the cabbage into sauerkraut. Eating some sauerkraut with your cooked meals will add health giving lactic bacteria and digestive enzymes, thus helping your digestion and the assimilation of nutrients. Another example is making your own yoghurt. Yoghurt is full of friendly bacteria needed for your gut flora and when you have the right bacterial strains these will help put back those missing bacteria into your lower bowel. Acidophilus and bifidus are the two bacteria strains that we are born with and having these in great numbers will keep us healthy on the inside. We are often lacking in these two bacteria strains due to our modern lifestyles and a regular intake of fresh yoghurt will go a long way to giving us robust good health. Making your own yoghurt with a yoghurt culture will be the most beneficial, as this yoghurt will have not have mere millions, but billions of these bacteria in it. It’s all about numbers.

These are about the only examples of ferments that we still include in our western diet. Unfortunately the sauerkraut you buy will most likely be pasteurized and so won’t give you those much valued enzymes and those beneficial bacteria. The yoghurt you buy is likely to be pasteurized and sweetened, and has very little value in adding the life you need for your inner health. These fermented foods need to be raw, that is, alive, to be of benefit for your health.

Fortunately we can easily ferment our food so we can add these living organisms in our daily diet. When fermenting any food, it is wise to look for the best quality ingredients. The produce needs to be organic and nutrient dense for the enzymes to do their job to their full capacity. The water used needs to be pure and the addition of some sea salt and whey is also essential. The whey must be naturally soured to be effective, as it is the lactic bacteria that we need from the whey to inoculate a new ferment with. If you make your own yoghurt and find that there is a layer of whey on top, then pour that off and add this into your new ferment.

All vegetables, fruit, grain, nuts and seeds can be fermented and these will add a tasty and vital addition to the daily diet. You will find that every traditional culture will have some fermented food with their meal. Beet kvass, butter milk, kefir, yoghurt, amazaki, kombucha tea are but some examples of drinks that we can have with our meals. Sauerkraut, kimchi, traditional lactic bread and butter cucumbers and other lactic fermented vegetables are all enzyme rich additions to help us to digest and assimilate our food. Grains are also fermented in many cultures and sourdough is making a come back again as more people recognize the benefits of this type of bread. In traditional cultures all grains and most starches are fermented first before cooking them. These are all ancient practices that we have forgotten about since the advent of the industrial age and our modern day food processing methods. We have suffered ill health long enough as a society and we need to take serious steps in getting back to home food production and the fermentation of our food.

Once you discover the taste of fermented food and see how easy it is to make, you’ll wonder how you got on in life without it. You will find that you will feel lighter after meals and have more vitality and resistance to disease as your inner health has been re-vitalised with healthy gut flora.

Kimchi Recipe:

  • Take a wongbok cabbage and shred it coarsely and pound to break down the cellulose
  • 1 carrot, chopped
  • 3-4 red hot chillies, finely chopped
  • fresh grated ginger
  • sea salt
  • some naturally sourced whey

Mix a brine of about ½ litre of water and enough salt so that the water tastes a bit salty. Add a couple of tablespoons of whey.

Add all the other ingredients into the brine including the kimchi base if you are using this.

Place a plate on top with a weight on it to keep the vegetables submerged.

Keep on a bench for five days, and pack the contents into jars and place in the fridge. Press most of the liquid out so the mix won’t go too sour.

Note: There is a Kimchi base available at Asian supermarkets and this is the genuine Korean chili taste for the kimchi. It comes in a glass bottle and costs around $10. Make sure you read the label though as some have monosodium glutamate (MSG) in it.

Jun 1, 20112 notes
Joel Salatin of Polyface Farm in Virginia returns to Australia

We were rather impressed with Joel Salatin when he came to Australia last year. So were one or two other people. Aside from being the most entertaining farmer that we’ve ever met, he’s really onto something. Multiple somethings, even.

To call the Salatin’s farming practices at Polyface Farms in Virginia USA ‘innovative’ is a bit of a massive understatement. Joel’s unique approach to productive small-scale farming, that focuses on great ideas, biomimicry, and what can only be called truly regenerative agriculture, are fast becoming legendary.


Feathernet chicken house at PolyFace Farm (used over summer months)

Take the Polyface Pastured Poultry systems, for example. These are home-made systems, built up over time as funds and materials allow, to produce free-range eggs (in the feathernet system) and pastured broilers (in the chicken tractor system).

In the feathernet system, the chickens are free to roam during the day, and protected in their portable hutches at night by shepherd dogs, in a setup moved every three days. Uh huh, you say – I’ve heard of that one before. The broilers are in a chicken tractor system – enclosed cages moved daily. Yup, you say. Heard of that one too.

The thing is, this is considered by many to be the farm that launched the pastured poultry movement as we know it today – the Salatin’s virtually wrote the book on it.

But here’s what really sets the polyface model apart: the incredible production of the above systems (the feathernet system currently produces over 40,000 eggs a year), the design of the systems (simple but designed to minimize energy inputs, including labor) and how they are integrated into all the other animal systems of the farm to reduce disease and increase fertility.


Saladbar beef system at Polyface, munching its way across the landscape


Forested Polyface Farm pigs doing their free-range piggy thing…

While I won’t launch into a full description of Polyface’s Salad-Bar Beef system (holistically managed beef herds which are followed by the feathernet system to break down the manure) or their pigerator pork system (forested foraging herds of pigs which are moved about at a rate that stimulates the seed bank in the forest floor, increasing diversity for the next round), I will say that Polyface’s techniques are exciting to anyone wanting to run a seriously productive and ‘beyond organic’ small farm.

On top of Joel’s many how-to books which outline PolyFace’s techniques in detail, and which have seen a huge uptake of Polyface-esque techniques worldwide, there’s the marketing side of things. How to get your fabulous eggs, your beef, your cheese, your whatever, to the buyer in such a way that your farm actually makes a profit, and henceforth allows you to keep farming?

Polyface’s processing and marketing techniques are at the heart of the re-localised food movement – and they work: Process as close to home as possible. Sell as close to home as possible. Know your customers. Set up buying clubs. Set up systems that cut out the supermarket chains and keeps you, the farmer, in touch with the people doing the eating.

We’re not just talking about taking your produce to farmers markets here, far from it – this is next-level stuff. Polyface is an example of a pioneering, ethical small farm that is breaking boundaries around how farmers can deliver nutritionally dense food to dedicated, involved consumers.

But wait, there’s more! Polyface has a really smart intern system, with whose labor they fuel their production. Wanna-be farmers come in, confident farmers come out. And the farm in the middle gets the crew it needs to function.


Joel Salatin in a feathernet system

Needless to day, when Joel Salatin dropped all this knowledge (and more) into the workshops he did across Australia last year, it was like a bomb going off. I have never seen so many people in the one room so freaking excited about farming. And some of them were already farmers! And some were not, and didn’t intend to be. Not until Joel Salatin came along, anyway.

So RegenAG are excited to announce that Joel Salatin is coming back for another series of short workshops this year, as part of RegenAG’s 2011 course series.

If you’re a farmer, or think you might like to be a farmer one day, I would highly recommend coming along:

  • Joel Salatin NSW Workshop: 2nd August: Jamberoo
  • Joel Salatin FNQLD Workshop: 4th August: Townsville
  • Joel Salatin SEQLD Workshop: 5th August
  • Joel Salatin VIC Workshop: 6th August: Ceres, Melbourne

You can get more info on these workshops and book in via RegenAG.com

Joel Salatin & Polyface Farms – some resources:

  • Course notes from 2010 NSW Joel Salatin workshops – lots of relevant links
  • May all your carrots grow long and straight: a week with Joel Salatin – all his 2010 Australian interviews
  • PolyfaceFarms.com – info and books
  • PolyFace Farm on USA Today – featuring the eggmobile system (previous to the feathernet)
  • Growing the Growers project – featuring the Salatins and their interns
  • Polyface Farms and Joel Salatin on youtube – go nuts.
Jun 1, 20111 note
Unnatural Selection - Industry Manipulation, Political Collusion, Dangerous Food in Your Daily Diet

This explosive exposé reveals what the biotech industry doesn’t want you to know – how industry manipulation and political collusion, not sound science, allow dangerous genetically engineered food into your daily diet. Company research is rigged, alarming evidence of health dangers is covered up, and intense political pressure applied. Chapters read like adventure stories and are hard to put down: * Scientists were offered bribes or threatened. Evidence was stolen. Data was omitted or distorted. * Government employees who complained were harassed, stripped of responsibilities, or fired. * Laboratory rats fed a GM crop developed stomach lesions and seven of the forty died within two weeks. The crop was approved without further tests. * The only independent in-depth feeding study ever conducted showed evidence of alarming health dangers. When the scientist tried to alert the public, he lost his job and was silenced with threats of a lawsuit. Read the actual internal memos by FDA scientists, warning of toxins, allergies, and new diseases – all ignored by their superiors, including a former attorney for Monsanto. Learn why the FDA withheld information from Congress after a genetically modified supplement killed nearly a hundred people and disabled thousands. —GoogleVideo

Jun 1, 201113 notes
Next page →
2012 2013
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April 2
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
2011 2012 2013
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
2010 2011 2012
  • January 27
  • February 23
  • March 22
  • April 27
  • May 40
  • June 27
  • July 6
  • August 6
  • September
  • October
  • November 2
  • December
2010 2011
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May 4
  • June 12
  • July 20
  • August 5
  • September
  • October 4
  • November 5
  • December 12