Scandal of Autistic Boy Being Sent for Trial in USA

Hi, We are extremely disappointed and angry that today the High Court has ruled that Gary McKinnon, a man with Asperger syndrome accused of hacking into United States Government computer systems, should be extradited to the US. Autism is a lifelong condition that requires understanding and support and this is a terrible day for Gary and his family. We are collecting your photos and messages to demonstrate the huge level of support they have, so please visit our website and add your voice. Gary's fight continues, with an application to appeal the decision to extradite him in the UK Supreme Court. I'll be in touch again soon and together we will continue to fight this injustice. Best wishes, Matthew Downie Campaigns Manager
The National Autistic Society, registered office: 393 City Road, London, EC1V 1NG, United Kingdom. Tel: +44(0)20 7833 2299, Fax: +44 (0)20 7833 9666, Email: nas@nas.org.uk VAT registration number: 653370050; a charity registered in England and Wales (269425) and in Scotland (SC039427) The National Autistic Society 2008 If you no longer wish to receive emails about the think differently about

From Avaaz

Avaaz.org - The World in ActionDear friends,

Avaaz Climate Action Factories have been set up to urgently kick-start stalled global climate negotiations - and they're working! World leaders are taking notice, but without additional funds, these live-in warehouses of highly skilled youth advocates will be forced to close in a month. Donate now to keep them open and together we'll secure a binding climate deal in Copenhagen this December! <> Delivering a global climate petition to UK PM Gordon Brown. <> Stripping for the climate at the G8 in Italy. <> Targeting Merkel and Obama at the Brandenburg gate. <> Successfully demanding a green recovery on Capitol Lawn in Washington DC. Donate now to keep these action factories open!

As the world heads to the final UN climate summit in Copenhagen this December, global talks to stop the climate crisis are stalling. The leaders of the biggest polluting countries are refusing to cut carbon emissions enough to avert catastrophe.

One big reason: these leaders are besieged daily by lobbyists from the powerful oil and coal industries. To counter them, we urgently need to field our own relentless and spirited lobbying effort.

We can't afford to hire corporate lobbyists, but we might do even better. Avaaz has recruited dozens of talented and experienced youth leaders to work day and night in key capitals to press leaders to avert the climate crisis - and they're already having a major global impact. It costs just $50 per day ($5 per hour) to support one climate activist to passionately organize stunts, phone calls, press visits and other actions to convey all our voices where it matters most. We urgently need at least 5000 Avaaz members to keep the action factories going until the December summit by adopting and funding a youth activist for just an hour or a day. Click to pitch in:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/climate_action_factories

The global movement to confront climate change needs an emergency infusion of passion, energy, and nimble, politically-focused action. This effort is designed to unleash one key source of renewable political energy: the youth climate movement. And it's working!

So far, 37 talented youth leaders have spent their summer waking hours on this effort. They've personally lobbied Gordon Brown, been a constant presence in the halls of the US Congress, staged Obama and Merkel superhero stunts at the Brandenburg Gate, helped impact Japan's climate targets and made front pages of major news media around the world. Now, it's up to us to continue feeding them, renting work space, and buying their train tickets so they can go wherever they're needed most -- all the way to December's major climate summit. Click here to donate:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/climate_action_factories

There are just five months left until the long-awaited final world summit on climate change in Copenhagen, Denmark in December. This is the big moment - either our leaders will agree to a fair, ambitious and binding global treaty that sets tough legal limits on carbon pollution for each country, or they will fiddle while the planet burns. Youth movements have played a key role in progressive change throughout history, let's help unleash their power to take on the oil and coal lobbyists and reach our leaders with a voice of urgency and conscience.

With hope and determination,

Brett, Iain, Taren, Ricken, Anna, David, Sarah, Leon, Kalen and the rest of the Avaaz and Climate Action factory teams

FSA REPORT A GUARDIAN COMMENT

Having just read the report can confirm the mean positive difference between the following nutrients, when comparing organic to non-organic food, was found in the FSA study to be:

- Protein 12.7%
- Beta-carotene 53.6%
- Flavonoids 38.4%
- Copper 8.3%
- Magnesium 7.1%
- Phosphorous 6%
- Potassium 2.5%
- Sodium 8.7%
- Sulphur 10.5%
- Zinc 11.3%
- Phenolic compounds 13.2%

This points very heavily in favour of organic.

The FSA failed to include the results of a major European Union-funded study involving 31 research and university institutes and the publication, so far, of more than 100 scientific papers, at a cost of 18million Euros.

The European Union research programme concluded that:

'Levels of a range of nutritionally desirable compounds (e.g. antioxidants, vitamins, glycosinolates) were shown to be higher in organic crops'
'Levels of nutritionally undesirable compounds (e.g. mycotoxins, glycoalkaloids, Cadmium and Nickel) were shown to be lower in organic crops'.

In addition, levels of fatty acids, such as CLA and omega 3 were between 10 - 60% higher in organic milk and dairy products, and levels of Vitamin C were up to 90% higher in leafy vegetables and fruits.

Also, there is not sufficient research on the long-term effects of pesticides on human health.
In 2006 the European Commission said that "long-term exposure to pesticides can lead to serious disturbances to the immune system, sexual disorders, cancers, sterility, birth defects, damage to the nervous system and genetic damage."

SPOT THE BULL SH*** From the Guardian

LOOK AT THIS ARTICLE AND COMPARE WITH THE QUALITY OF THE COMMENTS AT THE END. WHAT HAPPENED TO REAL JOURNALISM... FORGOT... IT NEVER EXISTED?

Organic food not healthier, says FSA

Report finds organic food provides no significant nutritional benefit compared with conventionally produced food

Organic food is no healthier and provides no significant nutritional benefit compared with conventionally produced food, according to a new, independent study funded by the Food Standards Agency. But its conclusions have been called into question by experts and organic food campaigners.

The report looked at evidence published over the past 50 years of the different nutrient levels found in crops and livestock from both types of farming and also at the health benefits of eating organic food. The findings, partly published today in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, contradict previous work that has found organically grown food to be nutritionally superior.

Dr Alan Dangour, who led the review by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: "Most studies were based on the hypothesis that eating organic food is beneficial to health. Looking at all of the studies published in the last 50 years, we have concluded that there's no good evidence that consumption of organic food is beneficial to health based on the nutrient content."

He said that while small differences in nutrient content were found between organic and conventionally produced food, they were "unlikely to be of any public health relevance".

Organic food campaigners criticised the study for failing to consider fertiliser and pesticide residues in food. They expressed disappointment at its "limited" nature, saying that without long-term studies it did not provide a clear answer on whether eating organic food has health benefits. A leading food academic went further, saying he found the conclusions "selective in the extreme".

Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association, said: "We are disappointed in the conclusions the researchers have reached. It doesn't say organic food is not healthier, just that, according to the criteria they have adopted, there's no proof that it is."

He criticised the methodology used by the team, which he said meant they rejected as "not important" some nutritional benefits they found in organic food, and led them to different conclusions from those reached by previous studies.

Melchett said: "The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences."

Carlo Leifert, a professor of ecological agriculture at Newcastle University and the co-ordinator of a major EU-funded study which recently found nutrient levels were higher in organic foods, said the conclusions of the study were selective.

He said: "I'm worried about the conclusions. The ballpark figures they have come up with are similar to ours. I don't understand why the FSA are not going away and saying, 'Right, there's something you can do on a farm to improve food.' But they are so blocked by not wanting to say positive things about organic farming."

The appendix of the FSA report shows that some nutrients, such as beta-carotene, are as much as 53% higher in organic food, but such differences are not reflected in its conclusions.

The farming of organic food, which is now worth £2bn in the UK alone, is governed by strict regulations that set it apart from conventional farming. Crops are not treated with artificial chemical fertilisers or pesticides, while antibiotics and drugs are not used routinely on livestock.

Gill Fine, the FSA director of consumer choice, defended the scope of the study. She said: "We are neither anti or pro organic food. We recognise there are many reasons why people choose to eat organic, such as animal welfare or environmental concerns. We specifically checked claims that organic food is better for you.

"This study does not mean people should not eat organic food. What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and there is not evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food."

When asked whether consumers had been misled over the benefits of organic food, she said: "If they are buying organic on the basis that it is healthier, then that is not the case."

The EU study co-ordinated by Leifert, which ended in May this year, involved 31 research and university institutes. It found that levels of nutritionally desirable compounds, such as antioxidants and vitamins, were higher in organic crops, while levels of nutritionally undesirable compounds such as toxic chemicals, mycotoxins and metals such as cadmium and nickel, were lower in organic crops.

's comment

Comments in chronological order (Total 72 comments)

Loading 0% complete

Loading comments...

Go to all comments on one page

In order to post a comment you need to be registered and signed in.

Register | Sign in

• smuglyfrombrazil

  29 Jul 09, 7:02pm (about 6 hours ago)

  What a pathetic criteria for a study!
  The point of eating organic food is not a higher nutritional content but avoiding pesticides and the like, DUH!
  Therefore, YES, it is healthier.

• • Recommend? (28)
  • Report abuse
  • Clip |
  • Link

• truthANDbeauty

  29 Jul 09, 7:03pm (about 6 hours ago)

  And guess what? There will be another report in six months saying that organic food is superior to non-organic food.

  Does anybody trust the motives of the FSA anyway? I don't.

• • Recommend? (15)
  • Report abuse
  • Clip |
  • Link

• pyramide

  29 Jul 09, 7:07pm (about 5 hours ago)

  Should I pay the organic premium?

  I am a bit confused. The article says that a serious study has shown that there are no extra health benefits to eating organic food. Then it quotes a couple of experts that say that it has not taken into account the higher levels of some nutrients in organic food.

  Are these experts misleading us or is the study flawed?
  

• balloon

• 29 Jul 09, 7:10pm (about 5 hours ago)

  If I was given 2 pieces of fruit, 1 of which was covered in toxic pesticides and 1 of which was not...

  oh what's the point?

• • Recommend? (21)
  • Report abuse
  • Clip |
  • Link

• JohnCan45

  29 Jul 09, 7:10pm (about 5 hours ago)

  Organic food is superior to what, exactly - synthetic food? There appears to be much resistance to defining basic terms like this, and I suspect it's to do with the premium prices charged for supposedly healthier products.

• • Recommend? (1)
  • Report abuse
  • Clip |
  • Link

• Sutch

  29 Jul 09, 7:15pm (about 5 hours ago)

  Funniest article of the day.
  What is conventional food? Who grew it? Where? Did they use fertilizers? If so, what kind? How much? For which food? Any artificial, chemical fertilizers? What kind? How much per square foot? For which foods? Was the earth left fallow for one or more years before being used? Were any pesticides used? For which foods? In what quantities? Permitted by which rulings: UK, European, USA, world, other?
  Was TASTE used as a criteria? If so, How? By whom? For which foods? Etc.
  Most of all, who paid for this test to be carried out? How much? To whom? Why?

What will history say?

Live Work : A cool company

Our multidisciplinary team

Shared via AddThis

Joe Strummer on Food - Bhindi Bhajjiiiiii

From Ruth

FAILURE TO YIELD

EVALUATING THE PERFORMANCE OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS

Union of Concerned Scientists

April 14, 2009

http://ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html

For years the biotechnology industry has trumpeted that it will feed the

world, promising that its genetically engineered crops will produce higher

yields.

That promise has proven to be empty, according to Failure to Yield, a report

by UCS expert Doug Gurian-Sherman released in March 2009

. Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of

commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase

U.S. crop yields.

Failure to Yield is the first report to closely evaluate the overall effect

genetic engineering has had on crop yields in relation to other agricultural

technologies. It reviewed two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans,

the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops grown in the

United States. Based on those studies, the UCS report concluded that

genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant

corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has

improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over

the last 13 years, the report found, was largely due to traditional breeding

or improvements in agricultural practices.

The UCS report comes at a time when food price spikes and localized

shortages worldwide have prompted calls to boost agricultural productivity,

or yield -- the amount of a crop produced per unit of land over a specified

amount of time. Biotechnology companies maintain that genetic engineering is

essential to meeting this goal. Monsanto, for example, is currently running

an advertising campaign warning of an exploding world population and

claiming that its ³advanced seedsŠ significantly increase crop yieldsŠ² The

UCS report debunks that claim, concluding that genetic engineering is

unlikely to play a significant role in increasing food production in the

foreseeable future.

The biotechnology industry has been promising better yields since the

mid-1990s, but Failure to Yield documents that the industry has been

carrying out gene field trials to increase yields for 20 years without

significant results.

Failure to Yield makes a critical distinction between potential -- or

intrinsic -- yield and operational yield, concepts that are often conflated

by the industry and misunderstood by others. Intrinsic yield refers to a

crop¹s ultimate production potential under the best possible conditions.

Operational yield refers to production levels after losses due to pests,

drought and other environmental factors.

The study reviewed the intrinsic and operational yield achievements of the

three most common genetically altered food and feed crops in the United

States: herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide-tolerant corn, and

insect-resistant corn (known as Bt corn, after the bacterium Bacillus

thuringiensis, whose genes enable the corn to resist several kinds of

insects).

Herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide-tolerant corn, and Bt corn have

failed to increase intrinsic yields, the report found. Herbicide- tolerant

soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn also have failed to increase

operational yields, compared with conventional methods.

Meanwhile, the report found that Bt corn likely provides a marginal

operational yield advantage of 3 to 4 percent over typical conventional

practices. Since Bt corn became commercially available in 1996, its yield

advantage averages out to a 0.2 to 0.3 percent yield increase per year. To

put that figure in context, overall U.S. corn yields over the last several

decades have annually averaged an increase of approximately one percent,

which is considerably more than what Bt traits have provided.

In addition to evaluating genetic engineering¹s record, Failure to Yield

considers the technology¹s potential role in increasing food production over

the next few decades. The report does not discount the possibility of

genetic engineering eventually contributing to increase crop yields. It

does, however, suggest that it makes little sense to support genetic

engineering at the expense of technologies that have proven to

substantially increase yields, especially in many developing countries. In

addition, recent studies have shown that organic and similar farming methods

that minimize the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers can more than

double crop yields at little cost to poor farmers in such developing regions

as Sub-Saharan Africa.

The report recommends that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, state

agricultural agencies, and universities increase research and development

for proven approaches to boost crop yields. Those approaches should include

modern conventional plant breeding methods, sustainable and organic farming,

and other sophisticated farming practices that do not require farmers to pay

significant upfront costs. The report also recommends that U.S. food aid

organizations make these more promising and affordable alternatives

available to farmers in developing countries.

³If we are going to make headway in combating hunger due to overpopulation

and climate change, we will need to increase crop yields,² said

Gurian-Sherman. ³Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands

down.²

.............

RELATED LINKS:

Common Questions And Answers About Failure To Yield:

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield-FAQs.html

From JAPAN

[Newsletter] Japan's Growing Trend: Part-Time Farmers

Half Farmer, Half Something Else: "New" Lifestyles for an Eco-Friendly 21st Century

JFS Newsletter No.80 (April 2009)

Copyright Half-Farmer and Half-X Institute

The global economic crisis, which began with the collapse of U.S. securities house Lehman Brothers in 2008, also triggered a series of business failures and job losses in Japan. The nation was already facing a number of problems. An increasing number of young people is having trouble finding jobs. Many people are quitting their jobs early. The country's self sufficiency in energy and food is low, at 4 percent and 40 percent, respectively. Japan has a rapidly aging society, bringing with it elderly nursing care issues, along with the aging of the farming population, with more than two-thirds of farmers aged over 65. Moreover, the number of people complaining of mental disorders is growing rapidly, and more than 30,000 people commit suicide each year. Meanwhile, a new lifestyle is quietly becoming popular. Some think this way of living, called the "Half-Farmer/Half-X" lifestyle, has the potential to significantly reduce or gradually solve these other problems, and to help the nation realize a more attractive and diverse future.

A 21st-Century Lifestyle: Friendly to Planet, Friendly to People

The concept of the Half-Farmer/Half-X lifestyle was first proposed in the mid-1990s by Naoki Shiomi, who now lives in the city of Ayabe in the north part of Kyoto Prefecture. The basic idea is that people pursue farming, not so much as a business but to grow food for their own family, while being constructively involved in society by realizing their own personal passion -- something he called their "X" factor. The "X" represents the questions each person must answer to find out what they really prefer to do, what they really want to do, and what they can do for others, while discovering their personal mission, their life's work, or their "true" calling in life.

Copyright Half-Farmer and Half-X Institute

Shiomi himself began pursuing this lifestyle years ago, and now helps many people find their own "X." He said that through these practices, he keenly sensed that this type of lifestyle is a way of making the most of each person's talent and abandoning the twentieth-century style of mass production, mass consumption, mass and long-distance transportation, and mass disposal, while pointing the way to making happier lives and a sustainable Earth more possible.

Environmental Problems Inspired the Half-Farmer/Half-X Lifestyle
Shiomi first came up with this idea while considering the solutions to environmental problems, and this encouraged him to start the quest for a better lifestyle. When he left his hometown of Ayabe and moved to another urban area, he began to consider environmental problems from the perspective of future generations and ponder how he should live. As a result, he felt a strong ambition to start subsistence farming to enable his family to grow crops at least for their own consumption.

Shiomi also believes that environmental issues are largely associated with people's attitudes and mind-frames, an example being that some people shop and spend money on things they don't really need just to satisfy an emotional void. In industrialized countries, for example, many people tend to consume goods haphazardly in order to feel fulfilled, or buy goods on impulse after receiving prodding from various information sources, such as commercial advertisements on television and in newspapers, magazines, as well as flyers, and in-store point-of-purchase displays.

While practicing such consumption patterns, people don't have the time to give more than a passing thought to the global environment or the working conditions of the producers of the goods they buy. When shopping, they often put things into their shopping basket without even considering whether they are absolutely necessary, whether using them matches their values, or whether the products can be used for a long time. Shiomi believes the root causes of today's environmental problems are linked to most people's immature ways of trying to find their own identity, as well as their desire to simply consume, which leads to consumption behavior that resembles an addiction.

Shiomi discovered a fundamental truth by living the Half-Farmer/Half-X lifestyle back in his rural hometown of Ayabe. In other words, he found contentment in making less money but being spiritually enriched. And he is not alone. Others living the same lifestyle in Ayabe find it to be true. Shiomi says he has heard similar comments from other practitioners of the Half-Farmer/Half-X lifestyle, whose numbers have increased nationwide in recent years. Basically, they are content with their lives, in which they enjoy the practice of everyday farming, even on a small scale, and at the same time they work on developing a satisfying vocation, thereby not turning so easily to consumption, and in fact finding less need for it. In addition, because agriculture -- which is integrally affected by weather, water, soil, air, and other natural elements -- is part of their daily lives, they cannot help but shift their focus to the natural world and become sensitive to changes in the environment. Naturally, they develop a "sense of wonder," as described by Rachel Carson, author of the environmental book "Silent Spring."

Practice of the Half-Farmer/Half-X lifestyle
Copyright Half-Farmer and Half-X Institute

Farming Complements a Person's "X" Factor

Shiomi explains that one of the reasons he recommends the Half-Farmer/Half-X lifestyle is that through it people can enhance and deepen both their farming life and their vocations at the same time. In the act of growing things, people experience nature directly and begin to harmonize with it. They also feel more closely connected in mind and body with the cycles of life through the experience of being close to life and death and nurturing living things. In the modern era, in which places of production and consumption are almost completely separate, being involved with growing things could be instrumental for many people to regain a sensitivity to and sensibility about the natural world.

Meanwhile, almost everyone wonders from time to time who they really are and what is the purpose of their life. According to Shiomi, the answer to these questions is to practice the "X" each person is called to do. When truly being engaged in their "X," he says, people might even forget about sleeping and eating, be filled with enthusiasm, really enjoy their life, and feel life is worth living. The experience of becoming more sensitive by focusing on farming and deeper thoughts, while sharpening sensibility through earnest work, often brings out the best in people while they work on their personal calling. Not only that, people tend to feel immeasurably more secure in this economic crisis when they know they have enough basic food to survive, at least until next summer.

Learning about True Affluence through the Half-Farmer/Half-X Lifestyle

In the old days, having many and large possessions was considered a sign of affluence, and people actively pursued this status, but lately some people's values are changing slowly but steadily. Nowadays, more people are asking themselves if they will really be that happy if they have a lot of things.

Community exploring their "X"
Copyright Half-Farmer and Half-X Institute

Shiomi has conveyed the concept of the Half-Farmer/Half-X lifestyle through lectures, books, the Internet, etc., and he says that people in their twenties to forties, the so-called "debt generation," show particularly strong interest in his concept. This seems to be because they are the ones that will have to pay the debt left by the previous generation, which over-consumed natural resources and abused the environment. A steadily increasing number of young people are recognizing that it's better to share benefits rather than monopolize them, to live life commensurate with one's income level rather than chasing after unnecessarily large things, and keeping pace with the flow of nature rather than leading a hectic life consuming energy and sacrificing the environment. These people are working to incorporate this more comfortable lifestyle into their daily lives.

Shiomi's book in Chinese
Copyright Half-Farmer and Half-X Institute

Many people in Ayabe are now exploring their own "X," irrespective of their age and gender, and whether they grew up there or moved from outside. In fact, a number of people have become successful while exploring their "X," and have helped in activating their communities at the same time. For example, one woman aged over 70 started to offer accommodations at her spacious farmhouse as a green tourism business. And one former teacher began growing roses in memory of Anne Frank to donate as symbols of peace. There's also a married couple focusing on their painting works of art, while also cultivating their sensitivity to nature and engaging in farming. Once hearing stories like these, more and more people have come to visit Ayabe to see how people there live, from as far away as Taiwan, where one of Shiomi's books has been translated into Chinese.

It is not only in Ayabe that this is happening but also other regions throughout Japan, where an increasing number of people are following the Half-Farmer/Half-X concept and leading more enriched, happy lives. Shiomi believes a new fulfilled and happy life model can be followed in a society consisting of people who have found their own "X." He believes that creation of such a society is his own "X" quest.

Living in the countryside is not necessarily a prerequisite to living the Half-Farmer/Half-X lifestyle. There are many ways to grow things--on balconies, rooftops, weekend farm plots, community gardens, and so on. A flexible type of thinking is necessary to live the Half-Farmer/Half-X lifestyle, regardless of whether a person lives in the city or the country, and nothing can be perfect from the start. Accomplishing just one percent of a person's ideal way of farming and exploring their personal "X" is progress in itself; there is no formula that must be followed. People should start with what is possible right now. Sowing at least one seed is the quickest way to start growing things and finding one's own "X" factor.

The Half-Farmer/Half-X concept is spreading, and is seen as a ray of light showing the way to a better lifestyle in this modern society, which is facing various problems regarding self-sufficiency, food supply, employment, mental issues, environmental issues, aging, energy, education, money-centrism, and so on. Hopefully, more remedies to the problems of our age will be revealed in the next 10 years or less and will include new lifestyles like the one Shiomi lives.

Copyright Half-Farmer and Half-X Institute

Written by Hiroyo Hasegawa

TAG New Ideas for the Earth , Newsletter

RELATED NEWS

[Newsletter] A Philosophical Approach to Addressing Global Environmental Issues
[Newsletter] Towards Biodiversity Conservation in Japan
[Newsletter] 2008 Summer Solstice Marks Candle Night's Fifth Anniversary of Sending a Message to the World
[Newsletter] Japan's Trend for Local and SME Versions of Environmental Management Systems
[Newsletter] GPI, GNH, GCH: True Indicators of Progress

notes on Church Farm Ardeley & Agrarian Renaissance

Open publication - Free publishing - More church farm

Taleb - a man who knows mans limits

A Republican's Applause of Prince Charles

Ref Inspiration & Prince Charles

There are number of people who have inspired me to re-start Church Farm and try and create ecologically and socially sound enterprises. Many writers from Rachel Carson, Graham Harvey, Marion Shoard, Sir Richard Body and Colin Tudge to deceased writers such as AG Street, ED Hall, Hugh Massingbird and many unknown authors whose books I have found on ebay… and Professors like Martin Wolfe and Colin Spedding, as well as organisations, campaigners and people i.e FOE / CIWF / RSPB… hundreds and thousands….

But until recently, the past year, when I have found and met 100's of brilliant entrepreneurial farmers... there was just one active farmer. A man whose food and farming enterprises have been real life examples and whose practical leadership, consistency, patience, humility and determination I have long admired from afar.

The farmer is Prince Charles, and not because of his position… I’m a republican… but because he is a man whose actions go hand in hand with his words … and he has “done it”.

Charles converted Highgrove to an organic farm in 1986 whilst I was studying Agriculture at Reading, it made total sense to me then and ever since I have followed and read extensively about Charles’ food and farming initiatives, businesses and actions hoping one day to do similar myself.

He has been slated in the media, been misrepresented and daily had his words twisted, misquoted and worse, false attributions are put into his mouth, his ecological understanding ridiculed… what inspires me about Charles is despite this he persists in the face of adversity, for decades, carrying on, speaking the truth, doing things because they are the right things to do.

This quote from him strikes me as relevant for every man – we are all born into some circumstances….

“I find myself born into this particular position. I'm determined to make the most of it. And to do whatever I can to help. And I hope I leave things behind a little bit better than I found them.”

Awesome article - to download

http://digitalutility.co.uk/cfrf/No_New_Thing_Under_the_Sun.pdf


The article by Colin Tudge, A Tour de force uniting literary and literal history to today..


~ the past is not a great guide for our future...

A blogger sense

13. At 5:17pm on 17 Jul 2009, leanomist wrote:

IMHO Traditional 'economics' is dead - because it's both out of date and too narrow in scope. Dr W. Edwards Deming, a renowned 'creative outsider', wrote two landmark books nearly 20 years ago (and please note the titles - 'Out of the Crisis' and a 'New Economics')*. Deming was 20 years before his time, but his books still tell us far more about the future than a book like 'Nudge' (which is interesting, but certainly not profound).

Economics does need to include more about behaviour (pyschology), but it needs to consider much more besides (e.g. power, values, leadership/management styles, communities, democracy ... ). For example the following simple definitions are built on Deming's work and quickly bring in the concept of values/styles too ...


Poweromics = People using position and power for their own personal gain, based on poor moral values, self interest and greed.

Ignoromics = People are either effectively ignorant of the situation (e.g. the overall environment) or not prepared to take responsibility to make sure it changes for the better.

Leanomics = People taking responsibility for adding value and continuously improving the situation for others (e.g. customers, communities, overall environment), based upon fundamental values such as trust, honor, responsibility and respect.


By these definitions it's very quick to see why we have a crisis (e.g. in economies, banks, enterprises, governments ...etc) .. as (in the UK/US particularly) a toxic mix of Poweromics and Ignoromics prevail (nb they are partners in crime) ... and Leanomics is also starting to point to the 'enterprises, 'nations' and 'economies' that will succeed in the long run (which Deming also indeed predicted, and which is now starting to become reality ) ...

Interesting times ahead - and ones 180 degrees different to what most people in the US/UK have become accustomed too ...



David Clift, A Future 500 Leader


* "LEAN WORLD: The DNA of Success and the Path to Prosperity" builds on Deming's work too. You can also find out more about Poweromics by taking a look at http://poweromics.blogspot.com/2009/07/economic-fools.html as well as the other posts there too.

The Good Energy Shop: Good Architecture

The Good Energy Shop: Good Architecture

Shared via AddThis

Article for Future Countryside

A few other points on the state of UK Food & Farming....

In 1973 Agricultural income was £8 Billion, in 2007 it was £2.5 Billion. This year TESCO plc made £2 Billion in UK Profits.....

There has been a huge transfer of wealth through monopoly buying from farmers to supermarket and intermediary shareholders. (only offset by the other huge transfers through the CAP from taxpayers to landowners in proportion to acres owned - currently £100ish per acre - meaning the poorest pay a 1000 acre farmer a 6 figure cheque. EVERY YEAR!!)

While some farmers buy Ferrari's with their subsidies many go out of business and are forced off the land.

The big are kept drunk on subsidies whilst the small, medium and family farms have been driven out of business. But now event the big are tumbling.....0nce you were a big farmer with 200 acres - now 2000 are not enough in the commodity trap....

Meanwhile supermarkets argue they should be able to retrospectively change contracts in order to "keep food cheap" they routinely ride roughshod over contract law and fighting even a "voluntary ombudsman" of some sort. These organisations are only acting according to law - the maximisation of shareholder wealth. This has NOTHING to do with the public interest.

Over half of farmers have been squeezed out of farm, house and land by monopoly buying and the structure of the industry over the past 30 years.

Our agriculture is now completely reliant on oil and gas to make nitrates and pesticides. We are literally eating fossil fuels . We have destroyed great swathes of the countryside, impoverished the soil, and destroyed much of what was England's Green and PLEASANT land.... through SUBSIDY AND DELIBERATE POLICY.

We have now have a population suffering from obesity, people totally disconnected from land and food with even people in the countryside are generally totally divorced from food and farming, let alone in the towns... and only 10% of London children even visiting the countryside last year.....

But it can change.

The average age of British farmers is 60 now, those that are left are getting old ...... many are sick from chemicals they have handled..... most are sick of the marketing lies, half truths and perverted science SOLD to them by companies, politicians, and so called experts.

But there is still time to rebuild and regain our culture, our agri-culture, there is a groundswell of people who realise this, now estimated as 8-10% of the population who are actively seeking our sustainable and fair trade produce.

The country needs great farmers to face the twin challenges of Climate Change and Peak Oil.

People on the ground, policy makers and independent scientists have answers and solutions but all depend on farmers to do it. Currently there are 10 people talking for everyone doing. Soon there will be 1000 doing.....

We need to transition to sustainable, ecological and complex food systems, relocalised and this means disintermediarating the current food chain.

We can do this ..... it means moving to free and fair trade with negative externalities properly costed into the system as well as public goods that farmers produce (from biodiversity to beautiful countryside).

It means moving from the mono-culture and chemical paradigm to complex systems harnessing nature not fighting it, it means moving to biological and ecological farming... from

This is resisted at every turn by the most powerful entrenched interests, including successful companies and individuals that profit from the existing situation.
There are customers by the million that want local food of great provenance. Lets connect these people with farmers and growers, re-invigorate existing farms and develop new enterprises.

This has to be done by ourselves, farmers and people.

"The Campaign for Real Farming" written by Colin Tudge describes how to proceed.....

"...... the way to go about this is neither to have a fight -- which is
revolution -- nor to persuade the powers-that-be to change their ways step by step -- which is reform. Revolutions are too messy and dangerous.

Reform cannot succeed because it is too slow ..... Besides, the powers-that-be are not listening. .........

....Instead we need Renaissance – the principle of which was beautifully
encapsulated by the American architect and visionary polymath
Buckminster Fuller:

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To
change something, build a new model that makes the existing
model obsolete."

SEE http://campaignforrealfarming.blogspot.com/

War - Wht is it Good For - Lindsay Germain

More Subsidies for Rich Corporates - From the Guardian

UK to spend £100m on supporting GM crops for world's poor

White paper shows government plans major rise in investment in research, as report calls for moratorium and questions approach

• Comments (17)
• Buzz up!
• Digg it

• John Vidal, environment editor
• guardian.co.uk, Sunday 19 July 2009 19.51 BST
• Article history

Britain is planning to quietly spend up to £100m on support for genetically modified crops for the world's poor despite not having allowed any of the controversial foods to be grown commercially at home.

A new white paper shows the government is committed to dramatically increasing spending on high-tech agriculture in the next five years, much of which will be on GM crop research. Biofortified crops, containing added vitamins, will receive £80m of development money, £60m will go on researching drought-resistant maize for Africa and a further £24m will be spent on pest resistance. In addition, support for an international network of GM crop research stations, in collaboration with GM companies, will be doubled. A further tranche of UK aid will go to a research initiative backed by the GM crop firm Syngenta, which is developing a strain of rice modified to increase vitamin A.

The white paper avoids the terms "genetically modified". But scientists and development experts are clear that much of the money will be spent on GM. The government has in the past revealed its strong support of high-tech food for Africa as a way to reduce poverty and also gain acceptance for GM foods in Britain.

Last year the then science minister, Ian Pearson, said: "If GM can demonstrably provide benefits for sub-Saharan Africa … the public will want to support [it]."

However, the decision to increase aid spending on GM food for developing countries rather than to direct money to help farmers increase yields by conventional methods has dismayed environmentalists. In a paper to be published tomorrow, GM Freeze, set up by Friends of the Earth and others, calls for a moratorium on GM, arguing that Britain's investment is sending African farming "down a blind alley".

Milk Prices From the Farmers Guardian

Agriculture in the national news

News | 23 July, 2009

A DAILY look at how agriculture has caught the headlines across the country (Thursday, July 23).

Credit: © FARMERS GUARDIAN please contact 01772 799445.

EU to probe retail milk prices
The European Commission is investigating retail milk prices in the midst of a dairy sector crisis which has triggered a farmers' revolt.

Prices to milk producers have halved since 2007 and are at an all-time low.

But a new Commission report has rejected farmers' demands to impose tougher production quotas.

Press Association
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iw4cZd_9_2zgL7OB_JA-vn13qMaw

Report reveals dairy sector chaos across Europe as prices fall
SELDOM in the past 30 years has there been such discontent among Europe's dairy farmers. Demonstrations are being staged almost weekly in Brussels and Strasbourg.

The European Milk Board (EMB), a producer organisation with an EU-wide membership reckons that the cost of production is in the region of 32p per litre, but claims that dairy farmers in most member states are paid little more than 17.6p.

From John

All,

You may be interested to read the report published by the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs Committee "Securing Food Supplies to 2050".
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmenvfru/213/213i.pdf

Local food gets a mention:
"We welcome the increasing enthusiasm among consumers for buying food that is
local to a particular area of the UK, and also for growing their own food. In terms of
overall production, these trends are a small contribution to a huge challenge, but they
are a way of reconnecting people with food production and have an important part to
play in encouraging the sort of changes in consumer behaviour that will be necessary
for a sustainable system of food production. The role of local and home production,
and of educating children about food, should be incorporated in Defra's vision and
strategy for food. When it has been established that there is an unmet demand for
allotments in a local authority area, the Government should require the local authority
to publish, within three years, a plan setting out how it proposes to meet the demand."

Despite the slightly patronising tone, it is a start & emphasises the importance of re-connection . The rest of the report is peppered with contradictions - it looks at food self-sufficiency yet the whole tone is still one dominated by global commodity trading. The recommendations are focussed on DEFRA & the Government will have to respond, indicating whether they accept or reject the findings of the Committee...even then it is questionable whether DEFRA are really in a position to bring about much of a change, but they may have a role to play in deciding where money is channelled?

In conclusion, it only serves to reinforce the view that change must come from the bottom up - it certainly won't come from the top down.