Saturday, 29 August 2009

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho is a world renowned geneticist & biophysicist. She is Director of the Institute of Science in Society

From I-SIS - Opposition to GMO in USA

US Opposition to GMOs Gathers Momentum

Scientists and physicians in the heartland of genetic modification are alerting policy-makers and the public to the dangers of GM crops. Prof. Peter Saunders

MATERIAL ON THIS SITE MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT EXPLICIT PERMISSION. FOR PERMISSION, AND REPRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS, PLEASE CONTACT ISIS. WHERE PERMISSION IS GRANTED ALL LINKS MUST REMAIN UNCHANGED

Safety and agronomic performance under fire

Great upheavals may be afoot in the United States, the world’s leader in genetic modification (GM), and biggest producer of GM crops. Within the past several months, doctors have issued a strong statement calling for a moratorium on GM foods on grounds of safety, and scientists have declared GM crops an agronomic failure. The evidence they presented is familiar to readers of SiS.

ISIS has submitted close to 60 reports on GMOs (genetically modified organisms, including those used for drugs) to the US’ Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drugs administration over the past ten years. But this may be the turning point, now that the Obama administration, unlike its predecessor, clearly intends to look at the evidence when taking a decision.

Two key documents issued by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AEEM) in May [1] and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) in April [2] capture the rising opposition to GMOs from doctors and scientists, who are actively alerting the public.

Traditional breeding outperforms GM

The UCS report, Failure to Yield [2] confirms that after 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, GM crops have failed to increase yields. And “traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down.” It also makes three recommendations

The US Department of Agriculture, local agricultural agencies and universities should redirect substantial funding, research and incentives towards approaches that are proven and show more promise than genetic engineering for improving crop yields. These approaches include modern methods of conventional plant breeding as well as organic and other sophisticated low-input farming practices. (see ISIS report [3] Food Futures Now: *Organic *Sustainable *Fossil Fuel Free )
Food aid organisations should work with farmers in developing countries to make these more promising and affordable methods available
Regulatory agencies should develop and implement techniques to better identify and evaluate potentially harmful side effects of the newer and more complex genetically engineered crops. Current regulations are too weak to detect them reliably

Oxfam America, which explicitly has no position on GM crops as such, issued a statement broadly supporting the UCS report. They also reiterated their view that governments and citizens receiving food aid should not be forced to accept GM food. [4]

In a separate development, 26 scientists responded to a call for public comment from the Environmental Protection Agency by protesting the “technology/stewardship agreements” they have to sign, which inhibit them from doing research for the public good. And as a result, “no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology” (see [5] (Corporate Monopoly of Science, SiS 42)

“Ample evidence of probable harm” from GM food

The AAEM position paper [1] concludes as follows

“With the precautionary principle in mind, because GM foods have not been properly tested for human consumption, and because there is ample evidence of probable harm, the AAEM asks:

Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.
Physicians to consider the possible role of GM foods in the disease processes of the patients they treat and to document any changes in patient health when changing from GM food to non-GM food.
Our members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.
For a moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term independent safety testing, and labeling of GM foods, which is necessary for the health and safety of consumers.”

The AAEM is affiliated to Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), a group that has 35 000 members and shared the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. PSR itself has come out against the use of the genetically engineered recombinant bovine somatotrophin (rBST) [6].

Alerted consumers demand labelling

According to the polls, American consumers now want GM foods to be labelled; the US is one of the few developed countries where this is not required. And there is a movement, especially in the dairy industry, to drop GM products owing to customer demand [6].

While there is a great deal to be done before many governments, including the UK, are convinced that GMOs are not the way to feed the world, this will be a lot easier with a US administration that is willing to look at the evidence rather than blindly supporting the big corporations.

References

1. American Academy of Environmental Medicine. (2009) Genetically Modified Foods. http:aaemonline.org/gmopost.html.

2. Gurian-Sherman, D. Failure to Yield. Union of Concerned Scientists, April 2009. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/failure-to-yield.pdf

3. Ho MW, Burcher S, Lim LC, et al. Food Futures Now, Organic, Sustainable, Fossil Fuel Free, ISIS TWN, London, 2008. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/foodFutures.php

4. Pfeifer, K. (2009) Comments on UCS Report “Failure to Yield”, American Oxfam, 14 April. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/Oxfam-statement-on-FTY.pdf

5. Pollock, A. Crop scientists say biotechnology seed companies are thwarting research. New York Times, 20 February 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html?_r=1
The original (anonymous) statement is Docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0836. http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=090000648084de39

6. Health Care Reform: Scrap GMOs. Now Public, 6 June, 2009 http://www.nowpublic.com/world/health-care-reform-scrap-gmos

Comment on this article

quote of the day

everyman feels his burden is the heaviest..........

Running Away

"You running and you running and you running away...but you can't run away from yourself"

"Every man thinkest his burden is the heaviest.."

Survival

"Na,na,na,na,na, we're the survivors, yes, the black survivors...Some people got everything;some people got nothing, some people got hopes and dreams, some people got ways and means..."

"...Black survivors. Together now..."

Could You Be Loved

"...Don't let them change you, or even re-arrange you..."

"We've got a mind of our own....so go to hell if what your thinking is not right..."

"The road of life is rocky, and you may suffer too, so while you point your fingers, someone else is judging you.."

"Could you be, could you be,could you be loved"

"..no matter how you treat him, the man will never be satisfied.."

Exodus

"Through the roads of creation, we're the generation who trod through great tribulation..."

"Jah come to break down 'pression, rule equality, wipe away transgression, set the captives free.."

War

"Until the philosophy which holds one race superiour and another inferior is finally and permanently discreditd and abandoned every where is war is a war..."

So Much Trouble

"The way earthly things are going anything can happen You see men sailing on their ego trips, blast off on their spaceship million miles from reality no care for you , no care for me..."

"So you think you've found a solution but it's just another illusion.."

Africa Unite

"cause we're moving right out of Babylon..."

Waiting in Vain

"From the very first time I placed my eyes on you, girl, my heart says "Follow through. But I know now I'm way down on your line, but the waiting deal is fine..."

"...So don't treat my like a puppet on a string,'cause I know how to do my thing.Don't talk to me as if you think I'm dumb...I don't wanna wait in vain..."

No Woman,No Cry

"..Good friends we have oh good friends we've lost along the way..."

"...In this bright future, you can't forget your past so dry your tears I say..."

"Everything's gonna be alright. Ev'ry thing's gonna be alright..."

Wake Up and Live

Wake up and Live Now...Life is one big road with lots of signs, so whenyou're riding throught the ruts, don't you complicate your mind.Flee from hate, mischief and jealousy. Don't bury your thought, put your vision to reality.."

Forever Loving Jah

"We found a way to castaway the fears forever, yeah..."

Is this Love

"I want to love you and treat you right ...So, I throw my cards on your table..."

Do yourself a favor if you don't own a Bob Marley Album. The reggae beat is one of the most easy to listen to and the emphatic bass lines are very relaxing. Your speakers need to be able to handle bass really well for you to feel the full effect though without distortion.

Friday, 28 August 2009

Festival at the Farm

This weekend so off to camp.

Tuesday, 25 August 2009

Climate Camp - Letter To Police

Che on Monoculture - thanks Sam

"We, the “underdeveloped,” are also those with the single crop, the single product, the single market. A single product whose uncertain sale depends on a single market imposing and fixing conditions. That is the great formula for imperialist economic domination."

- Che Guevara (1961)

JFK on Farming

"The farmer is the only man in our economy who buys everything at retail, sells everything at wholesale, and pays the freight both ways. "

- JFK

Sunday, 23 August 2009

Saturday, 22 August 2009

From Global Research - Swine Flu Pandemic or Panic?swine

Fear, Intimidation & Media Disinformation: U.K Government is Planning Mass Graves in Case of H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic By Michel Chossudovsky
URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14845
Global Research, August 19, 2009
An official UK government report --quoted extensively in Britain's tabloid media-- is warning the British public that there will be countless deaths in the case of a swine flu pandemic. According to the WHO, a Worlwide public health emergency situation will take place in the Fall. A high death toll is predicted without corroborating evidence. The official report confirms government plans to set up mass graves for the victims of the swine flu pandemic: "Plans for mass graves have been drawn up to cope with a second wave of swine flu this Autumn. The chilling proposals are spelled out in a Home Office document discussed at a meeting of Whitehall officials and council leaders last month. It warns emergency plans may be needed in areas where there are not enough graves to cope. The 59-page document talks about using "a grave that is for a number of unrelated persons, excavated mechanically in advance and designed for efficient preparation and use". (The Sun, Augsut 19, 2009) The mass graves, according to the report, "are being planned to deal with the rising death toll from swine flu if the pandemic escalates": "The grim revelation will see the mass burial sites dug in advance to cope with any potential crisis. The Government is planning to create a series of communal graves to cope with the second outbreak expected in the autumn and through the winter. A Home Office document published earlier this year sets out plans for how local councils should deal with a high death toll – estimates of the number of deaths range from 55,000 to as high as 750,000 from the H1N1 killer virus – including setting up temporary mortuaries. So far, 44 people in England have been confirmed as dying after contracting swine flu and another five have died in Scotland. The document says that while most cemeteries have sufficient burial capacity for a number of years, this could be put to the test at the peak of a pandemic. (Daily Express, August 19, 2009) The chilling proposals contained in the government report serve to intimidate the British public and create an atmosphere of panic. A public health crisis is being planned in a diabolical fashion. . The report suggests unequivocally that there will be countless deaths resulting from the level 6 WHO pandemic, which require the development of mass graves: Within weeks of a full-blown pandemic emerging, the number of burials could more than double. Inner city areas “may experience a shortage of grave space”, the report stated. Freight containers and “inflatable” storage units may be needed to provide extra mortuary space. But it stated that “refrigerated vehicles and trailers should not be used”. Other contingency plans being suggested were the need for cemeteries and crematoriums to work seven days a week and to hire extra staff to cope with demand. There may also be a need for more “basic and shorter services at the chapel” or for “memorial services” to be held at a person’s home instead. Retired doctors could be called back to work to issue death certificates so GPs can focus on patients, while NHS Blood and Transplant has appealed to the public to give blood to ensure banks were well stocked. A Home Office spokeswoman said: “This is prudent, precautionary planning that has been taking place over a number of years, with the health service, other essential services and local authorities. It is important to stress that these are possible scenarios, not certainties, so that our stakeholders can plan for the worst and be prepared to deal with the outbreak effectively.” (Ibid) These assertions are totally fabricated. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support these claims. Realities are turned upside down. The British government is deliberately misleading the British public. With some exceptions, the British media bears a heavy burden of responsibility in failing to analyse these "authoritative" statements emanating from Her Majesty's Government. The WHO has not provided the evidence, nor has the British government. There is ample evidence, documented in numerous reports, that the WHO's level 6 pandemic alert is based on fabricated evidence and a manipulation of the figures on mortality and morbidity resulting from the N1H1 swine flu. The data initially used to justify the WHO's Worldwide level 5 alert in April 2009 was extremely scanty. The WHO asserted without evidence that a "global outbreak of the disease is imminent". It distorted Mexico's mortality data pertaining to the swine flu pandemic. According to the WHO Director General Dr. Margaret Chan in her official April 29 statement: "So far, 176 people have been killed in Mexico". From what? Where does she get these numbers? 159 died from influenza out of which only seven deaths, corroborated by lab analysis, resulted from the H1N1 swine flu strain, according to the Mexican Ministry of Health. The swine flu has the same symptoms as seasonal influenza: fever, cough and sore throat. What is happening is that the widespread incidence of the common flu is being used to generate the data pertaining to the H1N1 swine flu. And all of sudden, the British authorities are predicting widespread mortality resulting from an influenza related ailment. What is the evidence. Big Pharma is behind the official reports and the media disinformation campaign. Similarly, in the US the intervention of the military (as well as martial law provisions) are being envisaged in the case of a public health emergency. Is this emergency being planned ahead of time. Are these various national emergencies (Britain, France UK) being coordinated through inter-governmental consultations, which serves to trigger a Worldwide public health emergency, based on fabricated evidence? Deadly Vaccines On the other hand, amply documented and denied by Western governments, the proposed vaccines could result in more deaths than those caused by the H1N1 influenza, as confirmed by Britain's Health Protection Agency: A warning that the new swine flu jab is linked to a deadly nerve disease has been sent by the Government to senior neurologists in a confidential letter. The letter from the Health Protection Agency, the official body that oversees public health, has been leaked to The Mail on Sunday, leading to demands to know why the information has not been given to the public before the vaccination of millions of people, including children, begins. It tells the neurologists that they must be alert for an increase in a brain disorder called Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), which could be triggered by the vaccine. GBS attacks the lining of the nerves, causing paralysis and inability to breathe, and can be fatal. The letter, sent to about 600 neurologists on July 29, is the first sign that there is concern at the highest levels that the vaccine itself could cause serious complications. It refers to the use of a similar swine flu vaccine in the United States in 1976 when: * More people died from the vaccination than from swine flu. * 500 cases of GBS were detected. * The vaccine may have increased the risk of contracting GBS by eight times. * The vaccine was withdrawn after just ten weeks when the link with GBS became clear. * The US Government was forced to pay out millions of dollars to those affected. (Mail on Sunday, August 16, 2009) The British government has announced that more than 13 million people will be innoculated. The proposed vaccines for the H1N1 swine flu have not, as yet, been tested.

From Ruth and the Ecologist

Forget Westminster: real green change is local

Mark Anslow

19th August, 2009

It's one of the most encouraging reports of the year, and the mainstream media totally ignored it. Think what you like about town hall politics: there's power in them there councils

Here’s some figures for you: 80 per cent; 46 per cent; 40 per cent.

The first is the number of people who, in a study released yesterday, said that they travel outside their local area to meet their basic everyday (shopping) needs.

The second is the number of people in the same study who rated the provision of children’s play facilities in their community as ‘poor’ or ‘bad’.

And the third is the number whose local post office has either closed or is threatened with closure.

Add to this the 73 per cent who thought the provision of fishmongers in their local area was ‘poor’ or ‘bad’, and the 45 per cent who thought the same about greengrocers.

The study – Places, Bases, Spaces – was produced by Urban Forum, a national charity that helps ordinary people get involved with the policy decisions that affect them. Despite its shocking headline statistics – is there really only one fifth of the population who can meet their basic needs from their local facilities? – the report seemed to die a death on the national media’s news desks. It scraped into a few trade publications, but that was it. Local democracy, it seems, is still pretty lowbrow stuff.

It’s this sort of tacit contempt for town hall politics that leaves us forever whining at Westminster. Take a look at Urban Forum’s report and you’ll discover a whole raft of progressive, recession-‘chic’, proposals that most engaged citizens I know would be very interested to hear.

For starters, the report proposes that councils should use their development plans to ensure there are enough shops and facilities (including independent shops) to meet local needs. How do you stop supermarkets and chain stores capitalising on this and killing off the high street? Simple, say the report’s authors: adjust business rates so that they favour independent shops, rather than chains. In addition, you can make sure that high-street competition issues don’t become just a boys’ club for the Big Four supermarkets – every local retailer should have a say.

The report goes on:
‘* Communities should be able to buy or rent local shops at low rates. This should be part of the community asset transfer programme.
* Local authorities should do more to bring derelict property back into use, making better use of available powers including a Public Request to Order Disposal.
* Public spaces need to accommodate the needs of different social groups, particularly young people.
* Children should be taught about urban design, architecture and planning in schools.’

All critical stuff when trying to create sustainable communities. And what’s even more encouraging – and even less widely reported – is that things are actually starting to move in the right direction.

At the end of July, the first round of proposals for reform from local people submitted via the Sustainable Communities Act was made public. If you don’t know what the Sustainable Communities Act is, read this article here.

The list (available here), is enough to make the pulse of environmental and local democracy campaigners race. Residents under Birmingham City Council, for example, want to introduce rules to improve access for home energy generators to the national grid, as well as introducing business rate relief for small businesses. They also suggest introducing Statutory Allotment Status on suitable land to turn it into allotments after a certain period of time.

Brighton and Hove residents want allotment holders to be allowed to sell their surplus produce to local shops (currently illegal), and to put a legal responsibility on supermarkets in the area to reduce the amount of non-recyclable materials they use in their packaging.

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough wants to see a country-wide concession pass made available for young people on public transport, and Lewes District Council is calling for legislation that would force the Highways Agency to ensure that footpaths and cycle paths are properly linked up.

To be sure, there are some pretty questionable proposals in there too. Quite why Ryedale District Council residents think that subsidies on the price of bottled gas is a good idea for a sustainable community is best left to them to explain. But by and large, I have to say this is one of the most exciting spreadsheets I have ever read.

Are some of the proposals hopelessly idealistic? Certainly. Will a good number of them never see the light of day? Quite possibly. Should this stop us from trying? Absolutely not.

For more information on the Sustainable Communities Act, click here.

Friday, 21 August 2009

John Pilger - The Invisible Government

Wednesday, 19 August 2009

Worth Reading Seeking Alpha -

Excerpt from hit counter script

http://seekingalpha.com/article/154901-peak-oil-for-dummies

The Imminent Decline of Global Oil Production

In 2008 the International Energy Agency (IEA) conducted for the first time [11] a detailed field-by-field analysis of global oil production and its findings are bleak. Asked by a journalist on what the previous analysis relied on, the Chief-Economist of the IEA admitted, “it was mainly an assumption” [12].

In the 2008 World Energy Outlook (WEO), they have analysed about 800 fields, which account for ¾ of global reserves and more than 2/3 of global oil production [13].

They come to the conclusion that decline rates are far higher than previously thought, between 6.7 and 8.6% a year [14].

As result, they now estimate that to maintain the current levels of oil production by 2030 the world would need to develop and produce 45 MBD; as said by Dr. Birol, approximately four new Saudi-Arabias [15].

Simultaneously, they have analysed all the projects that are financially sanctioned in all the countries in the world (about 230) up to 2015. As it takes five to ten years to produce oil from a new field, they have a clear image of the coming situation.

When they add all the projects together (if all of them see the light of the day – unlikely with the current credit crunch [16]) they will bring about 25 millions barrels per day [17]. However, because of the important decline rates, the world will still be short of “at least” 12.5 MBD before 2015 [18].

Asked by a journalist if this means Peak Oil, Dr. Birol answered, “We are facing a serious threat” [19].

In 2009, Merrill Lynch conducted a similar analysis and concluded that, “the world now needed to replace an amount of oil output equivalent to Saudi Arabia’s production every two years” [20].

Yet, oil production is already in an irreversible decline in at least 54 of the 65 most important producing countries and we nowadays consume three barrels of oil for a single one discovered [21]; an unsustainable situation.

The latest annual report on geopolitical prospective from the US Joint Forces Command reached the stunning conclusion that:

By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 MBD… The implications for future conflict are ominous...[22]

At this pace, global oil production could decline by 50% from its current level, as soon as 2030 [23].

John Cornford - Great Lives

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00m17y6/Great_Lives_Series_19_John_Cornford

Matthew Parris presents the biographical series in which his guests choose someone who has inspired their lives.

George Galloway chooses British poet and political activist John Cornford, who died at the age of 21 fighting fascism in the Spanish Civil War. Professor Stan Smith joins in the discussion.

Broadcast on:

BBC Radio 4, 4:30pm Tuesday 18th August 2009

Duration:

30 minutes

Available until:

12:00am Thursday 1st January 2099

Categories:

THE HAU DE NO SAU NEE MESSAGE TO THE WESTERN WORLD = Spirituality 1977 address to the Geneva Convention

“The Hau de no sau nee, or the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy, has existed on this land since the beginning of human memory. Our culture is among the most ancient continuously existing cultures in the world. We still remember the earliest doings of human beings. We remember the original instructions of the Creators of Life on this place we call Etenoha -- Mother Earth. We are the spiritual guardians of this place. We are the Ongwhehonwhe -- the Real People.

In the beginning, we were told that the human beings who walk about the Earth have been provided with all the things necessary for life. We were instructed to carry a love for one another, and to show a great respect for all the beings of this Earth. We are shown that our life exists with the tree life, that our well-being depends on the well-being of the Vegetable Life, that we are close relatives of the four-legged beings. In our ways, spiritual consciousness is the highest form of politics.

Ours is a Way of Life. We believe that all living things are spiritual beings. Spirits can be expressed as energy forms manifested in matter. A blade of grass is an energy form manifested in matter -- grass matter. The spirit of the grass is that unseen force which produces the species of grass, and it is manifest to us in the form of real grass.

All things of the world are real, material things. The Creation is a true, material phenomenon, and the Creation manifests itself to us through reality. The spiritual universe, then, is manifest to Man as the Creation, the Creation which supports life. We believe that man is real, a part of the Creation, and that his duty is to support Life in conjunction with the other beings. That is why we call ourselves Ongwhehonwhe -- Real People.

The original instructions direct that we who walk about on the Earth are to express a great respect, an affection, and a gratitude toward all the spirits which create and support Life. We give a greeting and thanksgiving to the many supporters of our own lives -- the corn, beans, squash, the winds, the sun. When people cease to respect and express gratitude for these many things, then all life will be destroyed, and human life on this planet will come to an end.”

- THE HAU DE NO SAU NEE MESSAGE TO THE WESTERN WORLD,

Spritualism: the highest form of political consciousness

1977 address to the Geneva Convention

(many links, eg: http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/6nations1.html

Tuesday, 18 August 2009

From Scitizen - From Scitizen

The peak in conventional oil and gas production is not the only peak in the supply of natural resources to be confronted in the near future. It seems likely that the peak in conventional phosphate production from phosphate rock may also be near. A recent study of Cordell and coworkers, which is in press (1), suggests that ‘peak phosphate’ may occur between 2030 and 2040. ‘Peak phosphate’ may cause a shock. This is all the more so because oil and gas can be replaced by other means of energy supply, but phosphate is without a substitute.

Limiting rock phosphate supply will alter the cost structure of agriculture. Some early signs of what this may mean, can already be noted. As Cordell and coworkers point out, over a 14 month period in 2007/2008 the price of phosphate rock increased by 700%. This has had an upward effect on the prices of food, feed and biofuels.

A reduction in phosphate rock supply may also limit agricultural productivity. Whether it will do so, is dependent on our efforts to improve phosphate recycling (especially to keep added phosphate in economic circulation) and to exploit unconventional external sources of phosphate. The development of much improved recycling and new external sources of phosphate is an important matter, because in the absence thereof agricultural yields will plummet, as pointed out by Newman (2). Current yearly grain yields in industrialized countries are well over 5 tons per hectare. But in the absence of an external phosphate supply, yearly yields in de order of 1 ton of grain per hectare were common in advanced agriculture on good soils (2). So, it is likely that without compensating the decreasing input of phosphate from phosphate rock with alternative sources of phosphate, agricultural productivity would be reduced to below a level that will allow for adequately feeding the nine billion people which are expected around 2050.

The problems associated with ‘peak phosphate’ add to the emerging problems of climate change and constraints on water and land supply which threaten to substantially limit future agricultural production. For starters, it would seem urgent to transform current practices causing large phosphate losses to the environment into highly efficient phosphate recycling.

(1) D. Cordell, J. Drangert, S. White. The story of phosphorus: global food security and food for thought. Global Environmental Change (in press)

(2) E.I. Newman. Phosphorus balance of contrasting farming systems, past and present. Can food production be sustainable? Journal of Applied Ecology 1997; 34: 1334-1347.

Cancer and Cannabis - From the Huffington Post

Paul Armentano

Posted: August 17, 2009 06:31 PM

If Pot Prevented Cancer You Would Have Read About

Two just-published studies assessing adults' risk of cancer have reported wildly divergent, and fairly extraordinary, outcomes. One study you may have read about. The other has been ignored entirely by the mainstream media. But no doubt the results of both will surprise you.

First, the study you may have heard of. Writing August 3 in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, investigators at McGill University in Montreal reported that moderate alcohol consumption -- defined as six drinks or fewer per week -- by adults is positively associated with an elevated risk of various cancers, including stomach cancer, rectal cancer, and bladder cancer.

And now for the study you haven't heard of. Writing in the August issue of the journal Cancer Prevention Research, investigators from Rhode Island's Brown University, along with researchers at Boston University, Louisiana State University, and the University of Minnesota reported that lifetime marijuana use is associated with a "significantly reduced risk" of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors reported, "after adjusting for potential confounders (including smoking and alcohol drinking), 10 to 20 years of marijuana use was associated with a significantly reduced risk of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNDCC)."

Perhaps even more notably, subjects who smoked marijuana and consumed alcohol and tobacco (two known high risk factors for head and neck cancers) also experienced a reduced risk of cancer, the study found.

"Our study suggests that moderate marijuana use is associated with reduced risk of HNSCC," investigators concluded. "This association was consistent across different measures of marijuana use (marijuana use status, duration, and frequency of use)....Further, we observed that marijuana use modified the interaction between alcohol and cigarette smoking, resulting in a decreased HNSCC risk among moderate smokers and light drinkers, and attenuated risk among the heaviest smokers and drinkers."

This isn't the first time that U.S. investigators have documented an inverse association between pot use and cancer. A separate 2006 population case-control study, funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health and conducted by the University of California at Los Angeles, also reported that lifetime use of cannabis was not positively associated with cancers of the lung or aerodigestive tract, and further noted that certain moderate users of the drug experienced a reduced cancer risk compared to non-using controls.

Predictably, the federal government's goal when green-lighting the UCLA study was to conclusively establish just the opposite result, as explained recently by its lead researcher Dr. Donald Tashkin.

In an interview with the McClatchy newspaper chain in June, Dr. Tashkin admitted that he expected his study would find that pot was associated with "increased health effects." Instead, he summarized, "What we found instead was no association (between marijuana smoking and cancer) and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Tashkin added, "[A]t this point, I'd be in favor of (marijuana) legalization. I wouldn't encourage anybody to smoke any substances. But I don't think it should be stigmatized as an illegal substance. Tobacco smoking causes far more harm. And in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more harm (than marijuana)."

Despite these findings, which to date inexplicably remain under-reported by the mainstream press, many so-called experts persist with claims that marijuana smoking is causally linked to cancer. In fact, in June the California Environmental Protection Agency with great fanfare added marijuana smoke to its list of chemicals that possess potential carcinogenic properties and/or are associated with reproductive toxicity. You know what other commonly indulged in substance also appears on this list? That would be alcohol. Of course that conclusion, much like the reports of marijuana's anti-cancer prowess, apparently went up in smoke.

Paul Armentano is the Deputy Director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and is the co-author of the new book Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink? (Chelsea Green Publishing).

Monday, 17 August 2009

From Mike - Treehugger

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/08/joel-salatin-americas-most-influential-farmer.php/?dcitc=daily_nl

From Mike -

Saturday, 15 August 2009

Common Intention - Draft Note Agrarian Renaissance

AGRARIAN RENAISSANCE
RECONNECTING PEOPLE, LAND & FOOD
Intention

The intention behind Agrarian
Renaissance is not just to align the
pioneering actors in the science
and lore of organics, permaculture,
biodynamics, compassionate
husbandry, biological pest control,
care farming, youth socialisation, etc.
It is to combine all these into
commercially proven, replicable
models that will (like beneficial
viruses) change the genetic structure
of each farm into the site at which
the Reconnection of People, Land and
Food takes root.

That is why the farm as a centre
for therapy, enterprise, education
and leisure, the localisation and
networking of food distribution, and
the cross-marketing of all these, are
central to Agrarian Renaissance.
The Happy Coincidence

It is worthwhile, and profoundly
necessary, for every one of us to
consider and understand the full
implications and thoroughly negative
consequences of agriculture as it
is and has become. But a negative
analysis can never suffice as the basis
for positive, effective action.

Luckily, it just so happens that
agriculture which is biologically
sound (the fundamental imperative in
feeding people forever), also happens
to provide the perfect balance of
ingredients for a diet of the highest
levels of nutrition (suggesting a
solution to our endemic levels of
obesity, diabetes and heart disease)
as well as the perfect balance of
ingredients for all of the world’s
finest national cuisines - plenty of
vegetables, maximum variety and not
too much meat.

This is an agriculture which would
provide varied jobs, on the land,
interacting with colleagues, customers
and the community.

It is built around diverse, buzzing
farms, markets, veg patches, stores,
pick-up points and home deliveries,
all with their own characters and
interactions.

It demands a pattern of local
transactions where money circulates
almost endlessly, and it requires a
range of different jobs, at a range of
different levels, within a small area.

It promises to reorient culture and
daily life, so that we can remember
the importance of the land, the
relationships, and the natural systems
on which we depend.

It also happens to produce an idyllic
countryside - rows of trees and
hedgerows, people in the fields,
patchwork crops, copses, and grazing
animals.
In the end, this is as aesthetic as it is
scientific, emotive, or simply intuitive.

It’s about great food, great farming,
and a great life, for everyone and
everything, forever.

It’s just right, and we must do it.

Global Research Link

SEE http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php

About Global Research

The Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) is an independent research organization and media group of writers, scholars, journalists and activists.

The CRG is based in Montreal. It is a registered non profit organization in the province of Quebec, Canada.

In addition to the Global Research website, the Centre is involved in book publishing, support to humanitarian projects as well as educational outreach activities including the organization of public conferences and lectures. The Centre also acts as a think tank on crucial economic and geopolitical issues.

The Global Research webpage at www.globalresearch.ca publishes news articles, commentary, background research and analysis on a broad range of issues, focussing on social, economic, strategic and environmental processes.

The Global Research website was established on the 9th of September 2001, two days before the tragic events of September 11. Barely a few days later, Global Research had become a major news source on the New World Order and Washington's "war on terrorism".

Since September 2001, we have established an extensive archive of news articles, in-depth reports and analysis on issues which are barely covered by the mainstream media.

In an era of media disinformation, our focus has essentially been to center on the "unspoken truth".

During the invasion of Iraq (March-April 2003), Global Research published, on a daily basis, independent reports from the Middle East, which provided an alternative to the news emanating from the "embedded" journalists reporting from the war theater.

In early 2006, Global Research established a separate French language website, www.mondialisation.ca, which reaches Francophone readers in Western Europe, North America, sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East.

In 2007, we launched Spanish, Portuguese and German language pages, which contain translations of Global Research articles. Arabic, Italian and Serbian language pages were launched in 2008.

The articles in French are contained in a separate Mondialisation.ca archive. Those in other languages are contained in the main Globalresearch.ca archive.

In 2008, Global Research launched the Global Research News Hour radio program, in collaboration with the Republic Broadcasting Network (RBN). The GRNH, broadcast by RBN out of Houston (Mon-Fri) provides a global perspective on what is happening in America and around the World, with noted guests sharing their expertise with listeners.

Global Research articles are used as source material by college and university students. Moreover, numerous universities, libraries and research institutions have established a link to Global Research on their respective web sites.

Global Research has also become a source of specialized information and analysis for journalists.

Since 2001, Global Research has established an international network of writers and analysts. Global Research counts among its regular contributors a number of prominent writers, researchers and academics as well as several promising young authors.

The Global Research Archive includes more than 10,000 articles and news reports. Our data bank includes a classification by author, and by country. Also of interest is an archive of audio-video material.

Global Research is classified among the top 50 Alternative News Sources by www.World-Newspapers.com, Global Research is also recommended as a resource by the American Library Association (ALA).

In 2008, Global Research was awarded The First National Prize of the Mexican Press Club, for the "best Research website" at the international level.

In the course of the last few years, several Global Research authors have received awards for their writings.

How you can Help Global Research

It is crucial that the articles published on Global Research reach a broad readership.

We encourage our readers to cross-post and/or forward Global Research articles, submit them to internet discussion groups, send them to your friends on your e-mail lists, etc. This will help Global Research in its endeavors.

While Global Research operates on a shoe string budget compared to the well-endowed establishment think tanks, it has more readers than the powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Thursday, 13 August 2009

From the Campaign For Real Farming

COOL ARTICLES : COOL SITE

SEE http://campaignforrealfarming.blogspot.com/

Thursday, August 13, 2009

"The Tragedy of the Commons": High-Sounding and Influential, but Just Another Neoliberal Myth

"Over the course of a few hundred years, much of Britain's land has been privatised -- that is to say taken out of some form of collective ownership and management and handed over to individuals. Currently, in our 'property-owning democracy', nearly half the country is owned by 40,000 land millionaires, or 0.06 per cent of the population, while most of the rest of us spend half our working lives paying off the debt on a patch of land barely large enough to accommodate a dwelling and a washing line."

So writes Simon Fairlie in "A Short History of Enclosure in Britain". (The Land, Issue 7, Summer 2009.) The enclosure "movement" with all its connotations -- the seizure of common land and the end of the English peasant, the Corn Laws and their repeal(s), the Highland Clearances, the emergence of the Scottish crofters, and the creation of allotments -- has surely done more than anything else to shape British agriculture over the past few centuries, and to ensure that Britain's social and economic structure is fundamentally different from that of continental Europe. It has brought some advantages -- enclosure does ease the way for innovation. But it has also been a shameless exercise in land-grabbing, albeit justified by high-sounding economic, scientific, and moral theorising.

One of these high-sounding apologia is the thesis known as "The Tragedy of the Commons", first proposed in the late 1960s. The argument is that common land is bound to go to pot because everyone takes what they can from it and no-one takes responsibility. Like enclosure itself, this thesis has had a tremendous influence on modern politics and economics. Yet the thinking behind the "Tragedy of the Commons is rooted in an almost complete ignorance of historical reality.

Simon Fairlie's original article runs to almost 11,500 words and is the best summary of the enclosure movement and all its consequences that I have come across. The Land is a truly excellent publication, packed with insight and practical advice, and should surely be read by everyone with any interest in land reform -- which indeed is all of us. To subscribe or to get a single copy see The Land

Train in Vain

Cool People

http://bridgefarmlinks.co.uk/default.aspx

Bridge Farm Links Ltd.

Bridge Farm Links is a project which was set up from the original idea of David Cooper. Since December 2004, David has developed the project to where it is today.

Bridge Farm Links Limited is a not for profits company limited by guarantee with open membership. We provide training, work experience and workshops in organic food production and rural crafts.

From the FT - Peak oil, energy security and food supply in the UK

Peak oil, energy security and food supply in the UK

August 10, 2009 1:16pm
by Kate Mackenzie

Are general concerns over resource depletion rising in the UK? Last week we saw the IEA peak oil story, the Wicks report on energy security, and The Economist publish an alarming cover story about the future of the country’s energy supply.

Today, Will Whitehorn of Virgin Galactic and Jeremy Leggett of Solar Century argue in the FT that the UK is ignoring the threat of peak oil.

Both are members of the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security, a group of eight companies, half of whom are rail operators. Whitehorn and Leggett write that the group concluded last year that the risk from peak oil was bigger than that of terrorism:

We fear this is because of over-estimation of reserves by the global oil industry, underinvestment in exploration and production, or a combination of the two. Once the descent begins, the realisation would sweep the world that another leading industry has its asset assessment systemically wrong. The danger is that producing nations then start cutting exports. At that point, for some oil-consuming nations, energy crisis becomes energy famine.

They are particularly annoyed that the Wicks report mentioned peak oil only once, and then in a fairly dismissive way:

Few authors advocating an imminent peak take account of factors such as the role of prices in stimulating exploration, investment, technological development and changes in consumer behaviour.

Perhaps they can take comfort from the UK government’s newfound concern about food supply, and what higher energy prices, among other things, might mean. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is consulting on how the country can have a ’secure food system’ in 2030. From the BBC:

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said while Britain was more self-sufficient now than it was in the 1930s and 1950s, everyone had to start thinking ahead about how to produce more using less water and less fertiliser.

He said last year’s sudden jump in the price of food and oil, which most fertilisers are based on, was a “wake-up call”.

“We saw last year when the oil price went up and there was a drought in Australia, which had an impact on the price of bread here in the UK, just how interdependent all these things are,” he said.

However a report published last month by the Sustainable Development Commission has already concluded things are not good. Author Tim Lang said:

“For climate change; for water; for energy; for all sorts of reasons our diet is going to change. Consumers are not going to like it, although it is probably going to be healthier and definitely more sustainable.

Related links:

The world is already getting a little smaller (FT Energy Source, 10/08/09)
UK assesses future food security (BBC, 10/08/09)
Is the market always right for energy security? (FT Energy Source, )

Wednesday, 12 August 2009

From Energy Tribune

Posted on Aug. 11, 2009

By Geoffrey Styles

The Influence of ''Peak Oil''

Ed. Note: This article first appeared on Geoffrey Styles' blog, Energy Outlook.

An article in the Washington Post this weekend, together with a must-read interview in The Independent, a paper I used to read regularly when I lived in London, reminded me of an observation I made several years ago concerning the similarities between Peak Oil and Y2K. Having spent a fair amount of time in my former corporate role planning for the serious outcomes the latter might have produced, I don't intend this as a slam on the former. Without rehashing the technical arguments behind either phenomenon, it's worth spending a few minutes thinking about the consequences of a growing belief that we might be only a few years away from the end of oil, as we know it. Whatever one's take on the validity of the Peak Oil argument, it has already evoked noteworthy consequences, both positive and negative.

A week ago The Independent ran an interview with Fatih Birol, chief economist of the International Energy Agency (IEA). In it Dr. Birol repeated a warning he has issued previously, that higher-than-expected decline rates in the world's mature oil fields and "chronic underinvestment by oil-producing countries" are setting up a severe oil supply crunch within the next few years, as a recovering global economy resumes its growth in energy consumption. It's not hard to imagine the "green shoots" withering if oil reprised its 2007-8 march from around $70/bbl to nearly $150. From the supply side, I have little doubt that this is correct, for reasons I've mentioned frequently in the past: restrictions on access to resources, routine diversion of national oil company profits into social budgets at the expense of reinvestment, chronic project delays, and the inherently long timelags between discovery and production. I'm less convinced that the demand side of the equation would play out the same as last time, with that experience so fresh in our minds. At the very least, though, Dr. Birol describes a highly credible scenario, and belief in its likelihood could have far-reaching consequences, good and bad.

On the plus side, our reactions needn't go to the extent of the author of a Washington Post piece, searching for self-sufficiency on a small farm in New Mexico, to have a beneficial impact on consumption patterns. Our best chance of avoiding the apocalyptic outcomes that Mr. Fine fears is to live our lives on the assumption that the days of cheap oil are indeed past, and that it will be more expensive in the future. From initial reports of the transactions involved in the Cash for Clunkers program, many people already sense this, despite gasoline prices that remain one-third below where they were at this time last year. And while I certainly don't advocate survivalism as an indicated strategy for individuals, everyone who chooses to downshift in this way stretches out the supplies available for the rest of us, making the transition to more sustainable energy sources more manageable. Merely being prepared mentally for another oil crisis might reduce the likelihood of counterproductive behavior, such as hoarding, should we find ourselves in one.

Unfortunately, these psychological effects also point to the main downside of a widespread belief in imminent Peak Oil. While I remain unconvinced of the role of speculation in last year's spike in physical oil prices, to whatever extent the s-word was driving prices on the oil futures exchanges it was underpinned by a pervasive mentality that we were experiencing something truly unprecedented, backed by hints that oil supplies had already reached their natural limit. If you believe in the inevitability of Peak Oil, today's oil futures prices must look like a buy--a steal, even at levels over $90 for delivery in 2016 or 2017.

There are many good reasons to invest in the alternative energy sources that would help mitigate a true Peak Oil crisis down the road, and that hold the seeds of eventually escaping from that threat entirely. The real mark of success for our various renewable energy, nuclear renaissance, and energy efficiency efforts would be the eventual arrival of a peak in global oil output without crippling the economy. However, the dark side of Peak Oil is a self-defeating notion that no amount of increased investment in new oil production can make any worthwhile difference in this outcome.

If the IEA is right, we certainly can't escape this pickle by drilling alone. However, it's equally true that if oil production began to drop in the next few years, no other strategy, by itself or in combination--not even dramatic improvements in energy efficiency--could make a big enough difference to avoid a serious, economy-wrenching crisis. Many of the cars on the road in 2015 will either be those already on the road today or others very similar to them, if a bit thriftier with fuel. Nor could we electrify more than a small fraction of the global car park within that timeframe, let alone a US car fleet of 245 million vehicles at a time when sales (and thus turnover) have collapsed. Double today's biofuel output--which in that timeframe mainly means more corn ethanol, with all its problems--and we still won't have made a big enough dent.

Inescapably we will need as much more oil as we could eke out, because the whole world would be going through this transition at once. If we're saving the oil in ANWR, offshore California, and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico for a rainy day, then imminent Peak Oil would be that deluge, and it takes 5-10 years to go from bidding on leases to full production. Even if this bought us only an extra 1 million barrels per day--Mr. Pickens apparently thinks twice that--the value of that to the US in a world of $200 oil would be $73 billion/year in today's dollars, along with the possible preservation of critical services if the shortfall that went beyond a mere price spike. The US can't make up for the problem of "chronic underinvestment by oil-producing countries" of which Dr. Birol rightly warns, but we could certainly exacerbate it through deliberate under-investment in our own oil capacity.