If you’re vegetarian like me, you might not find his meat interesting, but it’s still very nice to know there are people out there like him raising meat humanely in environmentally friendly ways.

In particular his mentioning animals who eat grass just don’t get sick, goes along with a discussion I had a few months ago with a local farmer who also raises his animals on grass.  He referred to his cows as their own pharmacist.  He said, he could watch them eat, and when they weren’t feeling well, they would eat the plants in the pasture their bodies needed, in the right amounts.  He said he could just sit on the fence, watch them, and could tell all kinds of things about them by what they were eating at any given moment.

The good news is the Agricultural Minister promised to ban this variety like 9 other EU countries have already done.  The bad news is his statement also included the condition ‘this would only be possible with the permission of the European Commission’.

What a load of rubbish!

Not only is there no one in particular to ask such permission from in the EU, or anyone likely to give it, but it’s not necessary.  Poland is a sovereign country and can pass it’s own laws without EU approval.  Do we need to remind the Polish minister that the ban in France was overturned by the courts, and so the ban in Poland should avoid the issues that led to this?

Please write Mr Marek Sawicki, the Polish Minister of Agriculture, and let him know what you think!

marek.sawicki@minrol.gov.pl
tel.: +48 226231510; fax: +48 226231788

Please also send a copy to ICPPC – International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside, who are coordinating this campaign.  Contact information is on their website.

English:

Nederlands:

World sugar consumption has tripled in the last 50 years!

Well first of all the world population has more than doubled in that time, so this accounts for most of it.  Beyond this one of the things Michael Pollan pointed out in his book Omnivore’s Dilemma is during the time high fructose corn syrup was introduced into US soft drinks, America’s consumption of ordinary sugar stayed nearly constant.  In other words, the HFCS was just more sugar added on top of existing consumption, and HFCS probably doesn’t satisfy an appetite for real sugar.

Considering an increase of all sweeteners together is misleading.  If you only consider per capita consumption of ordinary sugar, you aren’t likely to see a meaningful increase over the last 50 years.

Not only is a modest amount of ordinary sugar a relatively safe and constructive part of a balanced diet, but it’s an appetite suppressant and trying to eliminate or reduce it will almost certainly lead to the overconsumption of other foods.  It’s known for example that people who drink sugar-free soft drinks are statistically heavier than those who drink the sugared version, and this could be one reason.

Just Like Europe

It’s true a few countries in Europe have special taxes for soft drinks, but as far as I know this is not a tax on sugar.  In particular drinks containing aspartame are not exempt from these taxes.

In Europe it’s more common to drink soft drinks in restaurants, who often depend on sales of drinks for a large part of their profits.  It’s less common to drink soft drinks at home, and there are very few people who depend on soft drinks as part of their grocery shopping.  Taxing soft drinks is more a way to tax eating out at a restaurant than anything else.  Soft drinks are also usually an imported product, and by taxing them it encourages the consumption of local products like beers and wines.

In the US many people who consume large amounts of soft drinks live in the so-called food deserts of inner cities, with limited access to healthier alternatives.  A sugar tax would only serve to raise the grocery bill of these people.  A sugar tax in the US would be a disproportionate tax on the poor.

More Profit in Sugar Alternatives

The problem is while sugar is a commodity crop, and relatively speaking expensive to transport, process and store, as well as subject to swings in price depending on availability, the alternatives like HFCS and aspartame are not.  These alternatives are patented, cheap to manufacture and represent huge profits for the companies that sell them and own the associated intellectual property rights.

Calories

The argument is sugar ‘and other sweeteners’ contain too many calories, making it ‘better’ to consume an artificial sweetener like aspartame.  In fact there is not a single shred of credible evidence to suggest any link between the number of calories you consume and health.  Calories are a very old unit of measure determined by literally burning food and seeing how much heat is given off.  Your body does not metabolize food this way, and you can’t make any comparisons.

It’s true, there are low calorie diets which help people lose weight, but in nearly all cases the diets cannot be sustained and the weight returns after ending the diet.  In fact most people who attempt such diets end up heavier in the end.  This is all you can say about calories, and there’s nothing about this weight gain and loss that’s healthy.

Dangers of Non-Sugar Sweeteners

Alternative sweeteners like aspartame and HFCS have so many health concerns or suspected health concerns associated with them, that I’m not even going to get into it here.  I’ve written some posts about these, and you can find lots of other things by searching the Internet.

In particular both of these are suspected of being behind the current world wide obesity epidemic, and are both suspected or known carcinogens.

Age Limit for Buying Soft Drinks?

Not to be left out here are of course the tobacco and alcohol lobbies.

To begin with the tobacco lobby does not want any legal competition with their products.  This is the reason they were and are behind things like prohibition, worldwide drug wars and age limits that ensure young people grow up with a period of time where tobacco is the only legal drug available.  It’s pretty logical they would like to see sugar less available, because craving it could also make using tobacco more attractive.

More importantly the tobacco industry wants to see the culture of enforced age limits, as a way of making their products seem safer.  After all if we have age limits for everything from alcohol to tanning salons, and tobacco has a relatively low limit, it makes tobacco products seem safer and more normal to young people.  In fact there are few more lethal products worldwide than tobacco.

Alcohol follows closely behind tobacco, because if you’re addicted to tobacco, you’re much more likely to consume larger amounts of alcohol.

What is it about elections in the US that brings together such powerful political lobbies in such intrusive ways?

Alternatives?

How about some alternatives to a sugar tax:

Prohibition of soft drink and candy vending machines in schools, except for products containing 100% fruit, ordinary sugar, water or other completely natural ingredients.

Prohibition of sponsorship or promotion of processed foods, in a similar way promotion of tobacco products is prohibited in many places now.

Prohibition or tax on HFCS and aspartame.

A tax in the US on saturated fat, like in Denmark and Hungary.

End subsidies on corn, HFCS and ethanol.

A levy on brand name soft drinks, in a similar way brand name cigarettes are priced higher in the US.

Anyone have other suggestions?

Yesterday an EU Advocate-General sided with French seed organization Kokopelli on the provision in EU law prohibiting the sale of unregistered varieties.

In reference to EU seed laws and related French regulations, the Advocate-General said they

“violate the principle of proportionality, free enterprise, free movement of goods, and the principle of non discrimination.”

The Advocate-General said the official seed catalog has

“nothing to do with plant health”

and

“it is up to farmers to decide which varieties they grow”

the Advocate-General added

“the fact that farmers are confined to the listed varieties greatly reduces genetic diversity in European fields.”

Unfortunately the original opinion was written in German, and as of the time of this post had not yet been translated into English.  You can read the opinion in a variety of non-English languages here.

Almost all of Kokopelli’s arguments were upheld, and most of the opposition’s arguments were not.

If you’re in the area, please come by!  Entrance is free.

If you’re able to sponsor a stand or presentation on either day, please get in touch!  You can either contact me, and I will put you in touch with the right person, or you can contact them directly via their websites.  There is no cost to sponsor a stand.  You can either give seeds and plants away at no cost, or you can sell them.  You can also run an information only stand.

Supposedly, Europe is going in a different direction, but I’m not sure that really means anything.  Now the routine feeding of antibiotics as a growth stimulant is forbidden, but all that means is farmers have to say it’s necessary for something else, and can continue to use them.  Maybe all routine use will be prohibited, but this is far from a done deal.

This time they assure us no one could possibly object to the trial.  They say they will remove the tassels before the plants produce pollen so contamination of the nearby environment won’t be possible.  They also say there will be no business interests, it will only be a project of the university.  Hm, I wonder if the university has any business connections itself…

An important message from the organizers of the resistance:

[EN] Hello,

Yesterday we learned that the VIB is requesting authorisation for a field trial for GM maize in Wetteren. This crop would be launched in a three year open field trial, from 2012 on. A public consultation is organised which is open till 21 January.

It’s very important to respond individually to this consultation by using the special form for this purpose.

Below you find links to useful documents, press articles and a dossier that aims to develop some arguments on this case.

http://fieldliberation.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/rough-reader-on-the-new-vib-maize-crop.pdf

The pdf is just a personal summary of some facts and possible context around that sudden new field trial. To be used freely, as extra inspiration for replying at the inquiry, for an article, an action, or a campaign…

For more information see their website.

See here to respond to the consultation, but be aware as of the time of this post, the English language form wasn’t available.  Keep trying!  Let’s send some web traffic their way and let them know we’re eager, even before the form becomes available.

I was looking around for other films made by Ella von der Haide, the same person who made Resilient Seed the film about our Brussels action last spring, and I came across this.  What a find!  This is a really interesting look into Community Gardens in South Africa, and the sorts of problems they face.

School children’s tastes have since evolved, and now pizza is the new hamburger.  With evolving foods comes the need to update laws.  In order to keep up with the times, the US congress declared pizza a vegetable because it has tomato paste on it.  This measure in congress was necessary in order to override the USDA’s advice to the contrary.

So what else comes with the tomato paste in school lunch pizza?  Courtesy of Kristin Wartman’s article on Grist, here’s a list of ingredients in ConAgra’s “traditional 4×6 school pizza”:

CRUST: (Enriched wheat flour (bleached wheat flour, malted barley flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamine mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), water, soybean oil, dextrose, baking powder (sodium bicarbonate, sodium aluminum sulfate, cornstarch, monocalcium phosphate, calcium sulfate), yeasts (yeast, starch, sorbitan monostearate, ascorbic acid), salt, dough conditioners (wheat flour, salt, soy oil, L-cysteine, ascorbic acid, fungal enzyme), wheat gluten, soy flour).

SAUCE: (water, tomato paste (31 percent NTSS), pizza seasoning (salt, sugar, spices, dehydrated onion, guar and xanthan gum, garlic powder, potassium sorbate, citric acid, tricalcium phophate and soybean oil (prevent caking)), modified food starch).

SHREDDED MOZZARELLA CHEESE: (Pasteurized part skim milk, cheese cultures, salt, enzymes).

SHREDDED MOZZARELLA CHEESE SUBSTITUTE: (Water, oil (soybean oil, partially hydrogenated soybean oil with citric acid), casein, milk protein concentrate, modified food starch, contains 2 percent or less of the following: sodium aluminum phosphate, salt, lactic acid, mozzarella cheese type flavor (cheese (milk, culture, rennet, salt), milk solids, disodium phosphate), disodium phosphate, sorbic acid, nutrient blend (magnesium oxide, zinc oxide, calcium pantothenate, riboflavin and vitamin B-12), vitamin A palmitate).

That looks like a vegetable to me!  It’s that ‘nutrient blend’ in the shredded mozzarella cheese substitute that makes all the difference.

Lizz Winstead at the Guardian also wrote a piece on this.

The Warmonderhof is the place I buy most of my vegetables from at the local Farmers’ Market in Amsterdam, and a few weeks ago they had an open house day at their farm.  They’re about an hours drive from Amsterdam, and Steph and I decided to make the trip.

They’re actually much more than a farm.  They’re a school, and they issue a degree similar to what Americans would think of as a Junior College degree,  however it’s a 4-year program instead of 2.  It’s basically vocational training in a formal college setting.  The Dutch call this degree an MBO.  I think the program they have is pretty unique, and I’ve never heard of similar programs elsewhere although they may exist.

Basically they are a fully functioning Biodynamic and Organic farm, and their program includes everything from growing the food to selling it at the farmers market.  Not only do they make it a point to have every possible type of vegetable, but they have chickens, cows and bees.  Because what they grow is used for teaching classes, everything is nicely laid out and organized, and very presentable.  It made for a nice open house.

A lot of what they produce they don’t offer for sale, for example dairy or eggs, probably because they feel they can’t produce them in sufficient quantity or profitably.  It looked like they were offering their eggs to people locally via a CSA sort of scheme, but I’ve never seen them at their Amsterdam market.

They also aren’t afraid of buying produce from elsewhere, and I’ve occationally been told I was buying broccoli from Spain or whatever.  I guess you can’t avoid this completely, because not everything can be grown on a single farm in season.  It’s still a little annoying sometimes when you think you’re buying something local from a farmers’ market.

Interestingly enough, they even have an art gallery, and I guess art classes are part of their program.

Of course they had fields of vegetables to see, some of which were on offer for people who wanted to pick their own.

The theme of the day was ‘Family’, and there were lots of things for the kids to do.

I do actually have some misgivings about buying my vegetables here.  I’m buying from them now, because I go to the Wednesday market which is smaller than the main Saturday market, and the only other vegetable stand is really bad.

You might wonder what could be more perfect than so many vegetables grown locally, but the problem is they’re too perfect.

They are a school, with students who pay to go there and give free farm labor.  They also get funding directly from the Dutch government for this.  There’s no denying this amounts to a massive subsidy for their operation, and it makes it hard for other small farmers to compete with them.

They do sell their vegetables at what I would call a normal price, and it is possible to buy cheaper at other stands.  The main problem is they have everything, and it’s of exceptional quality.

I think they’re a bit sensitive to this problem.  They try to cooperate with other stands, and aren’t afraid to refer their customers to them if it’s appropriate.  They talk about competing stands as their colleagues, rather than their competition.  What do you do if you’re like them in that situation? It’s hard to know what the right thing to do is, but I do try to give my business to other vegetable stands when I can.

Of course not far behind these comes the health and pharmaceutical  industries, and a host of others.  I think a lot of what I say here can be extrapolated to include almost all of them.

Misinformation

There’s been an almost unbearable barrage of misinformation in the European press lately.  Something that used to stand out as being primarily in the US.

The BBC and Guardian news organizations in the UK have been trading barbs over the issue for a while now, but both are almost equally guilty as are most others.

Take for example this article in the BBC on the sensational headlines that emerged from a report in The Lancet suggesting 50% of men in the UK could be obese by 2030.  I’d like to have suggested the BBC is on high moral ground by publishing an article like this, but you only have to read the pages and pages of similar sensationalized crap in their Health and Science sections to know this isn’t the case.

So here we have a well known health journal, maybe the most well known health journal in the world, publishing an article that came from where?  Did they just pull it out of the air?  And who paid for the research?  And who funds the journal?  Who controls the editorial content?

The gist of the BBC article is, The Lancet published their article, and the other news organizations in the UK just lapped it up without thinking.  Britain is getting fat! On the other hand, if any thinking person had looked at the figures, the logical conclusion is obesity in the UK at the very least looks like it’s leveling off and might actually be on a downward trend.

The Lancet authors offer the disclaimer that ‘they are extrapolations of current data and the past might not be a good guide to the future’, which is of course very laudable.

Could it be, intending to go along with new food labeling laws in Europe, the real intention of announcing the UK is facing an obesity epidemic is to get people to read food labels and come to conclusions about which processed foods are healthy, and eat more of those?  Is the intention to get people to buy and eat more food, in order to create this obesity epidemic that doesn’t exist yet, in order to start a spiral effect of people eating more, getting fatter, and then buying yet more processed foods in order to try to loose weight?  Doesn’t this sound a bit like the US?

B12

I had recently what might be considered a typical discussion, on this post, with MikeH over vitamin B12 and vegetarians.

The gist of the argument is this.  In spite of the fact there have been vegetarians and vegans for about as long as civilization itself, and before WWII there were arguably more vegetarians and vegans (or near vegetarians and vegans) in the world than meat eaters, and there have been no identifiable wide spread or systemic health problems or dietary deficiencies identified in these populations, we are supposed to be afraid of being vegetarian or vegan.  Along comes vitamin B12.

First comes the assertion that vitamin B12 deficiency is very serious, and people who become deficient in B12 can get very sick and it can be difficult to treat.  Lots of peer reviewed studies to prove this.  I don’t think anyone will dispute this, at least I’m certainly not here.  Feel free to go for it in the comments, if you’re so inclined.

Next comes the assertion there are no vegan sources of B12, and probably vegetarians should watch out for it too, with the exception of manufactured supplements.  Again, if you feel like going for it in the comments feel free, but I would probably agree with this too.

Next comes the leap of faith!

Because vitamin B12 deficiency is serious, and there are no vegan sources of B12 and not many vegetarian sources, vegan and vegetarian diets are unhealthy and these people should take supplements ‘just in case’.

This is a total heap of garbage, and there is no truth to it or any reason to take it seriously in any way.  There are absolutely no studies that provide credible evidence to support this, and lots of reasons to suggest there is no truth in this whatsoever.

There are connections between genetics and B12 deficiency, and some prescription drugs have it as a side effect.  There is however no known relationship between dietary B12 and levels in the blood.  Tests for B12 deficiency are not reliable, and treating B12 deficiency with supplements is often not effective.  There is just no reason to think there is any connection between eating B12 and health.

I was surfing around the Internet on this subject a few weeks ago, and I had to laugh when I came across this website of someone who is obviously trying to make a living off of B12 deficiency.  A ‘project of vegan outreach’.  This website reminds me of the old websites that used to be around, offering coaching to gay people to help them become straight.  Remember those?  I guess this is the same logic needs to be applied here, that vegans need help to be healthy!

Anyway, if you slog your way through all the peer reviewed and cited crap on his website (where you aren’t allowed to leave comments or discuss anything with him), you come across this as proof that there’s a connection between vegans and B12 deficiency:

I meet vegans on a regular basis who report having been diagnosed with B12 deficiency or who developed symptoms.

How about those of you out on the Internet, do any of you ‘meet vegans on a regular basis with B12 deficiency’?  Just how credible is a statement like this?  Just how credible anyway is someone who puts together a hokey website like that one to promote a myth?

Could it be that the food industry is trying to make people afraid of being vegan, because they lose money when people don’t buy processed food of animal origin?

I think everyone needs to take some personal responsibility these days for thinking about what you read, and being able to identify obviously flawed information.  I think in many ways that’s the job of us bloggers, to help out with this kind of thing, and maybe we haven’t done a good job lately.

Smoking and Drinking

Young people are drinking more these days!  Drinking is very bad for young people!  More young people are being admitted to hospitals with alcohol intoxication!

We’ve probably all heard this a lot, for years now.  So where does this come from?

Might this come from the same place I talked about above, that says the UK is getting fat!  Just what proof does anyone have that drinking among young people is any more or less serious than it’s ever been?

When I grew up in the US I heard this as public smoking bans began to be more common there, and there was a push to raise the drinking age to 21.  I’m hearing it now in Europe as public smoking bans are coming into force here too.

Now I can hear you asking, what do public smoking bans have to do with the drinking age?  Maybe more importantly, am I actually IN FAVOR OF YOUNG PEOPLE DRINKING?!

When Nixon first started the US war on drugs and people who opposed this were asked the same question.  Are you in favor of people using drugs?

There’s simply no connection between being opposed to drinking ages and being in favor of young people drinking, any more than a connection between being opposed to the war on drugs and being in favor of people using drugs.  This is nonsense.

In the same way the global war on drugs has been very destructive to society at large, drinking ages are very destructive to the health and well being of young people.  In the same way the war on drugs tended to push people onto harder drugs, drinking ages tend to push young people onto things worse than alcohol.

How Drinking Ages Work

The issue is this.  Like most people, young people have a need to socialize and consume drugs like alcohol recreationally.  In the same way adults would probably not throw a party without serving alcohol, and many adults drink modest amounts of alcohol on a regular basis, many young people have the same needs.  This is just a fact, and as a society we need to tolerate it as such.

No one likes seeing a drunk 12 year old!  No one likes seeing a drunk 50 year old either!  Drunks are not nice, no matter what the age, but we can’t let ourselves be ruled by the sight of one either.

However bad drinking might be for young people, whatever the sensationalized headlines might say, the one thing that’s worse is tobacco!

By establishing ages for alcohol and tobacco use, where the age for tobacco is the same or lower than alcohol, we’re sending the message that smoking is okay but drinking isn’t.  The whole culture that goes along with showing an ID to drink simply says to young people that alcohol is special and cigarettes are not.

We’re also increasingly becoming aware just how addicting tobacco is for young people, something the tobacco companies have known for a long time.  Just a few puffs when you’re young is enough to dramatically increase the likelihood of developing a smoking habit when you’re older.  Being addicted to tobacco is permanent.  It’s true some people manage to stop after a time, but the addiction and craving is a life long reality.  If a young person takes a few puffs early on, and starts to become addicted, they’ll carry this with them too for the rest of their life.

Finding cigarettes is hardly a challenge for young people.  If their parents smoke, they’ll be available in their home.  Vending machines offer access.  Friends.  They are simply everywhere.

If a young person can’t drink or smoke marijuana, they’re much more likely to do ‘the next best thing’ and smoke tobacco.

Once you become addicted to tobacco, you are much more likely to drink more.  This makes the alcohol industry happy, and much less inclined to object to loss of alcohol sales to underage youth.

If as a world we want to rid ourselves of the scourge of tobacco, we’re going to have to be a lot more tolerant of the alternatives.  As public smoking bans reduce tobacco consumption, tobacco companies will be looking for more customers, and they’ll be doing this through increased drinking ages.  We need to resist this.

The leading cause of death right now in the Netherlands is lung cancer.  This just can’t be compared to whatever damage might occur to young people if they get drunk.  Drunk people of any age recover after a morning hangover, but smoking is for life — and death.

Here in the Netherlands nearly all store bought mass produced organic produce comes in packaging made from GMO corn.

You’ve probably seen it.  Often, but not always, it’s the ‘noisy’ plastic you find in the supermarket.  Now they have version that’s not noisy, like what the cucumber in the picture above is packaged in.  It’s often labelled compostable.

Greenwashing

This is what’s being termed greenwashing these days,  taking a product that’s anything but and somehow promoting it as environmentally friendly.

This type of packaging isn’t in any way better for the environment than ordinary plastic.  In most cases packaging on produce isn’t even necessary.  It’s simply a way to force people who eat organic produce, in order to avoid GMOs, to buy GMOs anyway in their food packaging.

Compostable — Not!

The reason for calling it compostable is because it can’t be called biodegradable.  Biodegradable is a legally defined term, and in particular describes something that breaks down into components that are naturally occurring and already present in the environment.  This plastic doesn’t do that!

Compostable is an unregulated term, and it’s use in marketing has no particular meaning.

In fact, not only does their use of the word compostable not have any meaning in a marketing sense, but for ordinary consumers who compost their kitchen waste, this material can’t be composed in a normal way.  I’ve tried.  It simply doesn’t break down like food scraps, probably because it doesn’t pass water or air properly or otherwise support the micro-organisms needed to break it down.   Since it doesn’t break down into naturally occurring components you don’t want it in your compost anyway!

Don’t Buy It

Consumers don’t want it.  It’s been featured for what it is on local TV, and it’s still being sold.  Refuse to buy it and be sure to tell places that sell it you want to buy GMO-free products — including the packaging!

You can find the original Dutch language version here.

Here is a reply from the scientists who opposed the demonstration.

The original Dutch language version is here.

Here’s a quote from the second letter:

Sleep comfortable
Just think: what carries the least risk to humans and the environment? A potato with well-characterized resistance genes (the GM version) or a potato with the same genes in it and also a lot of other genes that we all know nothing (and bionica and toluca example)? If you do not see dangers in the use of bionica and toluca varieties, sleep on both ears in terms of the GM potato.

Part of the strange language here is the translation from Dutch, and I’ve fixed it a little by hand, but the point is clear.  From a scientist’s point of view — fewer genetics are better.  The traditionally bred blight resistant varieties Bionica and Toluca are dangerous to plant, because they have too many unknown and not useful genes in them!  Really?

The only way forward is monocultures, and as little biodiversity as possible?  Otherwise humans and the environment are at risk?  If you don’t agree, sleep comfortably on both ears?  This is like president Bush telling the world they were either with him or against him in Iraq.  I don’t think this is the basis for common ground.

For the sake of clarity, I’m only including a few quotes of the original post and comments, and I would encourage anyone reading this to have a look at the original post linked to above, and convince yourself I’m not taking anything unfairly out of context.  Maybe you’ll get an insight into how ‘the other side’ thinks??  I dunno…

French anti-science vandals invade a Belgium farm and destroy crops

Phytophthora infestans causes ‘late blight’ in potatoes. In regions of potato cultivation with a temperate climate, like Belgium, this is the single most dangerous disease. The disease costs farmers in Belgium about 55 million euros annually, and controlling it causes significant environmental pressure. However, in the last few years a number of resistant varieties based on conventional plant breeding techniques were introduced to the market, and work is being done on developing genetically modified Phytophthora-resistant lines.

These GM plant are environmentally much more friendly than some existing  methods of treating fungus attack on plants  such as the commonly used toxic copper sulphate.

But the GM potatoes will not be used if the anti-GM fanatics have their way.
A research field trial of these blight-resistant potatoes has just been destroyed in Belgium.
Some anti-technology activists came by bus from France to destroy the fields.

Okay, where to start.  First of all the participants were primarily Belgian.

In Belgium three languages are commonly spoken French, Flemish/Dutch and English.  The first two are languages of the neighboring countries France and The Netherlands, as well as native languages of the Belgian people.  English is a sort of neutral language, as well as being the language most people from other countries speak.  When promoting the event, it’s logical the promotion would be in these three languages.  They were trying to promote the event both in Belgium and abroad.

The vast majority of participants, many of them known by me personally, were from Belgium.  The main organizer was a Flemish/Dutch speaking Belgian.  I know this from listening to the accents and languages spoken in the videos I posted, by reading news reports and blog post on the Internet, and from private email correspondence.  Trust me, it would have been big news if large numbers of people had come in from France for an event like this, and no mention of it has been made anywhere except on Biofortified.

The link provided on Biofortified points to a website in France promoting the event in French.  There’s no indication anywhere unusually large numbers of people came from France as a result of this promotion.

As far as being anti-science vandals, what about the scientists in the action?  For example Barbara van Dyck, who lost her job at the Catholic University of Leuven for participating.  Perhaps if you support her termination from the university, you should send an email stating she was ‘anti-science’ as a reason and see if it helps?  I wonder if the truth was more the demonstrators were not so much anti-science, but rather anti this author’s version of science.  I think in fact most participants consider themselves very strong proponents of science.  My position is certainly pro-science.

While it’s very true Phytophthora costs Belgian farmers lots of money, the problem is really a lack of promotion of the already available Phytophthora resistant varieties, and lack of investment in developing new traditionally bred resistant lines.  Consumers do not want GM potatoes, and there is no legitimate reason to develop them except to force consumers to accept something they don’t want.  There is also strong pressure from the agri-chemical industry to continue promoting non-resistant varieties, until such time as GM varieties are available to take their place, because there are lots of profits in selling the chemicals used to combat Phytophthora.

The reality is in a few years the chemicals used to combat Phytophthora will be phased out in Europe, because they are too damaging to the environment.  This measure has already been passed by the European Parliament. The large agricultural interests hope at that time the only viable varieties available will be GM resistant varieties. There is no truth to the idea that the GM potatoes are ‘better for the environment’, they are simply being developed for commercial reasons.

The use of copper sulphate really has very little to do with this discussion or with Phytophthora on potatoes.  It’s true copper sprays can be used to combat Phytophthora, and it’s true this is used in Europe.  Copper sprays happen to be illegal in The Netherlands, one of the largest potato growing regions.  Copper sprays are also of limited use with potatoes.  Copper is mostly used on grape vines in places like Italy and France, or on tomatoes.

The reason copper sprays are of limited use with potatoes, is they are relatively expensive compared to the crop produced as well as Phytophthora is not an immediately fatal disease, or as the author on Biofortified says ‘dangerous’ disease, in organic agriculture.  There are a variety of techniques that can be used to manage Phytophthora without chemicals, like removing infected haulms.  These methods are not practical in large scale mono-cultures, but neither is wide scale spraying of copper based chemicals.  I wonder if the author on Biofortified has ever grown potatoes?

• Talking to activists about the science didn’t work.

Jo Bury, the director of the VIB science research institute that planted the potatoes, said around 100 scientists had tried to talk the actists out of vandalism.

“We are deeply shocked about the violent actions by the activists of the Field Liberation Movement. The field trial with blight resistant potatoes was almost entirely destroyed. Our hearts are with the scientists whose hard work was destroyed today.”

“Althought his is a dark day for science as a whole, we want to thank all 350 scientists and farmers who came out and supported Save Our Science. It was a strong message to the world that we believe that science has an important role to play in the development of environmental friendly agriculture” Geert Angenon, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Geert De Jaeger, UGent, Rony Swennen, K.U.Leuven, Jeroen Crappé.

Okay, no clue.  No mention of a counter-demonstration anywhere in anything I’ve read.  This is the first I’ve heard of it.  There’s little doubt in my mind that the scientists involved in the trials were probably present, and maybe some others.  I think this would be pretty normal.  But a larger number of ‘pro-science’ scientists than Field Liberation people?  That’s a little funny, and certainly no more than a pipe-dream.

As far as the 100 scientists trying to talk the demonstrators out of it, what does that mean exactly?  As I read what this author wrote, it seems to suggest 350 scientists showed up but only 100 tried to talk the Field Liberation people out of it.  What about the other 250?

Did the attempt to talk the Field Liberation people out of it occur in advance?  Was there anything published in writing on their position?  Certainly if their arguments were the same as this author, they would have fallen on deaf ears.

The reality is many people behind the Field Liberation Movement are themselves scientists, farmers and otherwise very intelligent people and current in their fields.  I’m certain they would welcome sensible public debate on the issues, and are well prepared to hold their own.

7 comments to French anti-science vandals invade a Belgium farm and destroy crops

GregH:

It’s funny how people are always railing against GMOs claiming their reasoning herbicides this and Bt that and Monsanto the other thing, while saying they’re not against the science, they just want more research. I assume there will be a huge outcry among the anti-GMO people for destroying the research (which appears to be government funded non-corporate) they claim they want done on the traits they don’t claim to find fault with….right after they get around to objecting the destruction of those French government run virus resistant GM grape rootstocks a while back.

daedalus2u:

The standard objections of anti-GMO activists don’t apply in this case. Potato is not native to Europe, there are no near-relative weedy species that it can cross pollinate with. Commercial potato isn’t propagated by seed, it is propagated clonally by bits of root. The traits can’t spread by pollen to other fields or contaminate other potato crops.

GregH:

These are the same people who trashed GM grape rootstocks. Yeah, rootstocks, so not even the flower or fruit were genetically engineered. I think it’s safe to say the standard objections are really just lame excuses for common thugs to break something. Must make them feel real big. They’re probably laughing it up and patting themselves on the back for the great blow they think they struck to Monsanto (the fact that this was not Monsanto’s research is likely lost on them).

Ben B:

Concerning this “research”, one row of potatoes was from BASF.
The “traditional’ arguments against GM are still functioning in this case : those potatoes are “pesticide patented clones”.
The industrialized “pesticide” system is responsible of an enormous part of today’s environmental disaster (more than half of GHG emissions due to our food and agri system, according to Olivier De Schutter, UN Rapporteur on the Right to Food + Soil erosion, oil-dependent unsustainable system), and those plants keep on pushing in this direction.
Patenting the living brings to corporate takeover on seeds, the most important thing on the food chain (more infos http://www.grain.org/docs/trips.pdf). Our economic system hates what’s free, like nature’s work on plants. If privatizing life is a synonymous of “progress”, then we’re going forward at high speed.
Clones in the fields means biodiversity loss, more diseases, threats on health.
The “usual” arguments of pro-GM people imply to continue in the system responsible for today’s economic (farmers situation in developed countries), social (one billion persons starving) and environmental (agri and food system responsible for more than 50% of GHG emissions) disasters, claiming that it will bring solutions. We may have a small problem of coherency…
Whereas solutions exist. Sustainable small scale family farming can feed the world – even with 10 billion persons. Actually, it already does… The main problem is repartition of food produced (70% of world agricultural land directly or indirectly for feeding cattle), eating habits (too much meat in developed countries), and production system.

Karl Haro von Mogel:

Oh no – one row of potatoes was from BASF? Then they must all be ripped out! Seriously, that is a bad reason. If BASF has a blight-resistant potato then it is entirely appropriate to evaluate it alongside other varieties.
The rest of your comment demonstrates that you don’t know how potatoes are grown – potato varieties are all clones of one good plant, produced through tubers. Even your favorite old varieties grown on organic farms are clones.

daedalus2u:

Where to start, so much misinformation. The genes for resistance came from wild relatives of potato. These genes have been introduced via cross-breeding in other strains of potato.

The idea behind using these natural resistance genes is so that the use of synthetic fungicides is reduced or even eliminated. Isn’t the reduction of use of synthetic pesticides a good thing?

You can’t just stop using fungicides on potatoes if they are not resistant because the entire crop can be destroyed. This fungus is what caused the Irish potato famine which killed over a million people from starvation because it destroyed the potato crop.

Commercially grown potatoes are always clonal.

Growth of potato strains other than these clonal potatoes will not be affected. They may even benefit because these potatoes are resistant to the fungus, if they are planted they will not increase the growth, spread and persistence of the fungus which could affect non-resistant potatoes.

OrchidGrowinMan:

daedalus2u,

I agree: misinformation, catastrophization, emotional language and outright lies are all too common. People LIKE to be excited, but don’t like to grind through research. They LIKE to play the White Knight, but may need to invent a dragon to do so. It’s more exciting and feels more Noble to fight a Vast International Conspiracy than to address sewage treatment and drinking water contamination.

I think a lot of the problem is related to the game of “Telephone”: Person 1 hears that there may be a possibility of a slight risk of a minor side-effect, and passes that information on. Person 342 hears that there is a virtual certainty of a global catastrophe, and communicates this to Person 1, and the cycle continues.

Credulity, poor understanding of statistics, science, and risk-assessment and the excitement of being a member of a Just Cause combine to generate a population resistant to reassessing their positions and who are sometimes effectively manipulated, and not in a good way.

I think the comments mostly speak for themselves.  I agree, misinformation.   I have sympathy for BenB.  How can you soar like an eagle when you’re surrounded by turkeys?  I’ll correct a few errors.

First of all the genes used in these GM potatoes are from very poisonous wild relatives genetically incompatible with ordinary potatoes.  They can’t cross breed as far as I know and certainly there was no attempt to get them into ordinary potatoes with traditional breeding.  Isn’t this of concern to some people reading this?  Genes from poisonous wild relatives, inserted into something intended for food, without any credible public or peer reviewed safety testing?

And it pains me to have to say this, but yes potatoes are propagated by tuber or meristem cloning, but you don’t have to grow them in monocultures!  Like any other crop you can work with a number of different varieties and inter-crop them with other plants.  The GM potatoes are being developed for use in monocultures, and it’s the intention we become dependent on a small number of patented genes to protect one of the worlds most important crops from a repeat of the Irish Potato Famine.

Does it help us all to know how the other side thinks?