Posted on

Bubbles, Circles, Friends and Foes

Information Bubbles

It’s in the news in Europe right now, that many people are looking within their own bubbles of information that reinforce their own pre-existing beliefs, and not looking as much to the outside world.  I’ve also written about this before.  The monarchy in Europe often makes Christmas addresses to their people, and the king of The Netherlands used his address to focus on this.  Former US president Obama also had an interview with Prince Harry of the UK where he addressed this point — irresponsible social media use.  How many of you readers out there are using this blog irresponsibly?

In particular, in countries like here in the Netherlands, language plays an important role in these information bubbles.  People tend to feel most comfortable in the language they grew up with, and tend to exclude other languages.  Here in the Netherlands the primary language is Dutch, which in relative terms is spoken by only a few people in the world, meaning those people who’s life is centered around Dutch live in a pretty small world.  This is especially true since the Dutch language itself is fragmented, with lots of dialects and accents.  There are also large numbers of people here who speak other languages, like English, Turkish and Arabic, creating strong social barriers.

Honestly, I hope most people reading this blog are doing it as part of a ‘healthy diet’ of information from the Internet.  I hope most of you, as I do, regularly search the Internet and read the ‘other’ side of the story.  I think that’s an important part of being able to understand what I write here.  Although it doesn’t happen as much as I like, I also appreciate when discussions develop here and readers bring other ideas and information from other places on the Internet.  As gardeners and human beings it’s very common we disagree with one another.

It’s true, there’s lots of garbage on the Internet, but reading this garbage sometimes and being able to understand where it comes from and why it’s there, is key to being able to appreciate sites like this one.

Circles of Trust

This blog is really all about circles of trust.  I’m not paid at all for what I do here.  There are no commercial interests behind this blog.  There are no advertisements on this blog.  I spend a lot of time forming opinions about others, and making decisions about what to include or exclude from this blog.  Not only this blog, but I travel and visit other gardeners and seed savers, and I talk with them and exchange opinions.  I also participate on a couple of mailing lists, and exchange opinions in this way too.

I err on the side of safety, and there are at least a few people I don’t include on this blog not because I don’t trust them, but because from time to time we have profound differences of opinion.  Often, in their hearts these are really good people, and probably deserve your trust too.  Of course many people are not included here, simply because I don’t know them.

I also make mistakes sometimes, and include people or groups I shouldn’t.  Occasionally, I go back to old posts and remove links or sometimes entire posts.

You should put a lot of value on links or information about people here, but not have complete trust in them.  You should also not completely write off people or organizations not mentioned here.

Friends

There are many wonderful people in this world, and many people have done important things for me personally or this blog.  The majority of readers of this blog are great people, and without you I’d just be an unimportant blip on the Internet.  The numbers go up and down from one year to the next, and are subject to some interpretation because more and more information on the Internet is being anonymized.  There are roughly 100,000 of you, on an annual basis, from almost every country in the world.

Next are the people engaged in the activities I write about, seed saving and natural food production.  This is the reason for this blog.

Being a blogger is often seen as being a journalist, and there are many other journalists out there who have done very nice things for me.  Sometimes it’s letting me make a guest post, or helping to spread the messages on this blog.  Sometimes it’s much more than that, and actually supporting me as a person.  In particular there are a number of Dutch and British journalists who have been really helpful over the years.

Other than this are just people in my life.  My friends, neighbors, people at the market and others that give me different perspectives on life and ideas for things to write about.

These people are what this blog is about.  Without all of these people, there would be no reason for me to do what I do, and this blog wouldn’t be here.

Foes and Predictable Behavior

The early years of this blog were all about making friends, and linking to others doing similar things.  There are many things I miss about that time.  In recent years things have often been less pleasant.

The Netherlands is the second largest exporter of food in the world, by monetary value, after the United States.  The country is also only the size of Rhode Island.  In particular, a lot of soy beans are imported, fed to animals and then exported as meat and dairy.  There are also a lot of mega-greenhouses here.  The country is also known as a tax haven, according to Oxfam the third largest in the world after Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.  This means the country is very industrial, with a lot of money, and there are a lot of people hostile to this blog here.

As social media has been growing in popularity in recent years, and information bubbles have been growing in importance, I’ve become much more of a focal point.  Right or wrong, there’s often a perception that if this blog or me personally am not paying attention to some issue and responding favorably, it won’t succeed.  I have my doubts with this premise.  I don’t think for example if I suddenly started following the line of the food industry, that many of my readers would pay attention to me.  It may be that I could help come to a compromise over some issue, on the basis of open discussion, but I don’t think I’m going to become some great marketing enterprise for the food industry.

Dutch people usually take great pride in being individuals, and of course they mostly are.  A number of people have taken offense with me over the years, when I could predict their behavior based on Dutch stereotypes.  However, people hostile to this blog, with the food industry behind them, nearly always have one stereotype in common — racism.  This has been unchanged for years.

It’s all about promoting their perfectly genetically uniform food with perfectly genetically uniform, white, ethnic Dutch people.  In general, these are the same wealthy families who have been in power here for centuries.  It’s all about destroying different opinions, cultures and appearances.  It’s all about talking to me and others in racial slurs, as if we are all less than human.  It’s all about hiding behind this racism with more and more figureheads of ethnic diversity, mostly invited from abroad, without any fundamental changes to the underlying issues.  It’s the same with people as it is with the food they sell us.  They are easy to spot from far away, and their behavior is always predictable.

Anyway, these are primarily the voices I work at excluding from this blog, and the food movement in general.

In the case of these people and groups, I spend a lot of time following people, relationships, political campaigns, organizations and so on.  In the US there’s a lot more transparency with regards to funding than there is here.  Mostly funding of causes and campaigns are secret.  I spend a lot of time forming opinions about this sort of thing, and it comes out in the things I write.

Responsible Use

There you have it.  This is why this blog is here, and how I do what I do.  Like President Obama says, no irresponsible use of this blog.

If anyone depends solely on this blog for any information whatsoever — get a life.  Everyone else, go out, read other things from different points of view, and use what’s here to help form your own opinions about things.  As a community we are much richer with more information and different points of view.

At the same time, don’t be afraid to use my experiences and opinions, to help sort out fact from fiction on the rest of the Internet.  Please help expand on this information, by commenting, emailing me or publishing your own information on the Internet.

Posted on

Instant Noodles

There was an article recently on the BBC website about instant noodle consumption in China.  No surprise, it turns out by far in a way, China consumes more instant noodles than any other country in the world.  Many times more than second place holder Indonesia.

Maybe it’s not real news then when there’s an unexplained, small drop in Chinese consumption of instant noodles?  The BBC offers three ideas including increased availability of alternatives via the Internet, like apps where you can order food for delivery, changes in migration patterns mean people are away from home less, or finally the Chinese aspire for better food.

Could it be that China will be the new force driving for change in world food production?  Imagine what this could mean for the rest of us!

I’ve noticed something similar on this blog.  The number of readers in China is still small, but growing fast.  Roughly in order of numbers of readers, over the last few weeks, most people reading this blog are coming from the following countries:

United States
European Union*
Brazil
India
Italy
China
Poland
Russia
Spain
The Netherlands
Serbia

*Traffic from the EU is primarily from a French company, Poney Telecom, which does some anonymizing of it’s customer data and doesn’t leave much information in my log files.  I think some of this traffic comes from France and Belgium.

I think it’s exciting to think that these are the up and coming countries interested in food, food politics, biodiversity and agriculture in general.  Especially China’s presence in my log files has been growing recently.

If you’re from one of these countries, or have information about the food movement there, or think your country should be on this list, I’d like to hear from you.  You can either leave a comment or send me an email.

Posted on

The Citizen Lobbyist

This post is part of the series EU Agriculture 2020.

The New Reality

There is a new and exciting political reality in Europe and other places.  Voters are increasingly acting in hostile ways, and with the Internet, social media, smart phones with cameras and other new technologies, it’s never been easier to hold politicians accountable.  Politicians are supposed to take into account the wishes of voters, and those that don’t are increasingly finding themselves under the spotlight.

In Europe we are in the middle of Brexit, and we’ve just had a series of elections at both EU and national levels, which have seen a new wave of extremist politicians ushered into power.  The message is clear.  If democracy isn’t reformed in Europe, it’s likely to fall apart completely.

This honeymoon won’t last for ever.  Now is the time where we have our chance.  Now is the window of opportunity.  While this post is primarily about Europe, I think something similar is happening in many parts of the world.

The Big Black Hole

The big problem with the so-called Brussels bubble now is it’s awash in special interests.  Nearly everyone lobbying there represents someone who pays their salary.  There are enormous commercial interests, and cash flow like we’ve never seen before.  Nearly no one there actually represents the interests of ordinarily people.  This isn’t a secret, and in recent years the EU has taken a number of steps to regulate lobbying, and increase transparency and openness.

The solution to this problem of special interests is not as complicated as it might seem.  The solution is really for more ordinary people to spend a little bit of time fighting for causes they believe in.  I think most people would be astonished how much of a difference they can make, and how positively their efforts will be received.

It’s the way politicians work, that they have to do what people (lobbyists) tell them to.  There’s really no other way.  If there are no ordinary people there at the right time and place, their opinion can’t be taken into account.

These days the EU is one of the most open and accessible political structures, often more so than national governments.

Who Do you Represent?

No one person on their own can generally effect significant change.  You need to discuss things with others, learn from others, form alliances and strategies, and so on.  In general you need to represent a group of people to do lobby work.  If you’re an established blogger like me, you probably have a topic and community.  Maybe you are a member of a trade union or community group.  Maybe your employer will let you represent them.  Maybe you want to start your own non profit organization.

If you really don’t have your own group, you may also try approaching other NGOs, but be aware that these are often well funded and generally represent their donors.  If you agree with them, fine, but be aware of organizations that say for example they promote environmental issues, but in reality have other goals.  These days most NGOs depend on large donors, and the days of surviving off of €25/yr membership fees, and having an open and democratic structure, are mostly gone.  On the other hand, teaming up with another NGO in the beginning can be a good way to learn the ropes.

In some way or another, you should try to represent some group and have some area of expertise.

Note the EU does not have any particular requirements that lobbyists be EU nationals or residents.  Anyone can lobby the EU.

Choosing the Right Cause(s)

If you are part of a larger group, someone else may choose the causes to fight for, but if it’s just you where do you start?

In general, pending issues are the best place to start.  If you are targeting Brussels, registering in the transparency register may be a good place to start, and there you can select a number of topics for which you receive email notifications.

Otherwise, if you want to try to push your own cause, you either need to have a lot of support behind you, or you need a cause that will make some politician look good.  For example, if you want to bring back traditional light bulbs, consider you will be going against the corporate interests of Philips, and you will be rehashing a topic that upset a lot of people the last time around.  Instead consider promoting organic food or more money for national parks.  This is more likely to get the attention of politicians.  If you want to promote your own cause, start by writing a letter to the appropriate politician and possibly following it up with a meeting.

A Matter of Ideas

Generally one of the most difficult things for politicians are getting enough good ideas.  With ideas, you can always put them side by side and choose the best.  If you don’t have any ideas however, it’s hard to know where to start.

Most politicians want to hear from you to get ideas.  Don’t be afraid to send an email or write a letter, even if it doesn’t look so professional or the ideas are not completely thought out.

Understanding the Process

The EU has three main institutions: The Commission, the Council and the Parliament.  The Commission is the executive branch, is responsible for the introduction of all legislation, and can often act on it’s own authority.  The Council is like the US Senate, and contains appointed representatives from the member states.  The Parliament is like the US House of Representatives, and it’s members are directly elected by EU citizens.  The Council and Parliament make up the legislative branch of the EU government.

Most citizen lobbyists will deal primarily with the EU Commission and Parliament, because influencing the Council generally requires working from within the individual member states.

Timing is Everything

Most politicians don’t have an attention span that goes beyond a few weeks, or a couple of months at the very most.  It’s also their nature that they make decisions at the last minute.  It’s absolutely critical that you approach them at the right time.  Generally you will hear about something pending, or if you are in the transparency register, you may get an email notification.  Figure out when a politician is going to be thinking about a particular issue, or making a decision, and contact them at that moment or just a little before.

If you contact a politician at any other time about something that doesn’t have anything to do with them, they will surely just ignore you.

Don’t Favor Political Parties

It may be tempting to side with your favorite political party, maybe you support the environment or it’s aligned with your religion or so on.  It’s better not to do this, because it’s often necessary to work with different parties.  If you align yourself with one party, then the other parties won’t pay attention to you any more.

If you’re careful to not align yourself with any one party, then generally all the parties will talk with you.

Pay Attention to the Committees

When approaching members of the Parliament, one of the most important issues is which committees they are members of, and their roles within the committee.

Committees can accept or reject legislation, and they also approve amendments.  Focusing your effort on members of the appropriate committees will often give you more influence over the legislation in the long run.

Get Your Fingers Dirty and Make Friends

If you want to make changes in the food you eat or anything else, just pick a cause and fight for it.  Don’t be afraid to fail.

Look for friends along the way, to team up with and learn how things work.

Don’t be afraid to get in touch with me if you have any questions, or if you would like to work on issues together.  I also love to hear from people who just want to tell me what they think about things.  When I do lobby work, I can’t represent my readers if they don’t tell me what they think about things.

Posted on

Pesticides in Europe

This post is part of the series EU Agriculture 2020.

Glyphosate

The EU Commission released it’s formal response to the European Citizens’ Initiative to ban glyphosate, the active ingredient in Round Up.  I think the response is very good, and the link provided to the Commission’s pesticide page also provides a lot of good information.

I share the disappointment a lot of people have that a formal phase-out of glyphosate was not agreed, as was proposed by France and others in an EU Parliament resolution.  That would have been a better solution than the straight 5-year extension that took place, but I think glyphosate needs to stay on the market a little longer, and I respect the fact that compromises needed to be made.  I will firmly oppose any further extension, and if it comes off the market in 5 years, all things considered, it will be a good outcome.

I’m going to go into a little more detail on this in the next section.  The problem is that pesticides in general, and chemical alternatives to glyphosate in particular, are mostly in the process of being phased out.  Those that are still on the market are generally much more expensive and toxic than glyphosate.  In addition, many pesticide manufacturers have other alternatives in the pipeline, and it’s important to prevent these coming on the market.  It’s not a good time to abruptly take glyphosate out of the hands of farmers.  Five years will be a good time to develop non-chemical alternatives, and give farmers the opportunity to develop and learn new techniques.

Pesticides in the EU

There is no mandate for eliminating pesticides in the EU, but the pesticides page linked to above explains how there is a process underway to mandate alternatives (integrated pest management or IPM) and safer pesticides where no non-chemical solution exists.

As a rule, pesticides are licensed for either 10 or 15 years.  For many of the most harmful pesticides, we are reaching the end of their license, and most of these are not being renewed.  There are several reasons the renewals are being rejected, but perhaps the most important is the pesticide companies themselves would like to see unpatented and less profitable products removed from the market.  Public opinion also plays a role, as does public health and safety.

Most pesticides now being approved are far less toxic than they were, even as recently as a decade ago.

In addition to the 10-15 year license periods, pesticides can be removed from the market or their use can be curtailed, when specific health or environmental concerns emerge.  This however requires the agreement of a qualified majority of EU states, and so is not as easy to achieve.

Especially the fact that corporate profits play such a strong role in the decision making, this process as a whole is not perfect.

It’s expected over time the EU will ban food imports that are not grown according to EU pesticide rules.

Political Process

The entire process of approving pesticides or not is a political process which has room for public opinion.  It’s not just a matter of a scientific process, where studies are made and decisions are automatic.  In fact, the reason many toxic products are coming off the market, are a direct result of consumers expressing a preference for organic products and public concern for the environment.

In the EU, there is progress being made.

Certified Organic

While there are still products on the market with pesticides consumers probably don’t want, the situation is changing.  In the next few years, especially if glyphosate is taken off the market in 5 years, the reasons for buying certified organic will be less.

Another side of certified organic is chemical fertilizers, and the EU is also in the process of reviewing fertilizer use.  There is an increasing mandate to use fertilizers in a sustainable way, that doesn’t harm the environment.  Probably around the time the most dangerous pesticides come off the market, the issue of chemical fertilizers will be less too.

Soon certified organic will only be a marketing term, and the negative aspects will probably outweigh the positives.

Posted on

Sugar and Isosugar

This post is part of the series EU Agriculture 2020.

Sugar from Starch

Americans are already familiar with High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS), and this phenomenon has come screaming to European supermarkets too.  In the US, corn or maize is the principle grain used for food, and the reason why HFCS is common there.

In Europe wheat is mostly the grain of choice for sugar production, and it comes with lots of names.  Glucose syrup, glucose-fructose syrup, invert sugar, dextrose and many others.  If you come across a suspect ingredient, try looking it up in Google.

On the surface, there’s not a lot wrong with making sugar from starch.  This is how vodka is traditionally made for example, by first converting the starch in potatoes to sugar, then fermenting the sugar.  Beer is made in a similar way with barley.  Glucose syrup and barley malt have been available for purchase for a long time in supermarkets and other stores, added to processed foods and some people use these for cooking at home.

The main reason for making sugar this way is cost.  It’s very easy to make sugar very inexpensively this way.  If you’re a food manufacturer who’s business model is shaving a few cents off of every unit sold this, together with sugar substitutes like aspartame, is a key mechanism for profit.  Calories are a key way of measuring nutritional value of food, and so by some measures as the food manufacturers are pumping more sugar from starch into processed food, they are making food value available at lower cost and higher volume.

Until a few years ago, in the EU, sugar production was stimulated with subsidies, greatly reducing the costs.  In addition, the use of isosugars (sugar from starch) was restricted with a quota.  Now the sugar subsidies are gone, and the isosugar quotas have just been lifted.

In case you’re in Europe and wondering where the confusing array of sugars being added to food now came from, this is the reason.

Health Concerns

In a world without very much independent science, it’s not surprising there’s not a lot of proof isosugars are unhealthy.  After all, we have been eating them in one way or another for a very long time.  There is however a lot of concern coming from many quarters.

Obesity and diabetes in the US:  Starting in the 1980s, there was a dramatic surge of obesity, diabetes and other health problems, that seemed to correspond with the introduction of HFCS in the market there.  This was also the time when ‘diet’ or ‘light’ drink options became widely marketed, with sugar alternatives, which seem to be part of the problem too.

Fructose:  Isosugar/HFCS generally contains a lot of fructose, and the introduction of so much fructose to our diets is something new.  Fructose is the sugar in fruits, and while moderate fruit consumption is generally accepted to be part of a healthy diet, the amount of fructose in these new isosugars is much greater than we’ve seen before.  At least one study here in Amsterdam has sought to identify the risks of excessive fructose consumption in school children.

Appetite:  Ordinary sugar is a hunger suppressant, and also something people crave.   For centuries, undernourished people have used sugar as a cheap way to make themselves more comfortable.  There’s no doubt that sugar plays a role in a healthy diet as a way to limit consumption.

At least one study in the US suggested after the introduction of HFCS, the consumption of ordinary sugar stayed about the same.  In other words, HFCS did not seem to satisfy people’s craving for sugar.  Likewise, it may not act as a hunger suppressant in the same way ordinary sugar does.  It’s not hard to imagine how this may of led to the health crisis in the US.

It’s also not hard to imagine how dangerous the consumption of sugar alternatives can be, and why people who consume these products are on average heavier.  There are also suggestions that products like aspertame may be addicting, leading to binges in consumption in many ways.

Contamination

After decades of the food companies assuring Americans that HFCS was safe, in 2009 it emerged that many food products contained mercury through contaminated HFCS.  Does HFCS still contain mercury?  If the food industry assured you it didn’t, would you believe them?  What about here in Europe?

Alternatives

If you’re in Europe, and you’re anything like me, you’ve probably been going through ever more confusing food labels in the last few months.  At least here in the Netherlands, it’s still possible to buy foods with relatively normal ingredients, including normal sugar.

The problem increasingly is going to be what does ‘sugar’ mean when you see it on the label.  The food industry has already asserted that sugar from GM sugar beets is okay to use in Europe, because processing them supposedly destroys the GMOs.

‘Sugar’ is also a word that could include isosugar.  I’m not sure of the legal situation in Europe of claiming isosugar is sugar, but I can certainly see a lot of room for loopholes and interpretations here.  Cane sugar is also not something that’s currently widely grown in GMO form, so there may be reasons for needing to know the difference between cane and beet sugar.  You already see the food industry asserting the equivalence of sugar in their food packaging labels, preferring people think of it in terms of calories.

I know a lot of people wont accept this as I say it, but I think this needs to be a wake up call.  People need to take more responsibility for the food they eat.  We are reaching the point that we can’t trust processed or supermarket food.  It’s time for everyone to start growing more of their own food, cooking more of their own food, and eating less processed foods including animal products and any food sold with a nutritional analysis label.

Things to Prepare at Home

Sugar syrup:  By combining equal amounts of sugar and water, then bringing it to a boil in a pan stirring occasionally, you make a thick sugar syrup.  This convenient for example when making sweetened drinks, or anytime you might need to dissolve sugar in a cold liquid.  This is a common ingredient in cocktails.

Cookies: I suppose this is a very American thing, and most of the recipes on the Internet are in US measures.  American butter cooks differently from European butter, so you need to experiment a bit with proportions.

It’s not so hard to cook cakes, tarts and many other things at home, with real ingredients.  If you have a neighbor with similar interests, trading can be a great mutual benefit.