Organic Potato Logic

The most contentious pesticides used on potatoes have been phased out in Europe, meaning there’s not much difference between organic and conventional. In addition, more blight resistant varieties have become available in the last few years.

Certification for organic varieties on the other hand requires seeds and seed potatoes be regrown for 3 years under organic conditions before they can be sold as organic. Mostly ‘organic conditions’ is an administrative issue, requiring fees and inspections. I’ve been involved in the lobbying of this issue, and it’s intended to give a commercial advantage to those who have organic planting materials.

Now, suddenly, organic potato growers are at a disadvantage because they can’t use the newer blight resistant varieties. They’re stuck growing the older varieties where certified organic planting material is available. Somehow this is ‘news’, and is featured in an article here, on a website that’s almost unreadable because of the volumes of fake news there. Their proposed solution is we should buy more expensive organic potatoes, grown from outdated varieties with lower yields, in order to make it more profitable for growers to grow certified organic varieties that are not significantly different from conventional varieties.

I think the message here is also that when you buy organic products, you support:

  • Fake News
  • Deceptive and Misleading Lobbying
  • Products that Unfairly Compete with Small and Local Producers
  • Overpriced Products in Supermarkets Displacing Cheaper Ones

What to do about anti-vaxxers, anti-lockdowners, 5G mobile protesters and so on…

In Europe there’s a new phenomenon of groups protesting these issues, often violently. We sort of all know they are coming out of America’s far-right groups in an election year, but many people don’t really understand where they come from, what they mean or what to do about them. Most people think the only thing to do is ignore them, but by understanding them better there’s much more we can do to confront them.

Here in The Netherlands, there are groups who have appeared out of nowhere, and members who have been identified as cocaine users and people previously involved in violence related to football (soccer) matches. They don’t really have any spokespeople or figureheads, not a lot of organization or public debates on their issues and in general not a lot of sense in what they’re doing. They are well enough organized to apply for demonstration permits and pay fees, and estimate the number of people attending, but otherwise don’t seem to have the backing of any known organization. In general, they just seem like they’re out for a fight with the police. In a small country like The Netherlands, this really stands out. It’s not like they can just be strangers from ‘out of state’. They have to be locals, and someone should know who they are and where they came from.

The mainstream press, especially English language, is also playing a role here. The BBC for example had a sort of spooky infomercial article on this, with very little real news, but rather a video with strange people saying weird things, and completely lacking any point. This kind of article just gives legitimacy where there was none before. A local news website that mostly has translated news from Dutch outlets, had an article highlighting the difference in childhood MMR vaccination rates between 2019 and 2020. The suggestion was this was an indication of the anti-vaccination trends in the country, but what the article didn’t say is there was no MMR vaccination program in the country before 2019, as is the case in a lot of places outside of the US. There is also simply no need for an anti-vaccination movement here, because there are no mandatory vaccinations. The article also said the parts of the country where the vaccination rates were the lowest were the most religious, as if the people choosing not to get vaccinated were the least educated or most abnormal. It was a completely misleading cooked-up article, either a paid placement or someone completely unfamiliar with the topic just blindly translating a misleading press release.

The Difference Between Organic and Artificial Movements

The Black Lives Matter is a good example of an organic movement. It’s clear what the issues are, and there are sympathies worldwide. It comes from unarmed black people being killed by police, and the demands are clear. There are large numbers of people speaking very clearly about it on social media as well as the mainstream news. Disagreements that may exist in the movement are minimal and unimportant. There are also clearly no overriding business interests behind this movement.

Vaccinations, 5G mobile services and covid-19 lockdowns all have business interests behind them. I think most people would agree that none of these are really interesting enough to go out and demonstrate over, and hardly interesting enough to even have a discussion about them. In fact, if we have any position or opinion about these issues at all, it probably comes out of statements made by other people, and we probably take issue with some of these statements.

The fact of the matter is it costs huge amounts of money to ‘create’ movements like this, something only a billionaire could afford. It costs money to pay for misleading press releases, to create and run organizations that appear out of nowhere. You have to pay for lobbyists to cause politicians to react to the issues, for people to give misleading information on social and mainstream media, pay for trolls to disrupt constructive exchanges on social media, and so on. This is really a major amount of money, especially when you consider this is not just limited to a single country but movements being created worldwide.

Consider Vegetarianism as an Example

I think most people now know every vegetarian is different, with different reasons for not eating meat. Some are vegan, some eat fish on Fridays, some eat meat once a month or only at restaurants when they eat out. As long as someone considers themselves a vegetarian, they are. Furthermore there are no health risks, and as long as you are eating a fairly normal and varied diet, there is no risk of deficiencies.

As a vegetarian now for about 40 years, I’ve really seen the issue evolve quite a lot. If you’re young and reading this, you probably missed a lot of this. At the beginning it was more about needing to remind people, because the concept was a little bit new and there was some confusion. When someone gave you food, it was always necessary to look at it carefully to be sure. There was also the discussion of chicken broth in otherwise vegetarian soup and so on. For a long time it was always necessary to pay attention to quantity, because if a nicely prepared vegetarian dish is present in an otherwise all meat buffet, there often won’t be enough left for the vegetarian if others go first. It also isn’t possible for example to have a nice meal only eating a salad made from iceburg lettuce, and there needs to be a little variety and some starch or vegetable protein. Some people took this to mean all vegetarians were hostile, picky, greedy and wanted non-vegetarians to be forced to eat vegetarian food.

At some point there were enough vegetarians the meat industry started to notice. There’s big money in meat, and a drop in consumption of even a few percent gets noticed quickly. The food industry started investing in everything I mentioned above, like lobbyists to influence food policy, food pyramids in school to teach school children that meat and diary were some of the most important things to eat. There were ads on TV, and later on the Internet. Organizations popped up out of nowhere supposedly promoting vegetarian food, but actually just furthering the divisions and misinformation that already existed. It became necessary to establish exactly what kind of vegetarian each was, and it became impolite for example to not provide fish to a vegetarian who expected it, or eggs and dairy to a lacto-ovo vegetarian.

Now, thankfully, we are at a more normal situation with vegetarians. Vegetarians are free to choose what they do and don’t eat, and to be vegan if they want Most people understand it’s acceptable to serve vegan food to someone who says they’re vegetarian, or an all vegan meal to a large group of people when many dietary preferences have to be taken into account. Meat eaters are allowed to enjoy an occasional vegetarian meal, if they want. Living in The Netherlands where a great deal of the world’s meat is produced, I can also say people eating less meat has had a major impact on the environment. The long term damage of past meat consumption is also very visible here.

Anti-vaxxers, anti-lockdown, anti-5G mobile services

So back to the main point of this post. Why are these things an issue, and why are billionaires spending money trying to bring these things forward? The reason is there are financial and political issues behind them, and they are trying to create confusion and make anyone who may have legitimate arguments against them to seem like crackpots.

What can we do about them? There is a very simple answer to this. We can work backwards from the confusion they are trying to create, then understand what the underlying issues are and start a dialog over the real issues. Instead of the 40 years it took the world to do this over vegetarians, we can work together to do this in a far shorter time for vaccinations, the covid-19 lockdown and 5G services. If as a society we can be more effective at settling these issues based on truth, we will eliminate the reason for billionaires to cause this sort of disruption with fake news in our democracies. Indeed, if we learn how to work backwards from the issues billionaires try to create in this way, we can make it counter productive for the billionaires to try in the first place.

Working Backwards

Here are some of my ideas for working backwards from these issues. If you think I’m wrong, or extreme or whatever, rather than marching off in a huff I challenge you to do your own research and come up with your own ideas. Here are some of my thoughts.

Covid-19 Lockdown: Ending the lockdown benefits large companies depending on cheap labor the most. It’s also the billionaires who’s money is invested in these companies, who are both benefiting the most from the current government bailouts as well as have the most to lose from a prolonged downturn of the economy.

5G Services: Mobile services have become too cheap to be profitable. In order to be profitable a mobile subscription has to cost at least about $12/month. Companies that offer cheaper subscriptions are often doing so at a loss, hoping to keep you as a customer for future more expensive services. For example, I have a 4G subscription costing about $5/month with a reasonable package of calling and data. When 5G becomes available in my area, they are going to have to offer a lot more than a faster data connection and a larger package to up-sell me.

5G antennas are very large and ugly, and must be placed closer together than 4G. Setting up the system is very expensive, and requires a lot of energy and finite mined resources. I don’t think it’s very sensible that governments are allowing such a system to be built and clutter the landscape, as long as 4G continues to work well. At least at the moment, I’m not able to see any added value of 5G.

Vaccinations: Just like everything else in the world, all vaccines are different. There can be different reasons to be concerned about safety. There are many different ways of creating vaccines, including GMO and synthetic biology techniques, and there are different reasons for being concerned about the safety of these techniques. There is the much discussed issue of herd immunity, and many vaccines won’t work on their own but require some existing herd immunity. Does this mean the vaccine is faulty? Is it really the responsibility of the rest of us to provide this herd immunity for the vaccine manufacturers?

Many vaccine programs started in the 1960s. What have we learned? Are the vaccines given then still necessary today?

What about the survival rate for diseases like German measles? We know the basic method for treating a Covid-19 patient. Can these methods be used for measles patients, and will this bring the fatality rate down near zero? Clearly the measles vaccine isn’t working properly, because we still have outbreaks, and people who are vaccinated still contract the disease. Would we be better off if everyone was allowed to contract the disease as a child, and stop with the vaccinations? Why or why not — in detail please?

The issues surrounding vaccines are so varied and complex, there’s much more than I can go into here. The subject deserves open discussion, and those who want to discuss it deserve more than just to be shouted at and called an anti-vaxxer. It’s not just an issue for scientists, and the rest of us just have to trust what they say. This is a topic that needs to be explained in a way everyone can understand it, and from an independent perspective. Everyone needs to make their own decisions.

The same rules apply to comments on this post as others. In general everything goes, except spam or attempts to intimidate others. This is especially true when it involves repetition.

Gene Drives

I think it almost went unnoticed, but a few weeks ago a decision was sort of made on gene drives. A gene drive means the releasing of a genetically modified organism into the environment with the intention of these genes spreading through the entire population. At issue are tests in an effort to introduce a fatal gene into wild populations of mosquitoes that carry malaria.

While it sounds wonderful, the idea of ridding the world of a horrible disease like malaria, this isn’t likely to happen. It’s just not logical to think evolution in mosquitoes can be simply stopped in this way, without some potentially very dangerous adaptation on the part of the mosquitoes themselves or other organisms in their natural environment. There is really no scientific justification for attempting to do this. It’s also outrageous to play with people’s sense of using technology to help people, when there’s no proof or even a reasonable suggestion this technology could really benefit anyone in the long run.

The reality is, backed by money from wealthy families, there is an effort to create an ever expanding technology of fixing nature with genetic engineering. Once the malaria mosquitoes are gone, and some other problem emerges, a new technology will be introduced to deal with this new threat, and so on and so on.

This is the same logic, and even the same people, responsible for the cycles of destruction in commercial agriculture. This is where a pest appears, and a chemical is developed to combat it. A new pest takes the place of the old one, and a stronger chemical is developed to deal with this new pest. Then genetic engineering is used instead of chemicals, and the pests evolve to over come this. It’s a losing battle, and it threatens the extinction of life on earth.

Interestingly enough, the gene drive technology is regulated by the Cartagena Protocol, which is part of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which includes the Nagoya Protocol, which is where all the problems of OSSI are from. Okay, got that?

The Decision

Just what was the decision on gene drives? Here is an excerpt from a convention document marked ‘Draft‘:

9. Calls upon Parties and other Governments, taking into account the current uncertainties regarding engineered gene drives, to apply a precautionary approach, in accordance with the objectives of the Convention, and also calls upon Parties and other Governments to only consider introducing organisms containing engineered gene drives into the environment, including for experimental releases and research and development purposes, when:

(a) Scientifically sound case-by-case risk assessments have been carried out;

(b) Risk management measures are in place to avoid or minimize potential adverse effects, as appropriate;

(c) Where appropriate, the “prior and informed consent”, the “free, prior and informed consent” or “approval and involvement” of potentially affected indigenous peoples and local communities is sought or obtained, where applicable in accordance with national circumstances and legislation

Draft
decision
submitted by the Chair
of Working Group
II

Just to give you an idea of how opaque the whole process is, I couldn’t find this document in the list of official documents on the CBD website, but rather it showed up in Google. There’s no apparent way to confirm if this text was actually adopted, or further modified before being adopted.

Looking at the text, does it support the use of gene drives or restrict it? There is some further documentation on the CBD website on what gaining consent of indigenous people really means, but it really seems there are a lot of excuses not to do this, for example according to local legislation or circumstances. It would appear to authorize gene drives if the other criteria of risk assessment and risk management are met.

This resolution is being hailed by a number of environmental and farmers groups as a significant step forward, but I’m aware of many of these groups receiving funding from the same sources as OSSI is funded and generally have very undemocratic internal structures which suppress the opinions and freedom of expression of the members. While they’re publicly supporting a moratorium on gene drives, it’s almost certain they’re doing the opposite behind the scenes, especially as they seem to be involved in negotiating the text of the resolutions.

This is not democracy. In fact this is one of the most undemocratic mechanisms I have ever seen, and if the sole purpose of the Convention on Biological Diversity is to justify and legitimize the use of gene drives, there’s no reason for it to exist.

Lies About Air Quality, Around the World

I’ve written before about the EU air quality directive, which is completely lacking in real science and focusing on the wrong things.  While I appreciate clean air, and dislike any sources of pollution in our environment, I also dislike lies and don’t think it’s necessary for people to have to spend extra money on useless technology.  In addition, right now carbon emissions and global warming are more important than any other type of pollution, and I dislike the way air quality is being conflated with greenhouse gases.

Rice Fields

Recently it’s been possible to see the way similar lies are being told around the world.  It’s not obvious the way agriculture, and in particular burning rice fields, impacts air quality.  Growing rice generates a great deal of straw.  There’s no question returning this straw to the ground is the healthiest solution for the environment, but it’s also the most expensive.  For a long time now various solutions have been explored, but in today’s need for the cheapest possible food, the only real practical solution has turned out to be burning the straw in place after the rice is harvested.

Rice also grows in specific areas.  It’s generally grown in flooded paddies, and it can’t tolerate northern latitudes.  It also can’t be grown too far south where the climate would be too tropical and there would be less water.  It’s usually grown in slightly mountainous areas, so the water can be captured as mountain snow melts, then released to flow downstream.  It’s a major crop in Asia, and the most populated part of Asia is in areas like this.

When Paradise Burned

I live now in Amsterdam, Netherlands.  It’s a little bit of a coincidence, but before living here I lived in Paradise, California, and before that in the nearby community of Chico, California where I was a student.  Paradise has been in the news recently because it burned down, together with the surrounding area in what is known as the Camp Fire.

Before I lived in Paradise and Chico, I lived in several parts of the Bay Area, where I moved after growing up and going to High School in the Chicago area.  I remember when I moved to the Bay Area in autumn how acrid the air seemed — like something was burning.  I had never encountered that before.  Growing up in Chicago I lived through the period pollution controls were introduced on cars and leaded fuel was phased out, and the Bay Area seemed to have a very different kind of pollution.  The Bay Area is known for it’s air pollution, and all car owners at the time had to get their cars regularly tested for emissions.

When Paradise and the surrounding area burned, the smoke caused serious pollution in the Bay Area.  I thought it was a little strange that no one seemed to question why this happened.  These two areas are about 5 hours driving distance from one another, and there are other populated areas around.  Why did the majority of the smoke seem to blow into the Bay Area?

Air Quality in Paradise and Chico

When I lived in Paradise and Chico, the air was generally clean.  The one major exception was in the autumn when they burned the rice fields.  This area is a major rice area, one of the largest in the US.  As is the case in many agricultural and rice areas, the farmers have a lot of political clout.  They were allowed to burn their fields, and everyone else had to accommodate this.  The farmers were given a schedule, to prevent air quality from getting too bad.  Other people, like gardeners who wanted to burn their garden waste, had to get special permits and weren’t allowed to have fires when there were air quality issues.

So where did all this smoke go, and isn’t it logical the air currants were similar to when the Camp Fire took place?  Isn’t it logical to think this was the acrid smell I encountered when I first moved to the Bay Area?

Another study showed about 29% of the air pollution in the Bay Area came from China. China is a major grower of rice. Even though this particular study concerned a particular lead isotope, it’s a clear indication that smoke from rice fields can travel long distances.

If pollution in the Bay Area comes from other sources, clearly doesn’t even smell like car exhaust, why all the lies? Why is it necessary to constantly blame cars, diesel engines (but ignore diesel trucks) and other obviously incorrect sources, but not talk about agriculture? Diesel especially, how can it be there are so many diesel trucks, but for some reason it’s bad to drive a diesel car? How could anyone think anything can be accomplished by driving an electric car?

Vacation to India

While Paradise was burning, I went on holiday to the only place in the world with worse air quality than the Bay Area.  I went to New Delhi, India.   I went expecting to find a congested and polluted city, which I did, but it wasn’t completely what I expected.

Air pollution has been a problem there for a long time.  In addition, Indians have something of a culture of believing what others tell them.  For example the problem of farmer suicides is well known, and at least part of this is Monsanto selling them seeds promising huge harvests and big profits, which turn out not to be true.  Recently in the news has also been lies spread on social media resulting in mass violence.

In Delhi it’s clear all the advice has been taken on how to solve the problem of air pollution.  Except for a few old timer cars, nearly all the vehicles on the road are reasonably new with modern pollution control systems.  Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) is very popular there.  Except for a few old 2-stroke models, nearly all the tuk-tuks are electric.  One old smoky diesel truck passed me while I was there, otherwise none of these were visible.  Even many of the streetlights were LED.  We arrived just after Diwali, the Hindu festival of lights, and there were signs this had been enthousiasticly celebrated at least in part with low energy light bulbs.  There didn’t seem like there was very much left for the people of Delhi to buy. 

On the sides of the streets, no pollution from cars was obvious.  The air was very polluted, and in particular there was lots of dust everywhere, but little if any pollution from cars.

If you ask almost anyone in Delhi they will tell you the air pollution comes from the nearby rice fields being burned by the farmers.  If you take a train in almost any direction from Delhi, you will travel through the burned out landscapes or see the clouds of smoke hanging over the fields.

If you read the newspapers you will read about all the solutions from the politicians.  No round the clock construction, only dawn to dusk, in order to minimize dust.  Plans for the introduction of odd-even days for driving according to your car license plates, with exceptions for CNG and lady drivers, because walking in some areas can be dangerous for women.  There’s really a major disconnect between the politicians and reality.

Many Other Problems with Burning Rice Fields

Air quality is only one of many problems that go along with burning rice fields, and only one reason it’s not a sustainable practice.

Desertification is a major problem all over the world in agricultural areas.  It’s what happens when the ground is overused and basically turns to dust.  This dust by itself is probably a significant contributor to Delhi air pollution.  If rice straw is returned to the ground, either by composting and spreading or just turning it under the ground, it will build up the soil and add humus, which will counter desertification.

Rice straw, as with almost any agricultural product burned in the fields, is very high in volume and almost pure carbon.  When it’s burned it releases very large amounts of both air pollution with many particulants, and greenhouse gases.  These greenhouse gases would be sequestered if incorporated into otherwise healthy ground.

Rice straw being high in carbon is also needed to bind with sources of nitrogen pollution, like animal manure, in order to prevent this from polluting the environment.

Conclusions

Of course we can’t stop growing rice tomorrow, but there are a lot of possibilities for doing it more sustainably.  We need to stop entertaining lies about air pollution and global warming, and get serious about the underlying reasons and solutions to problems.

Tripadvisor and Fake Reviews

I’ve just been on holiday to India.  Trying to use TripAdvisor for hotels and other information was a completely new experience this time.  Normally I prefer TripAdvisor over booking.com, because while both generally let you say anything you want, booking.com mixes so much marketing with the reviews that it’s too hard to identify places with significant numbers of negative reviews.  Even if I end up booking hotels with booking.com because it’s cheaper, I have been using TripAdvisor to actually choose the places.

The Fake Reviews and Profiles

Of course both TripAdvisor and booking.com are loaded with fake reviews, and it’s always been an issue identifying them.  Booking.com requires a booking before you leave a review, but if you are the owner of a particular hotel, it’s no problem to generate fake bookings, and then leave fake reviews.  Booking.com doesn’t seem to care about this kind of fake review, because of course they get a commission for every fake booking.  TripAdvisor has always been a bit of a sandbox, but since every user has a profile with a history of reviews, it’s a lot of work to create a credible profile to go along with every fake review.  Reviews where the user has only ever placed less than 5 reviews can easily be identified as probably fake, and any property that has a pattern of suspected fake reviews can also be identified as suspect.

Cheap Computer and English Skills

Visiting India was a whole new ballgame.  This is a country where many people have above average computer and English language skills, and labor is very cheap.  Unskilled labor costs about US$4 per day, and for a little more you can pay for full time fake review writing.  Also, if you’re a hotel and your staff isn’t very busy, you can ask them to create fake reviews in their spare time.

As I was planning my trip to India I encountered elaborately made profiles, with an extensive history of reviews.  There were positive reviews left by owners on their own properties, and negative reviews on competing properties.  I think everyone understands a new hotel may feel they need to write a few positive reviews about themselves to get started, but what I saw mostly went far beyond this.

In general I had to look for patterns like writing style that was the same, or possibly existing profiles with exactly the same number of previous reviews.  Sometimes cultural or language mistakes in reviews from countries I was familiar with.  In general, it just wasn’t possible to tell, and the sheer volume of fake reviews was often overwhelming.

Reviews About Fake Reviews

One of the only ways you can identify a property with fake reviews, is to actually go there and see for yourself it doesn’t match the other reviews.  It follows that you can then express this in your own review for that property, right?  Not so.

By way of fake reviews, I found myself staying at the Wood Castle Grand in Delhi, which at the time of making this post had 245 reviews on TripAdvisor and was ranked #9 out of 892 hotels in Delhi.  This hotel was not great, but okay.  Even though I am of the opinion that probably all 245 reviews are fake, I understand that the hotel is getting started, can’t do that without any reviews, and so has to write the first few reviews themselves.  In fact, as far as I was able to see, the hotel only had 2 functioning rooms, and simply didn’t have the traffic justifying 245 reviews anywhere.  I was there for 4 nights, and only saw one other visitor who was leaving just as I arrived.  I was there during what should have been the busy season for them.

In my review of this hotel, I didn’t want to be overly hostile, but I mentioned you should consider some of the reviews don’t seem right to me and may be faked.  TripAdvisor was very clear about this.  They rejected my review saying:

We don’t allow accusations that reviews are biased, suspicious or fake.

If you feel a review is suspicious, please use the flag / “Problem with Review” link, located at the bottom of each review, to alert our investigation team.

Flagged Reviews

Okay, if we’re supposed to flag suspicious reviews, let’s have a look at one of the things I’ve flagged in the past:  La Pizzateca Madrid

This place has no reason for a positive review.  There is just nothing here, and no reason for anyone to visit.  When we were there, they had only a few types of pizza slices, none of which were vegetarian.  We ordered a pizza, and it was disgusting.  Plastic chairs and tables.  They only have a few customers.

This is not rocket science, all anyone has to do is walk in there and have a look.  There are few more obvious examples of abuse on TripAdvisor.

At the time of writing this post they are #97 out of 10285 restaurants in Madrid, based solely on fake reviews.  After I left a 1-star review, there was a flurry of fake 5-star reviews, mostly from people who had only ever written one review in their lives, to compensate and bring them back up to what was at the time the 50th or so best restaurant in Madrid.

If this place is still there years after I flagged it, how seriously are we supposed to take TripAdvisor’s request to flag suspicious reviews?

End of an Era

While I can understand TripAdvisor’s position, not wanting to risk removing someone’s real review and claim it’s fake.  The one thing they used to have going for them was they never censored legitimate reviews.  That doesn’t seem to be the case anymore.

I’m really going to be in a quandary when it comes to my next trip.  Anyone have any suggestions on what should come next, after TripAdvisor?