Doing Good Things Without Spending Money

It was Michael Moore that said in his movie Bowling for Columbine that we are supposed to be afraid and consume. If you are afraid of crime, you should buy a gun. If you are afraid of having an inadequate car, you should buy an SUV. If you are afraid of being fat or unhealthy, you should buy diet or other special foods.

In this way, for many people, doing good things for yourself or for the world means spending money.

In fact, sometimes the best things come for free or for not very much money.

The obvious example of this is heirloom plants. Most of us realize, for example, you often get a much nicer plant if you get seeds or other propagation material from a fellow gardener than if you go to a garden center, or even a specialty plant shop and spend a lot of money. I’m going to depart a bit from the usual gardening topics, and offer some suggestions on how you can apply these principles to other things as well. In particular, I’m going to try to make some suggestions that won’t have a major impact on your current lifestyle.

Energy and Greenhouse Gases

There’s no shortage of things you can spend money on if you want to save energy or protect the environment. You can buy double glazed windows, hybrid autos, compact fluorescent light bulbs or high efficiency home appliances, among other things. Sometimes you can even get tax deductions or subsidies for buying these things. In fact, it sometimes seems we are all saving up our money so we can buy one of these things after another. If you buy an energy efficient car or appliance today, you can be sure in a few years time there will be something better to buy. If you spend money on new windows for your house, you can be sure you’ll have to take out a loan that takes years to pay off, and it will take ages to make up the cost in energy savings.

It’s always the official line. In order to save the environment, we need to spend more money. If it’s not consumer goods, it’s more expensive green energy or carbon offsets. Just spend five minutes trying to convince someone who is determined to spend money on something like this they are wasting their money, and you’ll realize you are wasting your time. It takes a very strong will to do something different, and to stand up to the official line.

Most of these so called energy savers have some things in common. They all involve energy to make, transport, market and dispose of. Things like compact fluorescent lights and the batteries in hybrid autos are made with heavy metals and other very toxic materials, and are major disposal problems. In addition, the energy involved in putting some of these things on the market are much more that just in the manufacture. You have to consider most of these items have companies behind them, with employees who have to drive to work and travel for business. In order to accommodate this travel roads and other infrastructure need to be built. Marketing takes energy too, to support everything from billboards to in store promotions as well as traditional media outlets, all of whom have employees who travel, and so on. ‘Green’ energy like biofuels, often take more energy to manufacture then traditional energy sources. The amount of energy that goes into things we buy is more than many of us realize.

Lots of people would argue the points I make in this paragraph above, but let me be clear I stand by them. Take the issue of heavy metals and toxic materials in products. Many people would say these problems are not an issue, because they can be recycled.

If you had a used compact fluorescent bulb, would you know where to take it for recycling? Not many of us do, or at the very least are faced with getting in our car and transporting it a long distance before it can be recycled.

Even if you do know where to take things for recycling, do you really trust they will recycle it if it is cheaper to dispose of it? Much of the technology needed to recycle things currently being sold, depends on technology that doesn’t yet exist. In this world of privatizations, corruption and the quest for profits, many things that we think are recycled are really disposed of, sometimes illegally and often in developing countries. Similar arguments could be made for manufacturing energy use, and in the real world the energy costs are real. It’s always better to not buy the product in the first place.

There is always an excuse why disposal is not a problem, or the assumption technology will somehow solve the problem for us in the future, but not always many people who acknowledge the problem really exists.

Most of the time you can actually save more energy if you don’t buy anything!

If you need to buy something new, like a household appliance or a car, you should always look for the most energy efficient alternative available, but as an alternative also consider something smaller, cheaper and simpler than what you currently have! As a consumer, you should always demand the products you buy are as environmentally friendly as possible, but never rush out to buy something you don’t need because it is marketed as environmentally friendly.

Also, consider the possibility of buying something second hand. The energy you save in the manufacture of a new item may offset an awful lot of the energy loss in having an appliance that’s not as efficient.

Cars are a good example of this. If you want to drive an SUV, and buy one second hand, it will be much less of an energy hog in the long run than if you buy one new. If you want to drive a hybrid car, buying one second hand will reduce both manufacturing energy and toxic disposal problems. Above all, think about how what you buy will be disposed of, and avoid buying something new that is toxic or that will otherwise be a disposal problem. If you are a few years behind everyone else in choosing what you buy, and buy it second hand, you can be part of the recycling solution rather than the cause of the waste and energy problem.

Thinking Outside of the Box

This is a very North American expression that means making bold and risky decisions, and taking a creative approach to problems. Often these decisions go against what everyone else is telling you is right.

For example, it’s been discussed recently that in the US that about the same amount of fossil fuels are used by cars as in the manufacture of food. In Europe a slightly lower percentage is used for food. The majority of this energy is used for animal products, because first crops have to be grown as feed for animals. The amount of energy in processed foods is also very high, again because first the crops have to be grown and then processed.

You can save a lot of energy by eating only non-processed vegetarian foods or locally raised grass feed meats, probably more than you could save if you drove an energy efficient car or simply drove less. Remember the true costs of these foods are distorted by massive government subsidies, that despite all the rhetoric about ending farmers subsidies, continue to be paid.

As an alternative to replacing all of the lights in your house with compact fluorescent bulbs, consider doing an energy audit of your house and try to reduce unnecessary usage instead.

If you have a 60w incandescent light bulb, and you replace it with an equivalent compact fluorescent bulb, it will use 13w instead. A large percentage of this difference in energy consumption can be made by replacing the 60w incandescent bulb with a standard 40w or 25w instead, perhaps even a 15w bulb. The use of timers or timed switches, can reduce the amount of time the light is on, and save more energy. Many people would find this a better alternative to the harshness of a compact fluorescent bulb anyway.

Many people would be astonished the amount of power their appliances use in standby mode. Many modern appliances that are supposedly new and energy efficient use less energy only because they have an on/off switch and can be turned completely off when not being used.

It can be a useful exercise to go through your house and turn everything off or unplug everything until your electric meter stops turning. When you go to bed at night, your appliances should not be using electricity without reason! Kate at Cider Press Hill turned off or unplugged everything and her meter was still turning. A lot of careful searching revealed the floor dimmer switch on her halogen light was the problem. You may be surprised what you find if you do this yourself. Troublesome appliances can be turned off using a power strip with an on/off switch, a cord switch, perhaps a hardwired switch to your household wiring or just unplugging them when they are not being used.

By using standard light bulbs but reducing the wattage and hours they are on to the minimum necessary, as well as turning off standby appliances when they are not used, you will probably save more electricity than buying compact fluorescent light bulbs.

After all, the bottom line is how much energy you use, not how many energy efficient appliances you buy!

Central Heating and Cooling

If you live in a very cold climate, there is probably little substitute to making sure your house is a weather proofed as possible.

Many of us live in a temperate climate, where heating and cooling are only needed briefly through the year. In this case, you should certainly deal with major problems, seal large holes and take reasonable steps to weather proof your house but there may be better alternatives to spending a lot of money on insulation or new windows.

First a gas powered space heater is more efficient than central heating where heat is distributed via water pipes or forced air. With a little planning, it can be easier to heat just a room or two by closing doors when your heat comes from one place.

Even with central heating, you can save a lot of money by turning off the heat in rooms when it’s not needed, and turning it down or off when you are out or at night when you are asleep.

It is true that heating up an entire cold house can take a lot of energy, meaning turning the heat down or off for brief periods may not save you much energy. At the same time, if you can turn the heat down for longer periods (6-10 hours) combined with only heating a few rooms, you can save a lot of energy.

Since I live in a house with several floors, what I like to do is turn the heat in the house as low as possible, and when I’m cold go up to the attic for a while. We have several large windows in the attic, that let in a lot of light all year round. This sunlight means the attic is always warmer than the rest of the house. In the summer, when it’s warm, I go to a downstairs room to cool off.

If you already have a functioning heating system, you shouldn’t go out and buy a new one for no reason. If you do need to buy a new one, you may want to consider these ideas.

The same ideas can be applied to cooling systems. If you need to cool your house, you can do it only as needed in one or a few rooms at a time. If you have a custom house built, or you are moving, you can think about having a room or two that you can shut off from the rest of the house and cool only when needed.

For many people in a wide variety of climates, a solar hot water heater is a good option. If you have a cold winter, you may need to drain it from time to time in order to keep it from freezing. If cost is an issue, and you are good at do-it-yourself projects, building your own is a real option. It’s also possible to buy a system pre-made and installed. A good option is to have a small inexpensive hot water heater and put the solar water heater in front of it. In this way, the non-solar hot water heater only operates when necessary.

Applying these principles to food

In the same way it’s possible to do good by not spending money on other things, it’s possible to do this with food too.

Again here the official line is we all have to spend more money on food in order to be healthy. We are supposed to eat five portions of fruit and vegetables, and depending on where you live there is other advice for eating other quantities of food like fish and dairy products. You never hear we are supposed to eat less.

If you are afraid of sugar, you are supposed to drink diet soda. If you are afraid of fat, you are supposed to eat fat substitutes. If you are afraid of carbohydrates, salt, meat, pesticides or whatever it is that you are supposed to be afraid of, there is food you can buy for a higher price that has a ‘safe’ alternative to what you are trying to avoid. The same thing is true with things we are supposed to need more of, for everything from Omega-3 to Vitamins.

By breaking food up into components, and selling us substitutes or enriched foods, food companies make a fortune and we eat more unhealthy processed foods. Food companies make even more money by selling us certified foods, like certified ‘organic’ or ‘Fair Trade’.

You can save a lot of money, and eat healthier foods by avoiding processed foods and chemical additives, and emphasizing simpler foods like plain fruits and vegetables, and small portions of starches like whole grains or potatoes. Many people are very happy and healthy as vegetarians, but if you do eat meats, use moderation.

Rather than buying certified organic, try to buy foods locally from someone you trust who doesn’t used pesticides or other chemicals or choose foods that don’t normally need a lot of chemicals to produce (see the list near the bottom of the page). In this way it will probably be cheaper, and you will support your local economy.

By eating in this way, you also meet the criteria of most of the widely recognized and credible dietary guidelines.

Above all, if you are not hungry, don’t eat. It’s not necessary to be afraid of your health, and buy and eat more food as a result.

Pesticide Residues in Europe

Europe has one of the strictest limits for pesticide residue on fruits and vegetables. Environmentalists sometimes refer to it as the standard all countries should aspire to achieve. Many people would be surprised to know that in fact there is increasing evidence Europe has a serious problem with pesticide residues.

While this post is specific to Europe, it would not surprise me to find that most countries in the world have similar problems for similar reasons.

Combinations

Of course all pesticides go through a testing phase as part of their development, to determine their safety as well as establish safe levels of exposure to the environment, farm workers and consumers. One of the major weaknesses of this testing is combinations are never considered.

Pesticides are often classified according to the nature of their toxicity, for example you have neurotoxins, carcinogens and hormones. What happens when you combine a neurotoxin with a hormone? Two different carcinogens with a neurotoxin? This is never considered when testing pesticides, not for people or the environment.

Grapes for example are one of the most pesticide intensive crops, and 35 different pesticides are commonly used when growing them. For oranges, this number is 49.

In a test performed November 2004, Dutch consumer web site Weet Wat Je Eet (know what you’re eating) tested 30 samples of supermarket grapes and 42% of them had higher than allowed levels of detectable pesticides. They found an average of 4.3 pesticides in each sample, and a maximum of 12 in any one sample. The worst scoring supermarkets seemed to be mostly discounted German chains like PLUS. In other tests, chains Aldi and Lidl have also scored poorly on pesticide residues. To be fair, there were certainly other supermarket chains from other countries that scored poorly as well.

Testing for Residues

One of the problems is testing for these residues in the EU is at a very minimal level. Very much the ‘what we don’t know can’t hurt us’ attitude is taken.

When testing is performed, it is extremely unusual for more than one pesticide to be tested for at a time. That means if a farm uses 35 different pesticides to grow their grapes, if it is tested it will only be for one arbitrary pesticide, and if it passes this test the grapes are considered to be within EU pesticide residue limits.

The only wide spread testing I’m aware of, for multiple pesticides, is done by consumer organizations after the fruits and vegetables are on sale at the supermarket.

Centralized Processing and Distribution

It’s simply the nature of nearly all of our food that it comes from more than one source and goes through a centralized processing system somewhere. If you buy a liter of milk it doesn’t come from one cow. Farmers from many places combine the milk from all of their cows into one vat, which is then packaged for retail sale and distributed to supermarkets. The same thing is certainly true with our fruits and vegetables.

Not only does this distribution system more or less guarantee any contamination is spread through the entire system, but it makes the idea of testing for only one pesticide residue seem all that much more ridiculous. If testing for one pesticide is done on a particular farm or in a particular country, and tests for a different one are performed someplace else, after the products are combined clearly no meaningful testing has been done.

This distribution system nearly guarantees if 35 different pesticides are commonly used to grow grapes, and you buy a bottle of wine, it will almost certainly contain traces of all 35 pesticides.

Subsidies and Eastern Europe

Until recently almost no pesticides were used in the the former Soviet Block countries now in the EU. In the last few years the agricultural subsidies to these countries has increased sharply, and is apparently encouraging increased pesticide use. Tests performed on products coming from these countries show steadily increasing pesticide residues.

Another problem with subsidies is the trend in toward decreasing direct payment to farmers, but at the same time often different subsidies are available for things like pesticides. If a farmer finds him- or herself in a situation where highly discounted pesticides are available, and their use may result in even a small increase in crop yields, they may be tempted to use them much more intensively.

Certified Organic

If you really must shop at the supermarket, and think the way to address the problem of pesticides is to throw money at it, then buying certified organic products is always an option. By choosing certified organic products, you are supporting large farms at the expense of small ones. You are also not avoiding the problems of centralized processing and distribution, and since the use of ‘organic’ pesticides is often allowed you frequently don’t eliminate all of the environmental damage caused by traditional pesticides or all of the risks to your health. Certified organic food is also often among the most energy intensive food available. Organic standards are increasingly becoming watered down and less meaningful, and this trend looks set to continue. But if you must, this is a possible way to reduce your exposure to pesticides.

When you go to the store and buy certified organic products, you should think of yourself the same as a tourist from a rich country visiting a less developed one with a big pocket book. Unwilling to learn and adapt to local ways and customs, and insisting instead on spending lots of money to achieve the same standard of living you enjoy at home. By spending lots of money on certified organic foods, to avoid thinking about and becoming more connected with what you eat, you are simply cheating yourself and avoiding the experience of eating truly high quality foods. By promoting certified organic food to all of your family and friends, you doing little more than acting as a spokesperson for large agricultural interests.

What Can You Really Do?

Grow your own fruits and vegetables.

Buy locally grown products from people you trust.

Choose fruits and vegetables that aren’t usually grown with a lot of pesticides, in particular:

Avocado
Kiwi
Plums
Passion Fruit
Mango
Black Currant
Cherries
Fennel
Asparagus
Belgian Endive
Red Cabbage
Green Cabbage
Cauliflower
Mushrooms

Avoid ones that are normally high in pesticides:

Mandarins/Clementines
Lemons
Grapefruit
Oranges
Grapes
Currants
Apples
Lettuce
Hot Peppers/Bell Peppers
Endive
Stalk Celery

Contact your EU Agricultural Ministers, possibly through local organizations. If you are in Holland, follow the link above to Weet Wat Je Eet. Tell these politicians we need meaningful testing of pesticide levels, and foods that exceed them should be promptly removed from the market.

In case you thought we all lived in a democracy and your opinion mattered, think again. Apparently our European MPs don’t want the pressure of public opinion so votes on these matters are generally taken in secret. Secret parliamentary votes are undemocratic. Be sure to tell your politicians they should make their positions public so it’s clear who can be supported in future elections. Silence means they can’t be supported.

Interesting Blog — Junkfood Science

I recently came across an interesting blog called Junkfood Science.

This blog written by Sandy Szwarc is not a ‘normal’ blog in that you can’t leave comments and it’s clearly not run by an amateur. Sandy appears to be a well established journalist. This blog is also very North American (mostly United States) in flavor, and may not be of great interest to people not living there or who otherwise don’t have roots in the area. This blog also has very little to do with gardening.

What I find interesting about this blog is that while written mostly from the perspective of a health professional and nutritional specialist, it has a very similar tone and point of view as this blog has to biodiversity, gardening, agriculture and processed food. Most of the topics she addresses on her blog have a direct counter part with something discussed over here.

I think it’s a very interesting blog to read along side this one!

Also, if you are interested in learning more about the US health care system, I recommend Michael Moore’s latest film Sicko.

European Pesticide Watch

I’m sorry for all of you reading this outside of the European Union, this doesn’t really apply to you.

There is a Dutch language article on the subject here.

For you Europeans, there is an important vote coming up on Tuesday in the EU parliament on the issue of pesticide use in Europe. For Holland this is a very important issue, because there is a great deal of pollution caused by agricultural poisons. A large percentage of these pesticides are used by the flower industry in order to grow blemish free cut flowers and flower bulbs for export. These pesticides are of course different than what is used for food, and have different criteria for safety.

These pesticides are polluting the surface water, meaning drinking water has to come from deeper and deeper wells, a process that can’t continue forever.

Holland also has many important and fragile ecosystems that are kept under constant stress by the use of these chemicals.

The upcoming vote, this Tuesday 17 July, is for a series of amendments to an already agreed upon resolution. Among other things these measures call for a 50% reduction in pesticide use in the next 10 years (amendment 119), creation of a new pesticide tax (amendment ITRE 2) and allocation of money for organic agriculture (amendment 287).

A secret vote on these measures is planned! In case some of you thought we lived in a democracy that was sensitive to the wishes of the people, apparently in this case they don’t want the pressure of public opinion. As well as encouraging your representatives to support these measures, please also encourage them to voluntarily make their votes public so it’s clear who should be supported in the next elections.

Aspartame Sweetener

A recent study in Italy discovered a link between aspartame and cancer. Aspartame is the artificial sweetener used in soft drinks and over 5000 other products in the US. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not concerned, and says there is no reason to review the safety of this product.

This is kind of interesting, because in 1995 a document containing data from the FDA, which was released after some considerable effort and a Freedom of Information Act request, shows the FDA is aware of 92 symptoms associated with aspartame, including cancer, neurological problems, even death! It’s worth having a look at some of the other links on this same site on the subject too. One of the reasons for all of these symptoms is aspartame breaks down in your body into several different chemicals including formaldehyde, a known neurological poison and carcinogen.

One of the things many people don’t know about aspartame is it causes weight gain. It does this because it makes you crave carbohydrates.

Aspartame can aggravate medical problems associated with diabetes.

Aspartame is one of several controversial products that does not itself contain modified DNA, but is made with the assistance of micro-organisms that do. This technique is used in a number of products including rennet used to make hard cheese, as well as a number of pharmaceutical products and food supplements. This is how Unilever’s famous fish ice cream anti-freeze is made. This technique was apparently behind the manufacture of the now restricted food supplement L-tryptophan, which was the source of a very serious poisoning epidemic in the US in 1989 involving at least 707 people in 48 states.

Monsanto, the well known GM seed company, holds the patent for aspartame.

Because aspartame is not itself a GM product, rather only made with the assistance of GM organisms, it does not have to be labeled nor is it’s sale restricted in Europe.

The approval of aspartame in the US was surrounded in controversy. Donald Rumsfeld (of all people) was first the CEO at Searle laboratories, where aspartame was developed, and then on Ronald Reagan’s transition team after he won the presidential election. Rumsfeld appointed a new head of the FDA, who then quickly lead the way for the approval of aspartame.

The economics behind aspartame are pretty obvious. While there are clearly some initial development costs and production facilities need to be built, there should be virtually no ongoing costs because it is simply a matter of letting the GM micro-organisms do the work. Considering the volume of aspartame sold worldwide, this should bring the cost down to almost nothing.

While sugar doesn’t cost very much, when considering that sugar beets or cane (or corn for the high fructose corn syrup used in the US) need to be grown, processed and transported, it’s easy to see that aspartame should cost far less. When you consider for example how many cans of soft drinks are sold worldwide, it’s pretty easy to see why there would be a lot more money in selling drinks made with aspartame rather than sugar.

To me this situation looks a lot like Big Tobacco from a few years ago. Massive profit margins meant unending advertising campaigns and paid spin doctors telling us there was no proof tobacco was addicting or breathing other people’s smoke was unhealthy. They would tell us things like, of course tobacco is unhealthy, we’ve known it for decades, that’s what it says on the package, but smokers have the right to smoke anywhere and everywhere at anytime, because they have rights too. Remember those years? Now of course we all have a different view of the situation. Many people now have serious health problems because the tobacco companies were able to drag their feet for so long, and the politicians were only too happy to go along.

Something very similar is going on with aspartame. When challenged on the issue company spokesmen will tell us of course some people have allergies to it, but there is no proof of anything more serious than that. They tell us there are many conspiracy theories on the Internet! In the recent discussion on sugary drinks being sold in schools where they might be temping to children, the soft drink industry was very quick to suggest aspartame as a healthier alternative to sugar.

If there was any ingredient for all of us to avoid in processed foods, this could very well be the most important!