Posted on

Europe to Subsidize GMOs via Plastic Bag Tax

In most of Europe we have to bag our own groceries in supermarkets.  If we don’t provide our own bags, we need to buy them.

It’s been a battle for some years now.  Supermarkets always want to offer free bags as a convenience.  They don’t usually like it when customers bring their own backpacks and the like, for fear of shoplifting.

In recent years a number of EU countries have started to impose bag or packaging taxes, presumably in order to further reduce the use of plastics in supermarkets.  Now suddenly GMO plastics have started to replace petroleum based plastics, and national governments are beginning to exempt GMO plastics from these taxes, in effect subsidizing their use.

The Netherlands has a tax scheme that strongly favors GMO plastics, taxing them at a lower rate.  Germany has exempted GMO plastics from their bag tax completely.  In other countries like Ireland, governments are being lobbied to scrap their taxes on GMO plastics.

Here’s a bag I bought from a local supermarket a few days ago:

Notice the logo in the upper corner:

It says ‘This bag is made from corn and fully compostable’.  I bought another bag from a natural foods store a few days ago, and it had this on it:

On the bottom is says ‘This bag is biodegradable’.  The clerk who sold me the bag said it was made from potatoes.

Is it a coincidence that the only two GM crops approved for planting in Europe are a ‘high starch’ potato and a corn variety?  I don’t think so.  We’ve been told for years now these two varieties are not destined for human consumption.

For the record I want to say to both Marqt and Ekoplaza that I’m very disappointed they would sell GMOs to their customers in this way, especially as they are not even clearly labelled for what they are.  This is a very misleading and dishonest thing to do.

Greenwashing

The argument goes that plastics are a huge environmental problem — so far I guess we all agree.  Therefore compostable or biodegradable GMO plastics are better — I guess this is where the agreement ends.

The argument is not unlike how expensive mercury filled bulbs imported from China are supposed to be better for us than cheaper locally made standard light bulbs.  The argument is not complete and not accurate.

Netherlands

Here in the Netherlands the argument goes that we are a coastal area, with canals that carry water out to sea.  A percentage of litter falls into these canals, and ultimately contributes to the ‘big plastic soup’ in the oceans.  What’s missing of course in this argument are actual statistics or studies that show how much this is as a proportion of the plastics in the sea, if there aren’t better ways of managing the problem for example filtering the water as it leaves land, and any sort of proof or explanation as to why GMO plastics are in any way better for the environment.

Certainly, if you as a consumer properly dispose of your waste and don’t throw it in the ocean, the entire argument of GMO plastics being better vanishes.

Compostable or Biodegradable

Biodegradable is a legally defined term, that indicates something will break down into naturally occurring components.  Compostable is a looser term, that simply means it will break down into something supposedly harmless, but not necessarily naturally occurring.

In either case, these plastics do not break down at all, except in industrial processes.  You can’t compost these plastics at home in your own garden, and there is no guarantee they will breakdown in the environment in any sort of reasonable time frame.  Once they do break down, all we have is the word of the manufactures that they will break down into something harmless.  In particular, it seems unlikely they would breakdown quickly in the cold dark oceans.

If they are disposed of properly, they are certainly of no added environmental benefit.  In a landfill they would still take up the same space as normal plastic, and if incinerated they would also break down in a similar way as ordinary plastic.  There are unlikely to be more or better recycling possibilities when compared to ordinary plastic.  In fact the presence of even a very small amount of GMO plastic can contaminate a batch of traditional PET or other plastics and undermine recycling efforts.

Agriculture is the Single Most Important Contributor to Climate Change

It’s highly unlikely GMO plastic can be produced with less impact to the environment as ordinary plastic.  This is the tiresome argument of biofuels, which take more energy to produce than is in the resulting product.

GMO crops still need chemicals and fertilizers, which are based on fossil fuels and impact the environment.

Labelling

In Europe there are labelling laws requiring the labelling of most GMO foods.  Packaging and plastics should not be exempt!  Consumers should have the right to choose alternatives.

Posted on

The Snail of Happiness

I came across this site a few days ago, and thought I’d mention it here.

I think it’s written by a she, who’s interested in permaculture, sustainable living and gardening.  In her most recent post she mentions she has a PhD in land reclamation:

…which involved studying the re-creation of vegetation systems on restored open cast coal sites. I am fascinated by looking at natural relationships and seeing how these can be applied to physical and social systems created by people. For me, the easiest way to think about this sort of design is in my garden, because I understand the value and function of things like soil structure, micro-organisms, micro-climate, water, pollinators, decomposers and vegetation. But I am increasingly intrigued about how I can apply systems-level thinking to other aspects of my life: starting a new business, working with other people, designing a course for adult learners…

Her blog is already bringing back memories of the first few years of this blog, and I think it’s going to be very interesting to follow as she goes along.

Posted on

Dutch Elections

I’ve written before about Dutch politics.  It’s looking like we will have elections soon, so I thought I would try to give anyone out there interested enough information so you could follow along if you want.

The Netherlands has a multi-party system that normally results in coalition governments of some kind.  Unlike the US or UK, we don’t really have just a few parties, one of which is certain to win, but rather a number of smaller parties who’s popularity ebbs and flows.

At the moment we have a coalition government formed of a number of smaller right wing parties.  This coalition resulted because in the last election the popularity of the larger parties faltered, and many smaller factional parties got the majority of the vote, with nearly a perfect 50/50 left right split.  It’s not a strong coalition, and a particularly contentious and unpredictable member is the PVV, Geert Wilders anti-immigrant party.

At the moment the Dutch government is busy trying to pass their budget, together with austerity measures needed to bring government spending within European norms.  Broad support of as many political parties as possible is necessary for this, but especially those within the government coalition.  As of yesterday, the PVV had walked out of these negotiations, and if they do not return, the austerity measures are not likely to pass, and this will almost certainly cause the collapse of the government and trigger new elections.  Even if they do pass the austerity measures, the government is not expected to last much longer.

Okay, so what happens during and after an election?

You can find the current public opinion polls here.

Okay, the blue bars on the left are the current Dutch lower house seats from the last elections.  The red bars are the polls from about 3 weeks ago, and the cream colored bars are the most recent polling.  If you hover your mouse over the bars, the number on the bottom is the number of seats.  A coalition needs to be formed of at least 76 seats in order to form a cabinet and government.

The major parties are:

VVD: These are the fiscal liberals, with liberal having the European meaning conservative or right wing, unlike what it means in north America.  This is a center-right to right party, with a strong sense of needing to keep the rich people rich.  In the past they have been part of left wing coalitions, and for example recently supported legalizing euthanasia and gay marriage, but mostly they favor more conservative social policies and are more likely to form political coalitions with parties more to the right.

PvdA:  This is the Labour party.  Historically they support collective bargaining rights, and tend to be center-left on the political scale.  Like their counterparts the Democrats in the US, and similar parties in other parts of the world, they have been having a bit of an identity crisis lately.  Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference between them and politicians on the right, because they all vote for the same policies.  They were in a coalition with VVD several years ago, that was popular at the time, but in hindsight most people considered a failure because the PvdA did not do a good enough job expressing themselves.  They were in the news lately because the former leader of the party decided the party should be more left, but couldn’t find support for this within the party so he stepped down.  It’s looking pretty likely they will find themselves in another coalition with VVD after the next elections.

PVV:  This is the anti-immigrant party headed by Geert Wilders.  A small percentage of the country actually votes for them, but because of the multi-party system here they are able to have a lot of influence in the government.  Pretty much none of the other parties want to work with them, but in the end some will probably have to.

CDA:  The Christian Democrats.  They are popular with Christian voters, and for a number of years were the largest party in the country.  While they are socially conservative, mostly they are just slimy politicians and increasingly people are realizing this and not voting for them.

SP:  Socialist Party.  This party hasn’t been in a government within recent memory, but they are doing very well in the polls.  Many people don’t want to vote for PvdA any more, because no one knows if they are left or right, and so are choosing SP instead.  Most of the other parties do not want to work with SP, because they are considered unpredictable, but it seems pretty likely they may be part of the next government.

D66:  This is a center-right party, non-religious and always small.  They are similar to CDA, but are sometimes thought of as more honest.  The other parties probably consider them untrustworthy, because they caused the collapse of a recent government coalition and triggered elections.

The other parties are probably too small to be considered serious contenders, but if anyone is interested in hearing about them, let me know.

After the elections, the party with the most votes will initiate coalition talks with the other parties.  If they don’t succeed, the party with the second largest number of votes tries, and so on.  If no coalition can be found, new elections are called again.

Posted on

Ban MON810 in Poland

Poland, a country that’s sometimes, mostly, GMO free is encountering more political problems.  The only legal GMO corn variety in Europe, Monsanto’s Bt MON810 is currently legal in Poland.

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.

Posted on

Sugar Tax

Wow, the politics in the US are sure heating up and getting intertwined!  Time was where you had a few powerful lobbies, who all looked after their own interests.  Increasingly the US is starting to see powerful lobbies working together in very convoluted ways.  Now a sugar tax?

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?