An inevitable consequence of the media’s addiction to controversy is the polarisation of publicly-expressed opinions. Saying that sonmething is “probably not perfect” is not going to attract much attention, so for those who seek it, the temptation is always to take an extreme position, even when it is several steps beyond the comfortable reach of supporting evidence.

Such is the case with recent ill-informed attacks on organic food by a selection of apologists for agri-business and bio-technology, whose attitude seems to be characterised by, “we are scientists, therefore we know what is good for you” overlaid with “anyone who disagrees with us is clearly an ignorant Luddite whose opinions do not count.” (In fact, Luddites were far from ignorant: see The Ecologist Vol 29 #5.)

Suggestions that organic food is likely to cause outbreaks of E coli poisoning have been made with no reference to any actual examples, and with apparent disregard to the fact that recent E coli outbreaks in the UK have beed caused by non-organic meat and poor hygeine. There have also been no instances of BSE in organically-reared cattle.

The fact is that organic food is probably not perfect. Many organic vegetables, like their chemi-culture equivalents, probably contain traces of dioxin and DDT, chemicals once freely sprayed by farmers and declared ‘safe’ by scientists.

Some organic maize has been found to have been contaminated by pollen from GM crops several miles away, against ‘scientific’ predictions. Some processed organic food undoubtedly contains more sugar and/or fat than some artificially sweetened, coloured and preserved non-organic equivalents. Some organic fruits have – horror of horrors - marks on their skins, offensive to the eyes of EC bureauocrats and supermarket buyers who would prefer everything to be a regulation size, shape and colour, unblemished by anything vulgarly ‘natural’.
Yet, despite these imperfections, public taste is moving inexorably in favour of food grown using agricultural systems that nourish and enrich the soil, rather than treating is merely as a convenient factory floor.
Ironically – and to the despair of the biotech industry and its political allies – this shift is a direct result of the clumsy attempts of companies like Monsanto (recently reborn as Pharmacia) and AgrEvo (now Aventis) to smuggle their 'miracle' products into our food chain unnoticed.

Why have we been so ungrateful as to dare to reject these remarkable creations of science in favour of crops grown on animal dung? Was it, perhaps, the unseemly haste with which they were rushed to market, unfettered by proper testing or public consultation? Was it the arrogant and belligerent behaviour of Monsanto et al towards anyone who challenged their right to patent native plants and to dominate the world’s seed markets? Was it the unspeakably slick PR campaign that famously succeeded only in convincing Europeans that Monsanto are as trustworthy as a rattlesnake?


Or perhaps it is that an increasingly savvy public has begun to realise that social change can now be effected more swiftly and more profoundly through the purse than through the ballot box. Paradoxically, as a direct consequence of post-industrial capitalism, the daily decisions we each make about spending our money have overtaken voting at general elections to become the most accessible expression of democracy. The best-laid plans of politicians in cahoots with industrialists can be laid waste by a nation deciding, en masse, to back an alternative idea. People have discovered the power of the purse.

European supermarkets were persuaded to remove GM foods from their shelves not by an outbreak of ethics among their boards of directors, but by an unprecedented mass direct action by their customers, four out of five of whom – to the profound discomfort of the patriarchal biotech high priesthood – turn out to be women. By voting with their purses, ordinary shoppers caused massive corporations to change direction in defiance of government policy.

Since then, the supermarkets have become hyper-sensitive to public opinion and are currently falling over each other in an attempt to champion the organic cause, which formerly they had treated with barely-disguised disdain.

Growing one’s own food and trading surpluses locally was, within living memory, considered a routine part of community life across Britain and, in those places where ‘community’ is more than just a PC catchphrase, it is still common practice. Wartime allotments are being defended as fiercely as the Flanders trenches as more and more people begin to realise that by taking control of their own food supply, they are not only ensuring a degree of purity that they no longer trust agri-business to provide, but that they are making a political statement about government interference in their lives.

If a real mass movement continues to develop towards locally-sourced and organically-grown food, not only could we save many millions of food-miles each year, with consequent reductions of fossil fuel pollution, but millions of pounds would remain in circulation for longer within local economies.

Phil Chandler

_{-- Delivered by Feed43 service}

Natural Collection like to tell people how ethical they are. They have even won awards for it, but behind the PR, just how ethical are they?

From where I sit, it looks like they are using 'black hat' SEO tactics to draw traffic away from one of their popular competitors, the long-established Totnes company Greenfibres.

Take a look at this image from their web site on 4th August 2009 (click the image for a better view):



The words 'Green Fibres' are prominent, above a list of products that are in no way relevant to this title. Greenfibres is, of course, a registered trade mark, so they would clearly be crossing a line by using it as one word, but by showing it as two words, they can wriggle around the letter of the law, but still show up on Google searches for 'greenfibres'.

Here is another image from their site, same date, this time showing the result of a search on their site using the term 'greenfibres':



Again, they list products that are not sourced from Greenfibres and do not have the words 'green' or 'fibres' in their description. This is clear evidence that their claim to be ethical does not extend to their SEO activities, so it must raise the question: exactly how ethical is Natural Collection?

_{-- Delivered by Feed43 service}

The more I hear about divorce, the more I think marriage should carry a serious health warning - especially for men.

A friend of mine, who spent all his working life accumulating enough funds to buy himself a house and keep himself in his dotage, has recently been served with divorce papers by his wife of ten years, on the pretext of 'unreasonable behaviour' - that convenient catch-all for partners who want out, but not for any readily identifiable reason. She cited such trivia as his 'refusal to involve her in the family finances' (she never worked, had no knowledge of investment and has a talent for spending money); and his 'not allowing her to use the family car' (completely untrue, and if her driving was less dangerous, she might have been able to use it more often).

He bought the house, entirely with his own money, many years before meeting her, yet she has declared in her petition that she wants the house, half his money, maintenance and a lump sum. It really is remarkable that a such a greedy, selfish woman can ruin the life of an honest, hard-working man, who has provided for her every need, and - potentially - wreck the lives of her three children, apparently on a whim. Unfortunately, it happens only too often, with the man usually being the loser, no matter what he has or has not done, because courts almost always award custody to the mother, no matter if she is negligent, bullying or less able to take care of them than their father.

It's time for a more even-handed approach to divorce, starting from the premise that parties should come out of the marriage with what they brought to it, and putting a stop to gold-digging.

_{-- Delivered by Feed43 service}

September 2008 will go down in history as the month in which Thatcher's 'greed is good' doctrine was finally found out as the bankrupt, heartless garbage that some of us always knew it was.

The greedy gamblers who have played fast and loose with our money, backed by the Thatcher-Reagan partnership and supported without question by Blair and Brown, have at last been hoisted on their collective petard and hung out to dry by an American public revolt, reflected in Congress' failed attempt to pass a bill designed to bail them out of the crisis they created.

Here in the UK, our old-established building societies destroyed themselves by trying to be banks and hiring people with the same warped set of values as those who park their Ferraris at Canary Wharf. Once bastions of solid, people-based British values, providing affordable loans to buy houses for people who actually wanted to live in them, they became embroiled in financing those who only wanted to make a profit from housing people who could no longer afford to buy, thanks to the gross inflation of the housing market, aided and abetted by estate agents. Privatized building societies lost their sense of what they were created for and jumped aboard a bandwagon that was heading straight for a cliff, while the regulatory bodies stood by and watched.

Thousands out of work, and I have sympathy only for those at the bottom of the heap - the counter staff and other innocents. Perhaps this is an opportunity for get-rich-quick speculators and gamblers to find themselves something more useful to do: social workers or nurses, perhaps.

The ramifications of this massive financial earthquake will be felt for years and even short-term fallout is hard to predict, but what is sure is that Wall Street will never be the same again - until the next time.

_{-- Delivered by Feed43 service}