My esteem for wedding planners runs deep. Theirs is a demanding skill set – equal parts etiquette maven, fashion consultant, economist, music scout, florist and therapist. Not my strong suits. (I have enough trouble matching socks with trousers.) Yet every year around this time I find myself channelling Jennifer Lopez to wrestle with that inevitable reader question: “I’m getting married! Can you recommend a decent red and white for 12 bucks? P.S.: We’re having sushi, roast beef and vegan chana masala.” Occasionally I’m also asked about bubbly and spirits.
Besides “lots” in response to that last consideration, I usually have as many questions as answers. Every wedding is unique, and tastes are hard to anticipate. According to a recent poll by Weddingbells magazine, the average Canadian reception this year is expected to include 124 guests. I dare say it’s easier to land Mr. Right (or Jennifer Lopez) than identify two wines for $12 that will bowl over everybody in such a large group – regardless of the food on the table.
With that caveat in mind, let me (cautiously) offer some cheap-chic suggestions as well as general pointers should the Big Day be around the corner for you.
A top white option: Marques de Riscal Rueda 2012 from Spain ($11.40 in Ontario). It’s light and crisp but substantial in flavour, offering notes of melon and red apple that should hold their own against the smog of cologne and perfume. On the red front, I’d suggest Pasqua Villa Borghetti Passimento Rosso 2010, a medium-bodied, velvety Italian that can span the spectrum from fish to beef. Full disclosure: It costs $12.95 in Ontario, but you’re saving 60 cents on the Rueda, and it wouldn’t be a wedding if you came in under budget. Alternatives: Fleur de Coucou Touraine Sauvignon 2011 from France ($11.75) and Castillo de Almansa Reserva 2009 from Spain ($11.95).
By all means opt for a broader selection, including a microbrewed beer and decent spirits, says Roseanne Dela Rosa, associate editor at Weddingbells. “Don’t assume everybody has the same taste as you,” she wisely notes. More choice won’t tax the budget because the outlay ultimately comes down to consumption. If you’re hosting at a private locale and shopping directly from a store, you can in most cases return sealed leftovers for a refund.
One category that could unnecessarily squeeze finances is bubbly. It’s festive, certainly, but don’t feel coerced merely because of the celebratory optics. Geneve McNally, one of the founding partners and principal planners of DreamGroup Productions, a Vancouver wedding and event-planning company, warns that sparkling wine is wasted on a lot of people. “They will just do a toast and then you have half-filled glasses sitting around,” she says. “I say do it for the right crowd.” Her current favourite: Blue Mountain Brut from British Columbia ($23.90), a brilliant choice, I might add. My bargain favourite: Segura Viudas Brut Cava from Spain ($14.25).
Alternatively, you could consider a themed cocktail, which ranks up there on the wedding-trend-o-meter with food trucks, live-streamed video and carbon-neutral receptions. I can’t offer a recipe, since I don’t know your tastes, but I gather that lavender, elderflower liqueur and the colour purple are in vogue. On that last point, McNally offers a warning. Fixating on a colour to match your flower hair clips or the bridesmaids’ dresses is “a mistake. Don’t send a venue a swatch of your dress and say ‘match it’ because it’s going to be full of blue curacao.”
Craft the drink to capture a mood rather than hiring Benjamin Moore to play bartender, she advises. It could be spiked lemonade in mason jars with fat drinking straws for a down-home feel, for example, or margarita shots served in hollowed-out lime halves for an upscale spring-break vibe. And take the time to taste in advance. McNally says she’s seen more pitiable potations than pleasant in her 16 years in the business.
And yet, there are exceptions. Last summer McNally braced for disappointment when a purple-smitten bride and her gal pals devised a vodka-based pitcher drink to match the purple flowers planned for a tony Hotel Vancouver wedding. “It was delicious,” McNally says. After the first few pitchers were drained, “they had to keep going back and making it. They couldn’t keep up with demand.”
Friday, 26 April 2013
Why you won’t find the word ‘organic’ on wine labels
As a growing number of wine producers go organic, one frustrating challenge persists for green-conscious oenophiles: Many organic producers simply don’t label their wines as such. The marketing vacuum can seem like a missed opportunity, given the increasing consumer demand for pesticide-free pinots and cabernets, but there’s good reason for it. “Organic” still carries a stigma in some circles.
There are, for example, drinkers who believe the designation is merely a marketing ploy designed to fetch a price premium. Worse, some people expect organic wines to taste inferior, the same bias that unfairly plagues today’s quality kosher wines. But there’s another reason: Most organic producers are driven by imperatives that have nothing to do with sparing you or me from headaches (the main malady cited by the readers of this column who regularly ask for organic-wine recommendations). These producers simply are not targeting the health-conscious segment of the market.
The incentive to work without toxic pesticides and herbicides generally has more to do with ecosystem vitality and vineyard-employee safety (not that nasty chemicals are rampant in fine-wine production, by the way). By getting knee-deep in cow dung and harnessing natural vinepest predators such as wasps and bats, organic producers believe they’re growing healthier vines and better grapes, end of story. The wine, they believe, should stand on its own merits, not on perceived health benefits.
Some of the greatest names in the firmament, including France’s Domaine de la Romanée-Conti, Château de Beaucastel, Zind-Humbrecht and Louis Roederer, have quietly embraced zero-pesticide farming. This is not to say that all quality producers remain in the closet. You will find exemplary producers that have taken up the cause – some discreetly, some more openly – including Summerhill Pyramid in British Columbia and Tawse and Southbrook in Niagara.
The first seven wines in the notes below, from today’s release at Ontario Vintages stores, are made from organically grown grapes. The first three were also farmed biodynamically, a sort of super-organic practice that relies on extreme ecological self-sufficiency, often including homemade compost sprays and a sprinkling of cosmic mysticism. They may not spare you from suspected sulphite headaches (since all wine contains sulphites, a byproduct of fermentation), but they do represent less of a headache for the planet.
Quartz Reef Pinot Noir 2010 (New Zealand)
SCORE: 92 PRICE: $44.95
Austrian-born Rudi Bauer landed in New Zealand in the 1980s and pioneered grape growing in Central Otago, the world’s southernmost wine region. His winery, Quartz Reef, is among the country’s finest, and this biodynamically grown pinot offers clear evidence. Resembling a fine, premier cru Burgundy, it is medium-bodied and elegant, with pure berry flavour laced with baking spices, beetroot and moist earth. The tannins are ample but fine-grained and the finish is satisfyingly crisp. Perfect for duck breast, grilled salmon or roast pork.
Wittmann Riesling Trocken 2011 (Germany)
SCORE: 90 PRICE: $20.95
Light but big on flavour, this dry German white tastes as though it were squeezed from ripe peaches. Well, almost. Succulent and initially soft, it pulls up the rear with tangy acidity and a whisper of chalk. Great for simply prepared freshwater fish. Organic and biodynamic.
Southbrook Triomphe Cabernet Franc 2011 (Ontario)
SCORE: 89 PRICE: $21.95
Medium-full-bodied and bone-dry, here is a properly ripe cabernet franc that never lets the grape’s herbal tendencies get the better of it. Well-structured, with an astringent backbone, it offers up additional nuances of earth and smoke. Try it with roast lamb. Organic and biodynamic.
La Cappuccina Soave 2012 (Italy)
SCORE: 89 PRICE: $14.95
It may sound like a Starbucks beverage, but this is white wine – from a Veneto estate that went au naturel way back in the organic stone age of 1985. It is light and crisp, though with more concentration than the run-of-the- mill Soave you’ll find by the glass in cheap Italian restaurants. Crisp peach and tangy herbs give way to pleasant, racy sourness on the finish. A lovely patio sipper, it would suit light seafood and salads. Organic.
Domaine Saint-Rémy Gewurztraminer Réserve 2011 (France)
SCORE: 88 PRICE: $18.95
A dollop sweeter than off-dry, here is an Alsatian white with all the classic gewurztraminer nuances – lychee, ginger and flowers – plus a note of honey. The texture is delectably smooth, almost syrupy, but it is well-balanced. Perfect with foie gras or liver pâtés. Organic.
Frog’s Leap Chardonnay 2011 (California)
SCORE: 89 PRICE: $36.95
Barrel-fermented, Frog’s Leap’s 2011 chardonnay was mainly aged in neutral concrete vats, with just 7.5 per cent matured in wood barrels. Despite the modest oak treatment, it is rich and smooth, with big tropical fruit bathed in toffee and brown butter, balanced by crisp acidity. It is ideal for fish or chicken in cream sauce. Organic.
Familia Zuccardi Organica Cabernet Sauvignon 2011 (Argentina)
SCORE: 85 PRICE: $13.95
Big producers are more likely to play up the organic status of their wines, as is the case here. If you are looking for a green bargain, this may be worth considering. It is concentrated and ripe in a crowd-pleasing way, but the fruit veers toward the confected, wine-gum side, with a grip of bitter herbs on the finish. Good for braised meats. Organic.
Quails’ Gate Merlot 2010 (British Columbia)
SCORE: 90 PRICE: $26.95
This is a meaty merlot, full-bodied and ripe, with flavours of plum, blackberry, vanilla and coffee. Very dry, it is supported by substantial fine tannins. Not organic. Pair it with big steaks or braised red meats. $22.97 in B.C., $27.19 in Sask., $22.99 in Man.
Yalumba Patchwork Shiraz 2010 (Australia)
SCORE: 90 PRICE: $21.95
It is not organic, but it claims another ethical virtue. It is “vegan and vegetarian friendly.” Translation: No animal-derived clarifying agents, such as milk or egg whites. Rich and boldly fruity, this Barossa Valley red delivers concentrated plum and blackberry flavours supported by vanilla, spice and tangy acidity. Pair it with substantial red-meat dishes. $25.99 in B.C., $24.99 in N.S.
Clos de Nouys Demi-Sec Vouvray 2011 (France)
SCORE: 90 PRICE: $19.95 Prepare yourself for considerable off-dry sweetness. But this is sumptuously balanced chenin blanc from the Loire Valley, with honeyed cantaloupe lifted by juicy acidity, spice and a tingle of chalky minerality. It is perfect for spicy crab cakes or the cheese course. Available only in Ontario. Not organic.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/food-and-wine/wine/why-you-wont-find-the-word-organic-on-wine-labels/article11498621/
There are, for example, drinkers who believe the designation is merely a marketing ploy designed to fetch a price premium. Worse, some people expect organic wines to taste inferior, the same bias that unfairly plagues today’s quality kosher wines. But there’s another reason: Most organic producers are driven by imperatives that have nothing to do with sparing you or me from headaches (the main malady cited by the readers of this column who regularly ask for organic-wine recommendations). These producers simply are not targeting the health-conscious segment of the market.
The incentive to work without toxic pesticides and herbicides generally has more to do with ecosystem vitality and vineyard-employee safety (not that nasty chemicals are rampant in fine-wine production, by the way). By getting knee-deep in cow dung and harnessing natural vinepest predators such as wasps and bats, organic producers believe they’re growing healthier vines and better grapes, end of story. The wine, they believe, should stand on its own merits, not on perceived health benefits.
Some of the greatest names in the firmament, including France’s Domaine de la Romanée-Conti, Château de Beaucastel, Zind-Humbrecht and Louis Roederer, have quietly embraced zero-pesticide farming. This is not to say that all quality producers remain in the closet. You will find exemplary producers that have taken up the cause – some discreetly, some more openly – including Summerhill Pyramid in British Columbia and Tawse and Southbrook in Niagara.
The first seven wines in the notes below, from today’s release at Ontario Vintages stores, are made from organically grown grapes. The first three were also farmed biodynamically, a sort of super-organic practice that relies on extreme ecological self-sufficiency, often including homemade compost sprays and a sprinkling of cosmic mysticism. They may not spare you from suspected sulphite headaches (since all wine contains sulphites, a byproduct of fermentation), but they do represent less of a headache for the planet.
Quartz Reef Pinot Noir 2010 (New Zealand)
SCORE: 92 PRICE: $44.95
Austrian-born Rudi Bauer landed in New Zealand in the 1980s and pioneered grape growing in Central Otago, the world’s southernmost wine region. His winery, Quartz Reef, is among the country’s finest, and this biodynamically grown pinot offers clear evidence. Resembling a fine, premier cru Burgundy, it is medium-bodied and elegant, with pure berry flavour laced with baking spices, beetroot and moist earth. The tannins are ample but fine-grained and the finish is satisfyingly crisp. Perfect for duck breast, grilled salmon or roast pork.
Wittmann Riesling Trocken 2011 (Germany)
SCORE: 90 PRICE: $20.95
Light but big on flavour, this dry German white tastes as though it were squeezed from ripe peaches. Well, almost. Succulent and initially soft, it pulls up the rear with tangy acidity and a whisper of chalk. Great for simply prepared freshwater fish. Organic and biodynamic.
Southbrook Triomphe Cabernet Franc 2011 (Ontario)
SCORE: 89 PRICE: $21.95
Medium-full-bodied and bone-dry, here is a properly ripe cabernet franc that never lets the grape’s herbal tendencies get the better of it. Well-structured, with an astringent backbone, it offers up additional nuances of earth and smoke. Try it with roast lamb. Organic and biodynamic.
La Cappuccina Soave 2012 (Italy)
SCORE: 89 PRICE: $14.95
It may sound like a Starbucks beverage, but this is white wine – from a Veneto estate that went au naturel way back in the organic stone age of 1985. It is light and crisp, though with more concentration than the run-of-the- mill Soave you’ll find by the glass in cheap Italian restaurants. Crisp peach and tangy herbs give way to pleasant, racy sourness on the finish. A lovely patio sipper, it would suit light seafood and salads. Organic.
Domaine Saint-Rémy Gewurztraminer Réserve 2011 (France)
SCORE: 88 PRICE: $18.95
A dollop sweeter than off-dry, here is an Alsatian white with all the classic gewurztraminer nuances – lychee, ginger and flowers – plus a note of honey. The texture is delectably smooth, almost syrupy, but it is well-balanced. Perfect with foie gras or liver pâtés. Organic.
Frog’s Leap Chardonnay 2011 (California)
SCORE: 89 PRICE: $36.95
Barrel-fermented, Frog’s Leap’s 2011 chardonnay was mainly aged in neutral concrete vats, with just 7.5 per cent matured in wood barrels. Despite the modest oak treatment, it is rich and smooth, with big tropical fruit bathed in toffee and brown butter, balanced by crisp acidity. It is ideal for fish or chicken in cream sauce. Organic.
Familia Zuccardi Organica Cabernet Sauvignon 2011 (Argentina)
SCORE: 85 PRICE: $13.95
Big producers are more likely to play up the organic status of their wines, as is the case here. If you are looking for a green bargain, this may be worth considering. It is concentrated and ripe in a crowd-pleasing way, but the fruit veers toward the confected, wine-gum side, with a grip of bitter herbs on the finish. Good for braised meats. Organic.
Quails’ Gate Merlot 2010 (British Columbia)
SCORE: 90 PRICE: $26.95
This is a meaty merlot, full-bodied and ripe, with flavours of plum, blackberry, vanilla and coffee. Very dry, it is supported by substantial fine tannins. Not organic. Pair it with big steaks or braised red meats. $22.97 in B.C., $27.19 in Sask., $22.99 in Man.
Yalumba Patchwork Shiraz 2010 (Australia)
SCORE: 90 PRICE: $21.95
It is not organic, but it claims another ethical virtue. It is “vegan and vegetarian friendly.” Translation: No animal-derived clarifying agents, such as milk or egg whites. Rich and boldly fruity, this Barossa Valley red delivers concentrated plum and blackberry flavours supported by vanilla, spice and tangy acidity. Pair it with substantial red-meat dishes. $25.99 in B.C., $24.99 in N.S.
Clos de Nouys Demi-Sec Vouvray 2011 (France)
SCORE: 90 PRICE: $19.95 Prepare yourself for considerable off-dry sweetness. But this is sumptuously balanced chenin blanc from the Loire Valley, with honeyed cantaloupe lifted by juicy acidity, spice and a tingle of chalky minerality. It is perfect for spicy crab cakes or the cheese course. Available only in Ontario. Not organic.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/food-and-wine/wine/why-you-wont-find-the-word-organic-on-wine-labels/article11498621/
‘There are a lot of people who think opening a restaurant is easy, or fun. But it’s not fun’
Young, hip restaurants? No thanks, I’m happy being the unwanted oldster
Young, hip restaurants? No thanks, I’m happy being the unwanted oldster
by JOHN ALLEMANG
Old people are offensive – I get it. As The Globe’s food writer Chris Nuttall-Smith suggested on CBC’s The Current last week, people in their 50s and 60s don’t belong in today’s trendy restaurants, and not just because our grey hair is an unsightly reminder of human decay. Because we’re decrepit stiffs stuck with outmoded baby-boomer bodies and values, we’ve become the deserving casualties of a downtown-hipster scene that defines itself by eardrum-perforating ambience, unchewable house-cured offal, self-taught twentysomething chefs with laughable tats and a two-hour wait for unpadded seats at the communal picnic table.
Predictably, we even take offence at being mocked, to judge from the social-media outbursts that tasked my colleague for fomenting intergenerational strife. All Nuttall-Smith said, more or less, was that once you hit the age of a Barack Obama, the kind of restlessly fashionable dining experience that serious restaurant critics overvalue becomes disorienting, confusing and hard to take. Which is entirely true – with the exception of a few friendly, tradition-respecting Mediterranean and Asian joints, and a cloistered hideaway at the University of Toronto, I haven’t eaten at a local restaurant for nearly a decade.
My reluctance is entirely stereotypical, on both sides of the generational divide. I want to talk and this gang of restaurateurs wants to blast music that codifies their centre-of-the-universe specialness. I want to eat and they want me to wait, preferably with bizarre cocktails and insipid wines that privilege the hipster notion of laborious obscurity. I want to enter a world different from my own and they want to segregate according to age, taste, social class and, often, ethnicity.
These are niche restaurants, private clubs imbued with a self-referential silliness and a sadistic no-reservation policy. As an unwanted outsider, I could happily live with that – while awaiting my imminent mortality – if they didn’t pretend to be so much more. The idea that a few conformist kitchens in an off-centre (but not suburban!) neighbourhood of a dour North American city could define the meaning of food is laughable to anyone who has travelled, who has cooked for themselves, who has lived with their eyes and mind wide open. There is so much more out there, and so much less – who bothers with hipster Paris when you can eat perfect bread and cheese? – and I pity my fellow oldsters who still feel some atavistic urge to follow fashion and impale themselves on the culinary cutting edge. Get over it, get old, eat what you want with people you like.
But what really troubles the out-of-date and price-sensitive egalitarian in me is the idea expressed by the cool crowd that the modern restaurant scene is fundamentally more democratic. Compared to some high-end, faux-French, hushed-tone, Michelin-courting edifice of the 1980s, maybe. But let’s not get too carried away with our Momofuku brand of populism: If levelling is what you’re looking for, the average McDonald’s is far more accessible, diverse and inexpensive. And somehow they’ve managed to hang on to the ancient and still-wonderful idea that our meals should be happy.
by JOHN ALLEMANG
Old people are offensive – I get it. As The Globe’s food writer Chris Nuttall-Smith suggested on CBC’s The Current last week, people in their 50s and 60s don’t belong in today’s trendy restaurants, and not just because our grey hair is an unsightly reminder of human decay. Because we’re decrepit stiffs stuck with outmoded baby-boomer bodies and values, we’ve become the deserving casualties of a downtown-hipster scene that defines itself by eardrum-perforating ambience, unchewable house-cured offal, self-taught twentysomething chefs with laughable tats and a two-hour wait for unpadded seats at the communal picnic table.
Predictably, we even take offence at being mocked, to judge from the social-media outbursts that tasked my colleague for fomenting intergenerational strife. All Nuttall-Smith said, more or less, was that once you hit the age of a Barack Obama, the kind of restlessly fashionable dining experience that serious restaurant critics overvalue becomes disorienting, confusing and hard to take. Which is entirely true – with the exception of a few friendly, tradition-respecting Mediterranean and Asian joints, and a cloistered hideaway at the University of Toronto, I haven’t eaten at a local restaurant for nearly a decade.
My reluctance is entirely stereotypical, on both sides of the generational divide. I want to talk and this gang of restaurateurs wants to blast music that codifies their centre-of-the-universe specialness. I want to eat and they want me to wait, preferably with bizarre cocktails and insipid wines that privilege the hipster notion of laborious obscurity. I want to enter a world different from my own and they want to segregate according to age, taste, social class and, often, ethnicity.
These are niche restaurants, private clubs imbued with a self-referential silliness and a sadistic no-reservation policy. As an unwanted outsider, I could happily live with that – while awaiting my imminent mortality – if they didn’t pretend to be so much more. The idea that a few conformist kitchens in an off-centre (but not suburban!) neighbourhood of a dour North American city could define the meaning of food is laughable to anyone who has travelled, who has cooked for themselves, who has lived with their eyes and mind wide open. There is so much more out there, and so much less – who bothers with hipster Paris when you can eat perfect bread and cheese? – and I pity my fellow oldsters who still feel some atavistic urge to follow fashion and impale themselves on the culinary cutting edge. Get over it, get old, eat what you want with people you like.
But what really troubles the out-of-date and price-sensitive egalitarian in me is the idea expressed by the cool crowd that the modern restaurant scene is fundamentally more democratic. Compared to some high-end, faux-French, hushed-tone, Michelin-courting edifice of the 1980s, maybe. But let’s not get too carried away with our Momofuku brand of populism: If levelling is what you’re looking for, the average McDonald’s is far more accessible, diverse and inexpensive. And somehow they’ve managed to hang on to the ancient and still-wonderful idea that our meals should be happy.
Tuesday, 23 April 2013
Myths about industrial agriculture! by V. Shiva
| http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/2012998389284146.html |
Organic farming is the "only way to produce food" without harming the planet and people's health
|
Reports trying to create doubts about organic agriculture are suddenly flooding the media. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, people are fed up of the corporate assault of toxics and GMOs. Secondly, people are turning to organic agriculture and organic food as a way to end the toxic war against the earth and our bodies.
At a time when industry has set its eyes on the super profits to be harvested from seed monopolies through patented seeds and seeds engineered with toxic genes and genes for making crops resistant to herbicides, people are seeking food freedom through organic, non-industrial food.
The food revolution is the biggest revolution of our times, and the industry is panicking. So it spins propaganda, hoping that in the footsteps of Goebbels, a lie told a hundred times will become the truth. But food is different.
We are what we eat. We are our own barometers. Our farms and our bodies are our labs, and every farmer and every citizen is a scientist who knows best how bad farming and bad food hurts the land and our health, and how good farming and good food heals the planet and people.
One example of an industrial agriculture myth is found in "The Great Organic Myths" by Rob Johnston, published in the August 8 issue of The Tribune. It tries to argue:
"Organic foods are not healthier or better for the environment - and they're packed with pesticides. In an age of climate change and shortages, these foods are an indulgence the world can't afford."This article had been published in the Independent and rebutted, but was used by the Tribune without the rebuttal.
Every argument in the article is fraudulent.
The dominant myth of industrial agriculture is that it produces more food and is land-saving. However, the more industrial agriculture spreads, the more hungry people we have. And the more industrial agriculture spreads, the more land is grabbed.
The case against industrial agriculture
Productivity in industrial agriculture is measured in terms of "yield" per acre, not overall output. And the only input taken into account is labour, which is abundant, not natural resources which are scarce.
| "Industrial agriculture is an inefficient and wasteful system which is chemical intensive, fossil fuel intensive and capital intensive." |
According to the FAO International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources in Leipzig (1995), industrial agriculture is responsible for 75 per cent biodiversity erosion, 75 per cent water destruction, 75 per cent land degradation and 40 per cent greenhouse gases. It is too heavy a burden on the planet. And as the 270,000 farmers' suicides since 1997 in India show, it is too heavy a burden on our farmers.
The toxics and poisons used in chemical farming are creating a health burden for our society. Remember Bhopal. Remember the Endosulfan victims in Kerala. And remember Punjab's Cancer train.
Navdanya's forthcoming report "Poisons in our Food" is a synthesis of all studies on the health burden of pesticides which are used in industrial agriculture but not in organic farming.
Industrial agriculture is an inefficient and wasteful system which is chemical intensive, fossil fuel intensive and capital intensive. It destroys nature's capital on the one hand and society’s capital on the other, by displacing small farms and destroying health. According to David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agricultural sciences at Cornell University, it uses 10 units of energy as input to produce one unit of energy as food.
This waste is amplified by another factor of 10 when animals are put in factory farms and fed grain, instead of grass in free range ecological systems. Rob Johnston celebrates these animal prisons as efficient, ignoring the fact that it takes 7kg of grain to produce one kg of beef, 4kg of grain to produce 1kg of pork and 2.4kg of grain to produce 1kg of chicken.
The diversion of food grains to feed is a major contributor to world hunger. And the shadow acres to produce this grain are never counted. Europe uses 7 times the area outside Europe to produce feed for its factory farms.
 |
Industrialisation and globalisation is the exception, not the norm. And where industrialisation has not destroyed small farms and local food economies, biodiversity and food are bringing sustenance to people. The biodiversity of agriculture is being maintained by small farmers.
As the ETC report states in "Who Will Feed Us", "Peasants breed and nurture 40 livestock species and almost 8,000 breeds. Peasants also breed 5,000 domesticated crops and have donated more than 1.9 million plant varieties to the world's gene banks."
"Peasant fishers harvest and protect more than 15,000 freshwater species. The work of peasants and pastoralists maintaining soil fertility is 18 times more valuable than the synthetic fertilisers provided by the seven largest corporations."
When this biodiversity rich food system is replaced by industrial monocultures, when food is commoditised, the result is hunger and malnutrition. Of the world's 6.6bn, 1bn are not getting enough food; another billion might get enough calories but not enough nutrition, especially micro nutrients.
Another 1.3bn who are obese suffer malnutrition of being condemned to artificially cheap, calorie-rich, nutrient-poor processed food.
 |
| Biodiversity of agriculture is maintained by farmers [EPA] |
Half of the world's population is a victim of structural hunger and food injustice in today's dominant design for food. We have had hunger in the past, but it was caused by external factors - wars and natural disasters. It was localised in space and time.
Today's hunger is permanent and global. It is hunger by design. This does not mean that those who design the contemporary food systems intend to create hunger. It does mean that creation of hunger is built into the corporate design of industrial production and globalised distribution of food.
A series of media reports have covered another study by a team led by Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford's Centre for Health Policy, and Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD, MS, an instructor in the school's Division of General Medical Disciplines and a physician-investigator at VA Palo Alto Health Care System, who did the most comprehensive meta-analysis to date of existing studies comparing organic and conventional foods.
They did not find strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or carry fewer health risks than conventional alternatives, though consumption of organic foods can reduce the risk of pesticide exposure.
This study can hardly be called the "most comprehensive meta - analysis"; the researchers sifted through thousands of papers and identified 237 of the most relevant to analyse. This already exposes the bias. The biggest meta-analysis on food and agriculture has been done by the United Nations as the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD).
Four hundred scientists from across the world worked for four years to analyse all publications on different approaches to agriculture, and concluded that chemical industrial agriculture is no longer an option, only ecological farming is.
Yet the Stanford team presents itself as the most comprehensive study, and claims there are no health benefits from organic agriculture, even though there were no long-term studies of health outcomes of people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food; the duration of the studies involving human subjects ranged from two days to two years.
Two days does not make a scientific study. No impact can be measured in a two-day study. This is junk science parading as science.
| "Ecological, organic farming is the only way to produce food without harming the planet and people's health." |
One principle about food and health is that our food is as healthy as the soil on which it grows is. And it is as deficient as the soils become with chemical farming.
Industrial chemical agriculture creates hunger and malnutrition by robbing crops of nutrients. Industrially produced food is nutritionally empty mass, loaded with chemicals and toxins. Nutrition in food comes from the nutrients in the soil.
Industrial agriculture, based on the NPK mentality of synthetic nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium-based fertilisers leads to depletion of vital micronutrients and trace elements such as magnesium, zinc, calcium and iron.
David Thomas, a geologist-turned-nutritionist, discovered that between 1940 and 1991, vegetables had lost - on an average - 24 per cent of their magnesium, 46 per cent of their calcium, 27 per cent of their iron and no less than 76 per cent of their copper (Ref: David Thomas "A study on the mineral depletion of the foods available to us as a nation over the period 1940 to 1991", Nutrition and Health, 2003; 17(2): 85-115).
Carrots had lost 75 per cent of their calcium, 46 per cent of their iron, and 75 per cent of their copper. Potatoes had lost 30 per cent of their magnesium, 35 per cent calcium, 45 per cent iron and 47 per cent copper.
To get the same amount of nutrition, people will need to eat much more food. The increase in "yields" of empty mass does not translate into more nutrition. In fact it is leading to malnutrition.
The IAASTD recognises that through an agro-ecological approach "agro-ecosystems of even the poorest societies have the potential through ecological agriculture and IPM to meet or significantly exceed yields produced by conventional methods, reduce the demand for land conversion for agriculture, restore ecosystem services (particularly water) reduce the use of and need for synthetic fertilisers derived from fossil fuels, and the use of harsh insecticides and herbicides".
Our 25 years of experience in Navdanya shows that ecological, organic farming is the only way to produce food without harming the planet and people's health. This is a trend that will grow, no matter how many pseudo-scientific stories are planted in the media by the industry.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Mr. Lynas, I guess it's how you define the scope of the debate!
This article came high recommended to me. I
was told that reading Mr. Mark Lynas’ views regarding the anti-GMO movement
will assist me in formulating my own. I have now read this article. In fact I
have read it twice. Yet, I don’t get it! What am I supposed to take from this ?
A founder of the anti-GM food movement on how he got it wrong
Mark Lynas in conversation with Charlie Gillis
Photographs by Randy Quan
Mark Lynas used to be the kind of fire-breathing activist who sneaked onto test farms and destroyed genetically modified (GM) crops. Today, he’s one of Britain’s most respected science writers and an influential voice in the battle against climate change—winner of a coveted Royal Society Prize for his 2008 book, Six Degrees. In January, Lynas sent shockwaves through environmental circles by publicly apologizing for his role in launching the anti-GM movement. (GM is also referred to as to GMO, for “genetically modified organisms.”) “The GM debate is over,” he told Oxford University’s annual farming conference. “Three trillion meals eaten and there has never been a single substantiated case of harm.” Video of his speech went viral, and he’s been living with the backlash ever since.
Q: You’ve disavowed a cause you were identified with for decades. How are you feeling about your decision?
A: It’s been traumatic, but it’s also been something of a liberation. I’ve obviously been inconsistent in my life, but so are we all. In my view, it’s better to be inconsistent and half-right, than to be consistently wrong. Even the pope doesn’t claim these days to be infallible, yet that’s what most environmental groups do.
Q: Still, you’ve offended your former allies, a lot of whom are now trying to discredit you. Some say you exaggerated your part in founding the anti-GM movement to start with. What’s that been like on a personal level?
A: My whole social scene has been characterized by my environmentalism. I’m in a situation where I can go to a party and I don’t know who’s currently not speaking to me.
Q: On Twitter, Vandana Shiva, a prominent environmentalist in India, likened your calls for farmers to be able to plant GMOs to saying rapists should have the freedom to rape.
A: That was simply astonishing, and frankly, hurtful to people who have actually suffered the trauma of rape. Look, these attacks on me are obviously done in the interests of damage limitation. It’s sort of an emperor’s-new-clothes thing. I have helped expose the fact most people’s concerns about GM foods are based on mythology. Once you can get past the idea that there’s something inherently dangerous about GM foods, it’s a whole different conversation. We actually can tell whether GM foods are safe. They have been extensively tested hundreds and hundreds of times, using different techniques. Many of the tests were conducted independently. The jury is entirely in on this issue.
Q: Why did you choose this time and place to make your mea culpa?
A: I live in Oxford and I was invited. It wasn’t choreographed or preplanned in any way. I just got some ideas together and was asked to speak in a slot that emphasizes some freedom of thought and is meant to be provocative. It wasn’t as if I had a road-to-Damascus conversion, either. I have been developing these themes for several years, and I think this caught media headlines around the world because people [outside the U.K.] hadn’t heard of me before.
Q: You say this wasn’t an epiphany. Describe the intellectual and moral process that brought you to this point.
A: The process was really about familiarizing myself with the scientific evidence, and in fact, with an evidence-based world view in general. I got to that point by becoming less an environmental activist and more of a science writer through my work on climate change and having written two books on global warming. I’d been involved in countless debates with climate skeptics where I would be saying scientific evidence has to be the gold standard. Well, you don’t have to be a complete genius to figure out that scientific evidence is not with the anti-GM lobby. There is this mischaracterization of science, a sort of circular myth-building, at the heart of the anti-GMO cant.
Q: People are going to ask, though: if you admit you were massaging the truth then, how do we know you’re not massaging it now?
A. What I’ve done is difficult, and it’s why so few political leaders ever admit making a U-turn. They need to build up an aura of invincibility, and people’s belief in other people as leaders depends on this mirage. Fortunately that’s not something I’m interested in. This isn’t about me. It’s about the evidence and the truth.
Q. You argue that opposing GMOs is actually anti-environmental.
A. That was the realization that changed my mind. That recombinant DNA is actually a potentially very powerful technology for designing crop plants that can help humanity tackle our food-supply shortages, and also reduce our environmental footprint. They can help us use less fertilizer, and dramatically reduce pesticide applications. We can reduce our exposure to climate change through drought and heat-tolerant crops. So the potential is enormous.
Q: But even if one accepts that GMOs pose no threat to human health, is it not reasonable to worry about unintended consequences? If you make a crop that can’t be choked off by other plants, what might be the impact on the crop land or ecology of a given area?
A: It’s not reasonable, because all of those concerns would apply to any crop plant developed by humans—whether it’s done by genetic modification or conventional breeding. What’s so natural about mutagenesis, which creates a higher level of mutation of the genome through exposure to gamma radiation or mutagenic chemicals—then selects the mutations that confer a cultivation advantage? Conventional [plant] breeders have no idea what the impact is on the rest of the genome, or what allergens might have been created, because the results are not tested. They go straight into the food supply.
Q: You draw an interesting parallel between the denialism over global warming and denialism as it relates to GMOs. Both causes had been close to your heart. Did you reach a point where you had to choose between the two?
A: My overall effort has been to try to crash out an environmentalist perspective that is fully supported by evidence where there’s a scientific consensus. It’s interesting: the GM denialism seems to come from the left, and is particularly motivated by an anti-corporate world view; the climate-change denialism tends to come from the right and is motivated by suspicion of government.
Q: It strikes me that this is very much a story about the power of ideology—how it can blind people to the facts.
A: I agree, but you have to look at where the ideology is coming from, and why it’s so powerful and self-supporting. To my mind, anti-GM is a backward-looking, reactionary ideology, where you have a mythological, romanticized view of pre-industrialized agriculture being taken as the ideal. GM is seen as the opposite of that because it’s the epitome of technological and human progress in agriculture. So you have this collision of world views, where people who are fixated on doing things the old way simply cannot accept that you can even understand DNA, let alone work with it precisely and intentionally.
Q. The organic movement has staked a lot to anti-GM. Can it survive if the global public embraces GMOs?
A. The organic movement itself should embrace GM. The best applications of it mean that crops can be entirely pest-resistant by working in harmony with nature, which is after all what the organic movement is supposed to want. I don’t see any a priori reason why the organic movement accepts mutagenic crops and not GM crops. Ultimately it comes down to an aesthetic or even spiritual preference. We’re beyond a conversation where you can employ logic and science.
Q: So how do you think the organic movement should respond?
A: It’s a key test for them. Remember that most of what the organic movement has claimed is not true. Their food is not more nutritious. It’s not better for the environment. It’s not safer for human health. So what is left? You’re paying a premium for foods which, as Nina Fedoroff said on my blog, is a massive scam. That’s the recent board chair of the American Association for the Advancement of Science talking.
Q: Maybe it’s just a matter of time before you have a splinter group of organic farmers willing work with GM crops.
A: I don’t know. My father is an organic farmer in north Wales and has been asking the Soil Association, the U.K.’s organic certification body, why he can’t grow a blight-resistant GM potato. It wouldn’t need to be sprayed with fungicide, and he could grow potatoes in wet years and not lose the entire crop. They can’t come up with any logical reason why.
Q: Do you eat organic food?
A: I try to avoid it, but my wife keeps buying it.
Q. Why do you avoid it?
A. Partly through bloody-mindedness. Partly because I object to paying more for something that is worse for the environment. And partly because I was shocked about the food contamination and health impacts—you know, the E.coli outbreak in Germany in 2011. I wouldn’t eat organic bean sprouts without giving them a thorough boiling.
Q. It would be easy for you to become a poster boy for genetically modified agriculture.
A. I’m no one’s poster boy, and I’m very careful about distinguishing myself from any industry lobbies. I don’t even speak on the same panels as industry people. For me this is a much wider struggle to reconcile environmentalism, which has so much good about it, with the reality of scientific evidence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)