|
Written by Enviroadmin
|
|
Sunday, 23 May 2010 19:00 |
Source: http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=1184
Can organic farming feed the world? Ed Hamer and Mark Anslow say yes, but we must farm and eat differently
1. Yield
Switching to organic farming would have different effects according to where in the world you live and how you currently farm.
Studies show that the less-industrialised world stands to benefit the most. In southern Brazil, maize and wheat yields doubled on farms that changed to green manures and nitrogenfixing leguminous vegetables instead of chemical fertilisers.1 In Mexico, coffee-growers who chose to move to fully organic production methods saw increases of 50 per cent in the weight of beans they harvested. In fact, in an analysis of more than 286 organic conversions in 57 countries, the average yield increase was found to be an impressive 64 per cent.2
The situation is more complex in the industrialised world, where farms are large, intensive facilities, and opinions are divided on how organic yields would compare.
Research by the University of Essex in 1999 found that, although yields on US farms that converted to organic initially dropped by between 10 and 15 per cent, they soon recovered, and the farms became more productive than their all-chemical counterparts.3 In the UK, however, a study by the Elm Farm Research Centre predicted that a national transition to all-organic farming would see cereal, rapeseed and sugar beet yields fall by between 30 and 60 per cent.4 Even the Soil Association admits that, on average in the UK, organic yields are 30 per cent lower than non-organic.
So can we hope to feed ourselves organically in the British Isles and Northern Europe? An analysis by former Ecologist editor Simon Fairlie in The Land journal suggests that we can, but only if we are prepared to rethink our diet and farming practices.5 In Fairlie’s scenario, each of the UK’s 60 million citizens could have organic cereals, potatoes, sugar, vegetables and fruit, fish, pork, chicken and beef, as well as wool and flax for clothes and biomass crops for heating. To achieve this we’d each have to cut down to around 230g of beef (½lb), compared to an average of 630g (1½lb) today, 252g of pork/bacon, 210g of chicken and just under 4kg (9lb) of dairy produce each week – considerably more than the country enjoyed in 1945. We would probably need to supplement our diet with homegrown vegetables, save our food scraps as livestock feed and reform the sewage system to use our waste as an organic fertiliser.
2. Energy
Currently, we use around 10 calories of fossil energy to produce one calorie of food energy. In a fuel-scarce future, which experts think could arrive as early as 2012, such numbers simply won’t stack up. Studies by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural affairs over the past three years have shown that, on average, organically grown crops use 25 per cent less energy than their chemical cousins. Certain crops achieve even better reductions,including organic leeks (58 per cent less energy) and broccoli (49 per cent less energy). When these savings are combined with stringent energy conservation and local distribution and consumption (such as organic box schemes), energy-use dwindles to a fraction of that needed for an intensive, centralised food system. A study by the University of Surrey shows that food from Tolhurst Organic Produce, a smallholding in Berkshire, which supplies 400 households with vegetable boxes, uses 90 per cent less energy than if non-organic produce had been delivered and bought in a supermarket.
Far from being simply ‘energy-lite’, however, organic farms have the potential to become self-sufficient in energy – or even to become energy exporters. The ‘Dream Farm’ model, first proposed by Mauritius-born agroscientist George Chan, sees farms feeding manure and waste from livestock and crops into biodigesters, which convert it into a methane-rich gas to be used for creating heat and electricity. The residue from these biodigesters is a crumbly, nutrient-rich fertiliser, which can be spread on soil to increase crop yields or further digested by algae and used as a fish or animal feed.
3. Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change
Despite organic farming’s low-energy methods, it is not in reducing demand for power that the techniques stand to make the biggest savings in greenhouse gas emissions.
The production of ammonium nitrate fertiliser, which is indispensable to conventional farming, produces vast quantities of nitrous oxide – a greenhouse gas with a global warming potential some 320 times greater than that of CO2. In fact, the production of one tonne of ammonium nitrate creates 6.7 tonnes of greenhouse gases (CO²e), and was responsible for around 10 per cent of all industrial greenhouse gas emissions in Europe in 2003.6
The techniques used in organic agriculture to enhance soil fertility in turn encourage crops to develop deeper roots, which increase the amount of organic matter in the soil, locking up carbon underground and keeping it out of the atmosphere. The opposite happens in conventional farming: high quantities of artificially supplied nutrients encourage quick growth and shallow roots. A study published in 1995 in the journal Ecological Applications found that levels of carbon in the soils of organic farms in California were as much as 28 per cent higher as a result.7 And research by the Rodale Institute shows that if the US were to convert all its corn and soybean fields to organic methods, the amount of carbon that could be stored in the soil would equal 73 per cent of the country’s (would-be) Kyoto targets for CO² reduction.8
Organic farming might also go some way towards salvaging the reputation of the cow, demonised in 2007 as a major source of methane at both ends of its digestive tract. There’s no doubt that this is a problem: estimates put global methane emissions from ruminant livestock at around 80 million tonnes a year,9 equivalent to around two billion tonnes of CO²,10 or close to the annual CO² output of Russia and the UK combined.11 But by changing the pasturage on which animals graze to legumes such as clover or birdsfoot trefoil (often grown anyway by organic farmers to improve soil nitrogen content), scientists at the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research believe that methane emissions could be cut dramatically. Because the leguminous foliage is more digestible, bacteria in the cow’s gut are less able to turn the fodder into methane. Cows also seem naturally to prefer eating birdsfoot trefoil to ordinary grass.
4. Water use
Agriculture is officially the most thirsty industry on the planet, consuming a staggering 72 per cent of all global freshwater at a time when the UN says 80 per cent of our water supplies are being overexploited.12,13
This hasn’t always been the case. Traditionally, agricultural crops were restricted to those areas best suited to their physiology, with drought-tolerant species grown in the tropics and water-demanding crops in temperate regions.14 Global trade throughout the second half of the last century led to a worldwide production of grains dominated by a handful of high-yielding cereal crops, notably wheat, maize and rice. These thirsty cereals – the ‘big three’ – now account for more than half of the world’s plant-based calories and 85 per cent of total grain production.15
Organic agriculture is different. Due to its emphasis on healthy soil structure, organic farming avoids many of the problems associated with compaction, erosion, salinisation and soil degradation, which are prevalent in intensive systems.16 Organic manures and green mulches are applied even before the crop is sown, leading to a process known as ‘mineralisation’ – literally the fixing of minerals in the soil. Mineralised organic matter, conspicuously absent from synthetic fertilisers, is one of the essential ingredients required physically and chemically to hold water on the land.
Organic management also uses crop rotations, undersowing and mixed cropping to provide the soil with near-continuous cover. By contrast, conventional farm soils may be left uncovered for extended periods prior to sowing, and again following the harvest, leaving essential organic matter fully exposed to erosion by rain, wind and sunlight. In the US, a 25-year Rodale Institute experiment on climatic extremes found that, due to improved soil structure, organic systems consistently achieve higher yields during periods both of drought and flooding.17
5. Localisation
The globalisation of our food supply, which gives us Peruvian apples in June and Spanish lettuces in February, has seen our food reduced to a commodity in an increasingly volatile global marketplace. Although year-round availability makes for good marketing in the eyes of the biggest retailers, the costs to the environment are immense.
Friends of the Earth estimates that the average meal in the UK travels 1,000 miles from plot to plate.18 In 2005, Defra released a comprehensive report on food miles in the UK, which valued the direct environmental, social and economic costs of food transport in Britain at £9 billion each year. In addition, food transport accounted for more than 30 billion vehicle kilometres, 25 per cent of all HGV journeys and 19 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions in 2002 alone.19
The organic movement was born out of a commitment to provide local food for local people, and so it is logical that organic marketing encourages localisation through veg boxes, farm shops and stalls. Between 2005 and 2006, organic sales made through direct marketing outlets such as these increased by 53 per cent, from £95 to £146 million, more than double the sales growth experienced by the major supermarkets.20 As we enter an age of unprecedented food insecurity, it is essential that our consumption reflects not only what is desirable, but also what is ultimately sustainable. While the ‘organic’ label itself may inevitably be hijacked, ‘organic and local’ represents a solution with which the global players can simply never compete.
6. Pesticides
It is a shocking testimony to the power of the agrochemical industry that in the 45 years since Rachel Carson published her pesticide warning Silent Spring, the number of commercially available synthetic pesticides has risen from 22 to more than 450.21
According to the World Health Organization there are an estimated 20,000 accidental deaths worldwide each year from pesticide exposure and poisoning.22 More than 31 million kilograms of pesticide were applied to UK crops alone in 2005, 0.5 kilograms for every person in the country.23 A spiralling dependence on pesticides throughout recent decades has resulted in a catalogue of repercussions, including pest resistance, disease susceptibility, loss of natural biological controls and reduced nutrient-cycling.24
Organic farmers, on the other hand, believe that a healthy plant grown in a healthy soil will ultimately be more resistant to pest damage. Organic systems encourage a variety of natural methods to enhance soil and plant health, in turn reducing incidences of pests, weeds and disease.
First and foremost, because organic plants grow comparatively slower than conventional varieties they have thicker cell walls, which provide a tougher natural barrier to pests. Rotations or ‘break-crops’, which are central to organic production, also provide a physical obstacle to pest and disease lifecycles by removing crops from a given plot for extended periods.25 Organic systems also rely heavily on a rich agro-ecosystem in which many agricultural pests can be controlled by their natural predators.
Inevitably, however, there are times when pestilence attacks are especially prolonged or virulent, and here permitted pesticides may be used. The use of organic pesticides is heavily regulated and the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) requires specific criteria to be met before pesticide applications can be justified.26
There are in fact only four active ingredients permitted for use on organic crops: copper fungicides, restricted largely to potatoes and occasionally orchards; sulphur, used to control additional elements of fungal diseases; Retenone, a naturally occurring plant extract, and soft soap, derived from potassium soap and used to control aphids. Herbicides are entirely prohibited.
7. Ecosystem impact
Farmland accounts for 70 per cent of UK land mass, making it the single most influential enterprise affecting our wildlife.27 Incentives offered for intensification under the Common Agricultural Policy are largely responsible for negative ecosystem impacts over recent years. Since 1962, farmland bird numbers have declined by an average of 30 per cent. During the same period more than 192,000 kilometres of hedgerows have been removed, while 45 per cent of our ancient woodland has been converted to cropland.28
By contrast, organic farms actively encourage biodiversity in order to maintain soil fertility and aid natural pest control. Mixed farming systems ensure that a diversity of food and nesting sites are available throughout the year, compared with conventional farms where autumn sow crops leave little winter vegetation available.29
Organic production systems are designed to respect the balance observed in our natural ecosystems. It is widely accepted that controlling or suppressing one element of wildlife, even if it is a pest, will have unpredictable impacts on the rest of the food chain. Instead, organic producers regard a healthy ecosystem as essential to a healthy farm, rather than a barrier to production.
In 2005, a report by English Nature and the RSPB on the impacts of organic farming on biodiversity reviewed more than 70 independent studies of flora, invertebrates, birds and mammals within organic and conventional farming systems. It concluded that biodiversity is enhanced at every level of the food chain under organic management practices, from soil micro-biota right through to farmland birds and the largest mammals.30
8. Nutritional benefits
While an all-organic farming system might mean we’d have to make do with slightly less food than we’re used to, research shows that we can rest assured it would be better for us.
In 2001, a study in the Journal of Complementary Medicine found that organic crops contained higher levels of 21 essential nutrients than their conventionally grown counterparts, including iron, magnesium, phosphorus and vitamin C. The organic crops also contained lower levels of nitrates, which can be toxic to the body.31
Other studies have found significantly higher levels of vitamins – as well as polyphenols and antioxidants – in organic fruit and veg, all of which are thought to play a role in cancer-prevention within the body.32
Scientists have also been able to work out why organic farming produces more nutritious food. Avoiding chemical fertiliser reduces nitrates levels in the food; better quality soil increases the availability of trace minerals, and reduced levels of pesticides mean that the plants’ own immune systems grow stronger, producing higher levels ofantioxidants. Slower rates of growth also mean that organic food frequently contains higher levels of dry mass, meaning that fruit and vegetables are less pumped up with water and so contain more nutrients by weight than intensively grown crops do.33
Milk from organically fed cows has been found to contain higher levels of nutrients in six separate studies, including omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin E, and beta-carotene, all of which can help prevent cancer. One experiment discovered that levels of omega-3 in organic milk were on average 68 per cent higher than in non-organic alternatives.34
But as well as giving us more of what we do need, organic food can help to give us less of what we don’t. In 2000, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) found that organically produced food had ‘lower levels of pesticide and veterinary drug residues’ than non-organic did.35 Although organic farmers are allowed to use antibiotics when absolutely necessary to treat disease, the routine use of the drugs in animal feed – common on intensive livestock farms – is forbidden. This means a shift to organic livestock farming could help tackle problems such as the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
9. Seed-saving
Seeds are not simply a source of food; they are living testimony to more than 10,000 years of agricultural domestication. Tragically, however, they are a resource that has suffered unprecedented neglect. The UN FAO estimates that 75 per cent of the genetic diversity of agricultural crops has been lost over the past 100 years.36
Traditionally, farming communities have saved seeds year-on-year, both in order to save costs and to trade with their neighbours. As a result, seed varieties evolved in response to local climatic and seasonal conditions, leading to a wide variety of fruiting times, seed size, appearance and flavour. More importantly, this meant a constant updating process for the seed’s genetic resistance to changing climatic conditions, new pests and diseases.
By contrast, modern intensive agriculture depends on relatively few crops – only about 150 species are cultivated on any significant scale worldwide. This is the inheritance of the Green Revolution, which in the late 1950s perfected varieties Filial 1, or F1 seed technology, which produced hybrid seeds with specifically desirable genetic qualities.37 These new high-yield seeds were widely adopted, but because the genetic makeup of hybrid F1 seeds becomes diluted following the first harvest, the manufacturers ensured that farmers return for more seed year on year.
With its emphasis on diversity, organic farming is somewhat cushioned from exploitation on this scale, but even Syngenta, the world’s third-largest biotech company, now offers organic seed lines. Although seedsaving is not a prerequisite for organic production, the holistic nature of organics lends itself well to conserving seed.
In support of this, the Heritage Seed Library, in Warwickshire, is a collection of more than 800 open-pollinated organic varieties, which have been carefully preserved by gardeners across the country. Although their seeds are not yet commercially available, the Library is at the forefront of addressing the alarming erosion of our agricultural diversity.
Seed-saving and the development of local varieties must become a key component of organic farming, giving crops the potential to evolve in response to what could be rapidly changing climatic conditions. This will help agriculture keeps pace with climate change in the field, rather than in the laboratory.
10. Job creation
There is no doubt British farming is currently in crisis. With an average of 37 farmers leaving the land every day, there are now more prisoners behind bars in the UK than there are farmers in the fields.38
Although it has been slow, the decline in the rural labour force is a predictable consequence of the industrialisation of agriculture. A mere one per cent of the UK workforce is now employed in land-related enterprises, compared with 35 per cent at the turn of the last century.39
The implications of this decline are serious. A skilled agricultural workforce will be essential in order to maintain food security in the coming transition towards a new model of post-fossil fuel farming. Many of these skills have already been eroded through mechanisation and a move towards more specialised and intensive production systems.
Organic farming is an exception to these trends. By its nature, organic production relies on labour-intensive management practices. Smaller, more diverse farming systems require a level of husbandry that is simply uneconomical at any other scale. Organic crops and livestock also demand specialist knowledge and regular monitoring in the absence of agrochemical controls.
According to a 2006 report by the University of Essex, organic farming in the UK provides 32 per cent more jobs per farm than comparable non-organic farms. Interestingly, the report also concluded that the higher employment observed could not be replicated in non-organic farming through initiatives such as local marketing. Instead, the majority (81 per cent) of total employment on organic farms was created by the organic production system itself. The report estimates that 93,000 new jobs would be created if all farming in the UK were to convert to organic.
Organic farming also accounts for more younger employees than any other sector in the industry. The average age of conventional UK farmers is now 56, yet organic farms increasingly attract a younger more enthusiastic workforce, people who view organics as the future of food production. It is for this next generation of farmers that Organic Futures, a campaign group set up by the Soil Association in 2007, is striving to provide a platform.
Ed Hamer is a freelance journalist
Mark Anslow is the Ecologist’s senior reporter
References
1 Andre Leu, ‘Organic Agriculture Can Feed the World’ in Organic Farming, Winter 2007, citing Jules Pretty, 2001
2 Pretty, 2006. http://www.rimisp.org/getdoc.php?docid=6440
3 Pretty, 1999, ‘The Living Land’.
4 Cited in Woodward, 2003. http://www.efrc.com/?i=articles.php&art_id=42&highlight=organic
5 Fairlie, 2007, ‘Can Britain Feed Itself?’, The Land, Winter 2007-8.
6 EEA data for EU-15, 2003, for nitric acid production cited by Soil Association
7 Drinkwater LE et al. ‘Fundamental differences between conventional and organic tomato agroecosystems in California’, Ecological Applications 1995, 5(4), 1098-1112.
8 http://www.newfarm.org/depts/NFfield_trials/1003/carbonsequest.shtml
9 US EPA, 1998, ‘Ruminant Livestock and the Global Environment’
10 Using a multiplier factor of 24.5
11 Russia annual CO2 emissions: 1,524,993,000 tonnes; UK annual CO2 emissions: 587,261,000 tonnes.
12 Weis, T. (2007) The global food economy: the battle for the future of farming, Zed Books, London.
13 UNESCO (2006) United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation, World Water Development Report 2006: http://www.unesco.org/water/wwap/wwdr/index.shtml
14 Alteiri, M. (1987) Agroecology: The Scientific Basis of Alternative Agriculture, Westview Press, Boulder.
15 FAO (1997) The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Food Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome.
16 Lampkin, N. (1990) Organic Farming, Farming Press Books, Ipswich.
17 Lim Li Ching (2005) Organic Outperforms Conventional in Climate Extremes, web accesses: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/OrganicOutperforms.php
18 FOE (2006) http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/green_new_year_resolutions_08122006
19 Defra (2005) The Validity of Food Miles as an Indicator of Sustainable Development: Final report, Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs.
20 Soil Association (2006) Organic Market Report 2006, Executive Summary, Soil Association, Bristol.
21 Whitehead, R. (1999) UK Pesticide Guide, British Crop Protection Council, CABI Publishing, Cambridge.
22 World Health Organisation (1990) The Public Health Impact of Pesticides Used in Agriculture, WHO, Geneva
23 Pesticide Action Network UK (2007) Pesticides on a Plate, A consumer guide to pesticide issues in the food chain, PAN UK, London
24 Sustain (2003) Myth and Reality, Organic vs. non-organic: the facts, Sustain, London.
25 Francis, C. A. & Clegg, M. D. (1990) Crop Rotations in Sustainable Production Systems, Sustainable Agriculture Systems 107-122
26 International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (1998) Basic Standards for Organic Production and Processing, IFOAM, Germany
27 Soil Association (2006) How does organic farming benefit wildlife? Soil Association 2006.
28 Spencer, J. & Kirby, K. (1992) An inventory of ancient woodland for England and Wales, Biological Conservation 62, 77-93.
29 IFOAM (2003) Organic Agriculture and Biodiversity information sheet, International Federation of Organic Agriculture and Management.
30 Hole, A. G., Perkins, A. J., Wilson, J. D., Alexander, I. H., Grice, P. V., Evans, A. D. (2005) Does Organic Farming Benefit Biodiversity? Biological Conservation, 122, 113-130.
31 Worthington V. Nutritional quality of organic versus conventional fruits, vegetables, and grains. Journal of Complimentary Medicine 2001; 7 No. 2: 161–173
32 Soil Association, 2008: http://tinyurl.com/3aye3g
33 Gundual Azeez, Policy Manager, Soil Association, Personal Communication 01/2008.
34 Soil Association, 2007: http://tinyurl.com/3e3fby
35 Food and Agriculture Organisation, Food Safety & Quality as Affected by Organic Farming, Report of the 22nd regional conference for Europe, Portugal, 24-28 July 2000.
36 FAO (1997) The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Food Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome.
37 Shiva, V. & Gitanjali, B. (2002) Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security, The Impact of globalisation, Sage Publications, London.
38 Soil Association (2006) Organic Works Report: An investigation into employment on organic farms conducted by University of Essex 2005.
39 ISEC (2002) Bringing the Food Economy Home: Local Alternatives to Global Agribusiness, Zed Books, London.
Source: http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=1184
Read 0 Comments... >> |
|
Written by Enviroadmin
|
|
Sunday, 23 May 2010 18:59 |
Source/Reference:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aCzftfHH1c3I&refer=germany
By Brett Neely
April 14 (Bloomberg) -- Germany plans to ban the planting of a strain of genetically modified corn made by Monsanto Co., joining Austria and Hungary in a widening ban on GM crops that threatens to trigger U.S. trade retaliation.
The German ban will apply to Monsanto’s MON810, a pest- resistant corn variety, Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner told reporters in Berlin today.
“My decision is not a political decision, it’s a decision based on the facts,” Aigner said.
European Union governments upheld similar Austrian and Hungarian bans last month in a blow to the European Commission, the EU’s regulatory arm, which says the bans are unjustified because scientists have determined the two products are safe for consumers and the environment. No one was available from the Commission’s environment department to answer questions today.
In a case brought by the U.S., Canada and Argentina, the World Trade Organization ruled in 2006 that a European Union ban on new gene-altered products from 1998 to 2004 was illegal. The U.S. has since voiced concern about continued European market barriers. Under WTO rules, President Barack Obama’s administration has the right to seek retaliatory measures.
About Turn
The German decision, which still needs to be approved by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Cabinet, is a turnaround from legislation passed in January last year making it easier for farmers to sow genetically altered corn.
Horst Seehofer, who was then agriculture minister, said at the time his decision was meant to help Germany’s biotechnology industry. Yet the legislation passed was criticized by green lobbies as well as Monsanto, which said it failed to remove hurdles for farmers wanting to plant the crop.
Green lobbies and consumer groups welcomed today’s announcement, citing surveys showing that more than 70 percent of consumers oppose the use of GM crops for food.
“This decision is right, if long overdue,” Stephanie Toewe, Greenpeace spokeswoman on biotechnology, said in a statement. Numerous studies show GM corn to be harmful to the environment, Toewe said, urging Aigner to persuade the EU in Brussels to outlaw similar genetically modified corn varieties.
To contact the reporter on this story: Brett Neely in Berlin
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
.
Last Updated: April 14, 2009 05:54 EDT
Read 0 Comments... >> |
|
Written by Enviroadmin
|
|
Sunday, 23 May 2010 18:58 |
http://www.sacsis.org.za/site/news/detail.asp?iData=117&iCat=1434&iChannel=1&nChannel=News
*The Case to Include GM Labelling in the Consumer Protection Bill.*
The Consumer Protection Bill, an act of Parliament devised to protect the rights of consumers, as its name suggests, has come before the National Council of Provinces, usually the final step before ratification. Interestingly the NCOP has asked for comment on the bill before it is ratified. One issue that has elicited much debate is the matter of foods derived from crops that have been genetically modified (GM).
Some of the defined reasons for the Consumer Bill, clearly laid out in the preamble, include; providing relevant information for consumers, promoting sustainable and environmentally responsible consumption and protecting consumers from hazards to their health and safety. The bill additionally aims to provide effective redress for consumers, promote consumer participation in the decision making process and facilitate the freedom of consumers to associate and form groups to advocate and promote their common interest.
In light of all of this it is remarkable that the drafters of this bill have been persuaded to remove all reference to disclosing the nature and extent of the presence of genetically modified components, as included in its initial draft in section 27 (1) (a) (i), where it explicitly stated that producers, “must display on or in association with that packaging or those goods, a notice in the prescribed manner and form that...discloses the presence, nature and extent of any…genetically modified ingredients or components of those goods.”
More interesting still is how this reference was withdrawn and what the motivation was.
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are generally legislated by the Genetically Modified Organisms Act, Act 15 of 1997, overseen by the Department of Agriculture. While this Act has recently been reviewed, it remains a controversial and industry friendly piece of legislation. It has been roundly criticised as facilitating the introduction of GM crops rather than meaningfully regulating them. It has no reference to consumer protection; in fact it undermines this as it clearly states that any negative effects of GM organisms shall be the responsibility of the ‘user’. That can mean anyone, including the consumer.
Quite how the consumer is meant to control this onerous responsibility is moot, given that the Department of Agriculture has stringently opposed labelling and tracking of GM crops through the food supply. It has actively supported the industry line that GM crops are the same as natural varieties of food crops, despite this claim being completely unsupported by scientific facts. Ironically GM crops are unique and different enough to be patented!
An indication of how the clause referring to GM was withdrawn from the Consumer Protection Bill is highlighted by exchanges in 2006 around the labelling of GM crops. In a meeting of the Executive Council, the decision making body responsible for administering the GMO Act, Ben Durham, a noted proponent of GM technology employed by the department of Science and Technology stated that according to expert opinion, the GM industry should be self regulated within parameters set by government.
It is notable that the scientist, who supposedly made this statement, Prof. Chris Viljoen of the University of the Free State, an expert in the regulation of GM technology in South Africa, says he was misquoted.
In clarification Prof. Viljoen stated, “The comment by Ben Durham is slightly out of context. The discussion had been around the fact that government wants the industry to self-regulate. My comment had been that this would still require government to establish parameters in which this would happen. But I never suggested that self-regulation was the method of choice.”
This apparently wilful misinterpretation is indicative of the pro-industry bias within both the Departments of Agriculture and Science and Technology. It is this bias that lies behind the Department of Agriculture intervention to have references to GMOs withdrawn from the Consumer Protection Bill.
The department of Agriculture has repeatedly stated its clear intentions to keep full control of GM regulation within its ambit. This overlooks the fact that the GMO Act plays no role whatsoever in consumer protection, despite continuous lobbying to have such wording introduced by public interest groups for over a decade.
The regulator of the GMO Act, an official appointed by the minister of Agriculture has historically refused to divulge basic safety information requested on GMO crops. This forced the NGO Biowatch to take the government to court to gain this information, which was achieved.
Behind all of this lies the hidden hand of powerful financial interests, mainly the multinational Monsanto, currently the biggest seed company in the world and South Africa, as well as the corporation that controls the patents on most of the GM crops grown locally and globally. Monsanto has been found guilty of bribery and lying in many cases around the world.
It has had an inordinate influence on national and international regulatory mechanisms, directly and indirectly, through front groups like AfricaBio, Hans Lombard Communications, The International Service for the Acquisition of AgriBiotech Applications, the Free Market Foundation and CropLife, to name just a few.
This is also of especial concern as far as the relationship to issues of funding of political entities is concerned, particularly given the secrecy behind this cornerstone of democracy in South Africa.
Whatever the reasons that references to the labelling and identification of GM derived foods in South Africa have been removed from the Consumer Protection Bill, they clearly lie at odds with the stated reasons for drafting this Bill contained within the preamble.
The fact is that there is a broad and inclusive grouping of individuals and organisations with well defined concerns about GM ingredients being snuck into their food supply without their knowledge or permission, which has been ignored for years. Yet the Consumer Bill makes explicit reference to just such consumer organisations, such as SAFeAGE, a local GM lobby network with over 3 million members, providing a powerful reason to re-insert the reference to GM labelling in the Bill.
Beside the above, there are several other good reasons to have proper GM labelling in place. First of all is the fact that it is completely unscientific and misleading to claim that nobody has been affected by GM foods if they are not being tracked and identified from farm to plate.
If they had been, untoward effects may have been able to be isolated, whereas with no identification any ill effects are most likely to be ascribed to other causes.
Secondly if GM food is as safe as it is claimed to be then there should be no reluctance to identify it. The most vociferous opponents of labelling are the GM corporations like Monsanto, who claim GM food is safe. Despite the fact that this claim is completely unsubstantiated in the scientific literature, as shown by the forced withdrawal of a Monsanto advertisement by the Advertising Standards Authority in South Africa in 2007 because Monsanto failed to provide such proof that GM derived foods were safe, as they claimed.
A major reason put forth by Monsanto and others to exclude GM crops from labelling is that this would increase food costs. This is a red herring and has been shown to not be the case. In fact the increased value of properly labelled products would ensure full life cycle responsibility by those who introduce it to the market, as the Consumer Protection Bill clearly aims to.
Third is the fact that the GMO Act is not a consumer bill but simply a facilitatory act for the introduction of GM crops. It was not written to include any consumer protections. In fact it avoids these by putting the onus on ‘the user’, which is the consumer, while simultaneously failing to provide any mechanism to enable this.
In light of all of the above, and given the clarity of the intentions of the preamble to the Consumer Protection Bill, it is clear that the NCOP can no longer omit the matter of labelling of GM foods from the Bill.
The representatives of the NCOP must, as a matter of duty, insist on its inclusion when the Bill is ratified. To fail to do so would be a failure to protect the rights of South African consumers, especially in light of the fact that we have the first GM staple food in the world in white GM maize.
Glenn Ashton is chair of the Steering Committee for SAFeAGE, the SA Freeze Alliance on Genetic Engineering, networking the interests of over
3.3 million consumers concerned about GM foods in South Africa.
Glenn Ashton, creator of Ekogaia <http://www.ekogaia.org>, is a contributor to SACSIS.
Read more articles
<http://sacsis.org.za/site/home/members.asp?iMem=Ekogaia> by *Glenn Ashton*. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 South Africa License <http://www.sacsis.org.za/site/articles/detail.asp?iData=91&iCat=245&iChannel=2&nChannel=Articles>
Read 0 Comments... >> |
|
Written by Enviroadmin
|
|
Sunday, 23 May 2010 18:57 |
For more info see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_pollution
Read 0 Comments... >> |
|
Written by Enviroadmin
|
|
Sunday, 23 May 2010 18:57 |
AFRICA CALL TO RESIST: GMOS CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS FOOD CRISIS:
RESIST BAYER CROPSCIENCE’s ONSLAUGHT OF GM COTTON EXPERIMENTS IN LIMPOPO PROVINCE
June 2, 2008
The African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) condemns Bayer Cropsciences’ spate of no less than 8 permit applications for field trials involving 8 Genetically Modified (GM) cotton varieties. These GM cotton varieties are to be tested in South Africa’s Limpopo Province, where the majority of the population is poor and marginalised. The applications come on the first anniversary of Bayer’s US$310 million acquisition of Monsanto’s of Stoneville Pedigreed Seed Company - a leading US producer of cottonseeds. We condemn these applications, which will continue to consolidate our agricultural system into the capitalist economy and leave small-scale farmers out in the cold. We also assert that these crops pose inherent risks to human and environmental health.
GMOs DRIVE UP FOOD PRICES AND CONTRIBUTE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are part of a “Green Revolution” package for Africa where technical and economic solutions are proffered for African agriculture. These solutions, designed by transnational agribusiness, are heavily dependent on inputs such as inorganic fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides and corporate owned seeds. This system is highly energy dependent, directly in the form of fuel for transport and machinery and indirectly in the production of fertilisers and other inputs. Around 500 million kg’s of pesticides are applied annually in agricultural monocultures to deal with insect pests, diseases and weeds globally. Such a system of continuous and increasing utilization of an energy intensive agricultural paradigm not only drives up the cost of food production but also contributes to climate change. In spite of this, the agendas of these powerful transnational corporations (TNC’s) continue to shape African agricultural-related policies, institutions and service providers in service of their bottom line.
GMOs ROB FARMERS OF THEIR OWN FARMING SYSTEMS AND SEED
The Green Revolution system has marginalized farmers, farmers’ knowledge and ecologically sustainable agricultural systems and serves only to consolidate South Africa’s agricultural system into the capitalist economy. We strongly oppose Bayer’s applications as being part of the capitalist scheme designed to control the very core component of agriculture, namely seeds. By 2006, Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta already owned 46% of the total proprietary global seed market. By 2007, Bayer Cropscience was already the second largest producer of cotton seed in the US. More GM cotton production in Africa will only increase Africa’s dependency on single agricultural products. In any event, the real prices of cotton in Africa have declined substantially on the world’s commodity markets over the last 2 decades.
GM COTTON DESTROYS AFRICAN COTTON FARMERS
As these agricultural TNC’s consolidate and grow evermore powerful, largely poverty stricken African farmers still have to compete with one arm behind their backs – heavily subsidised American cotton farmers can sell their cotton unfairly at cut throat prices, destroying African farmers’ ability to make their livelihoods.
BAYER HAS A LEGACY OF DUPLICITY
Bayer Cropscience is a subsidiary of German based transnational company, Bayer and is known for it legacy of dumping toxic waste in the South Durban Basin and the GM rice contamination scandal in 2006 when food aid in Africa was also seriously compromised. In South Africa, Bayer has bankrolled GM sugarcane research in the hope of cornering the GM sugar to ethanol agrofuels market and has applied for a permit to import GM rice into South Africa.
GMOs POSE A RISK TO HUMAN HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
Last, we condemn these applications on biosafety grounds because of the inherent risks posed by GM crops to human health and the environment. We also reiterate our outrage that the environment of South Africa continues to be used as an experimental dumping ground for multinational agrochemical and seed companies.
The ACB intends to submit substantial objections to Bayer Cropsciences applications and invite civil society organisations to join us in our resistance to this onslaught. A new agriculture is waiting to be born.
Contact:
Mariam Mayet
Tel/Fax: +27 (0) 11 482 8915
+27 (0) 83 269 4309
www.biosafetyafrica.net <http://www.biosafetyafrica.net/>
Suite 3, 12 Clamart Road,
Richmond 2092,
Johannesburg,
South Africa
Read 0 Comments... >> |
|
|
Written by Enviroadmin
|
|
Sunday, 23 May 2010 18:56 |
May 22 2008 at 04:05PM
www.iol.co.za
Paris - The French parliament on Thursday adopted a controversial bill on genetically-modified (GM) crops that had raised hackles in both the right-wing ruling camp and the opposition.
The legislation, which brings France into line with a 2001 European Union law, sets out rules on the growing of both conventional and GM crops.
Left-wing critics have attacked the legislation as lacking strong enough safeguards to protect conventional crops from possible contamination from GMOs.
On the right, critics said it gave too much ground to environmentalists by making farmers publicly disclose any GM field under cultivation.
In an embarrassment for President Nicolas Sarkozy, opposition lawmakers managed last week to throw out the text on a technicality after only one third of his right-wing UMP party turned out to support it.
But a new version of the bill was swiftly brought back before both houses of parliament, where the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) holds a comfortable majority.
The upper house Senate approved the text - already voted by the National Assembly - by 183 to 42. The opposition Socialists abstained from the vote.
Several dozen anti-GM protesters rallied outside the Senate building as lawmakers adopted the bill, which lays down the "freedom to consume and produce with or without GMOs".
The bill also sets two-year jail terms for tearing up GM crops - a method of choice for anti-GM campaigners including the farmer-activist Jose Bove.
No genetically-modified crops are officially being grown in France, after the government in February banned the only strain of GM maize under cultivation in the country, MON810, produced by US agribusiness giant Monsanto.
Reflecting widespread public hostility to GM crops, France invoked a European Union safeguard that gives an EU member state authority to ban a GM crop provided it has scientific evidence to back this decision.
In 2007, GM crops covered less than one percent of farmland in France, Europe's top agricultural producer, with 22 000 hectares (54 000 acres) of GM maize planted across the country.
Source: www.iol.co.za
Read 0 Comments... >> |
|
Written by Enviroadmin
|
|
Sunday, 23 May 2010 18:55 |
By Leo Cendrowicz/Brussels
Time Magazine
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1738434,00.html
Thursday, May. 08, 2008
Like much of the rest of the world, Europe has invested heaps of money and
even more hope in the promise of biofuels to provide secure supplies of
environmentally friendly energy. But now rising food prices, trade tensions
and social unrest are prompting a rethink of the E.U.'s ambitious hopes for
running its cars and trucks on biofuel.
The latest call for a change of course came from economist Jeffrey Sachs,
special adviser to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who this week urged
the European Parliament to scrap the E.U.'s much-touted target of increasing
biofuel's share in Europe's diesel and gasoline consumption to 10% by 2020.
Last year, E.U. governments spent an estimated € 3.7 billion ($5.2 billion)
on subsidising biofuel production.
Sachs, who also criticized the U.S. biofuels program, said biofuels compete
with food for farming land and help push up food prices, hurting the world's
poor worst of all. "We need to cut back significantly on our biofuels
programs," he said. "They were understandable at a time of much lower food
prices and larger food stocks but do not make sense now in a global food
scarcity condition."
It was only one blow in the pummeling biofuels have taken recently, not
least in a TIME cover story. In April a World Bank report accused biofuel
production of pushing up feedstock prices, and Jean Ziegler, the U.N.
Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food, called biofuels production "a
crime against humanity" because of its impact on global food prices.
Even business has got into the act. Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, head of Nestlé ,
the world's largest food and drink company, said the enormous biofuel
subsidies being proffered by Brussels and Washington are "morally
unacceptable and irresponsible." And environmental groups, which championed
biofuels just a few years ago, have warned that they might even be worse
than fossil fuels. "Biofuels are no green panacea," says Adrian Bebb, a
spokesman for Friends of the Earth. "They can damage the climate and wreck
rainforests. The public is being conned if it thinks they are a green
solution."
The European Environment Agency, which advises the European Commission, has
recommended that the E.U. suspend its 10% biofuels target, calling it an
"overambitious experiment whose unintended effects are difficult to predict
and difficult to control."
But the E.U.'s key trade and farm officials haven't adopted the newly
negative line on biofuels. Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson insists that
the 10% target is still attainable and argues that the E.U.'s biofuels
policy has had only a minimal impact on world food prices. Mandelson has
tried to shift the blame to the U.S. and the subsidies that are driving up
to one third of its maize crop into ethanol production.
The issue risks descending into a conventional trade war after European
biodiesel producers earlier this month asked the Commission to slap punitive
duties on surging U.S. biodiesel imports. The European Biodiesel Board (EBB)
says European producers are being put out of business by U.S. imports of
so-called B99 biodiesel, or fuel derived 99% from plants. The U.S.
government subsidizes such exports to the tune of up to $300 a ton. Yet in
some cases, the bulk of the fuel doesn't even stem from U.S. inputs, but is
cheaply imported from countries like Indonesia or Malaysia.
For her part, E.U. Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel protests
that biofuels had become a scapegoat. She said that the E.U. uses less than
1% of its cereal production to make ethanol, and while two-thirds of
Europe's rapeseed crop is used for biodiesel, this accounts for only about
2% of global oilseed demand.
In any case, the Commission plans to tighten the criteria to ensure that
biofuel production is sustainable, including a stipulation that it represent
a 35% carbon saving compared to oil. Fischer Boel sets much store on the
shift from first wave of biofuels (made from wheat, maize, colza, sugar beet
etc) to second generation (leaves, straw and pond algae). If she's right, it
could maintain the initial promise of biofuels. But as the chorus of critics
grows louder, Europe's ambitious goals for filling its tanks with the fruits
of the fields are looking more and more like pipedreams.
Read 0 Comments... >> |
|
Written by Enviroadmin
|
|
Sunday, 23 May 2010 18:54 |
Rob Johnston argued that organic foods are not as good as supporters claim. His article sparked heated debate. Now Peter Melchett of the Soil Association puts the case for their defence
Thursday, 8 May 2008
Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-great-organic-myths-rebutted-822763.html
Fact one: Organic farming is good for the environment
Organic farming is not perfect; it was only developed 60 years ago, and we still have much to learn. Over those years, organic research has been starved of funding because most investment went first into developing pesticides and then into GM crops. Organic farming was started by scientists and farmers who wanted to develop what we would now call a more sustainable way of producing food. Their main concern was with the link between healthy soils, healthy food and human health. However, those pioneers did create a farming system that has clear environmental benefits. Organic farming is better for wildlife on farms. The science is clear cut. Scientific literature reviews have found that, overall, organic farms have 30 per cent more wild species, and 50 per cent higher numbers of those species. Based on scientific research, the Government says that organic farming has clear environmental benefits – better for wildlife, lower pollution from sprays, produces fewer dangerous wastes and less carbon dioxide. The Sustainable Development Commission says that organic certification represents "the gold standard" for sustainable food production. I farmed non-organically for more than 30 years, and switched to organic, mainly to try to bring back wildlife on the farm. We have far more birds, and data on hares before and after switching to organic show numbers doubled from 20 to 40. This year we found 56.
Fact two: Organic farming is more sustainable
Last week's article contained several errors – for example, the statement that organic tomatoes take double the amount of energy to produce is wrong, as were the figures for different types of tomato. The information on the climate change impact of organic food omitted one of the key benefits of organic farming: storing carbon in the soil. When this is included, the climate change impact of organic food goes down by between 12 and 80 per cent. Government-funded studies have shown that across a range of sectors, organic farming uses 26 per cent less energy than non-organic farming to produce the same amount of food, and the Government agrees that organic farming is better for climate change. The article ignored the extraordinary challenges we face. We must drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the farming and food industries – by 80 per cent by 2050. We have to adapt to a world with declining oil and gas supplies. We have to help mitigate the effects of climate change, for example by reducing flooding and cutting demand for fresh water. We have to adapt to a world of more extreme and unpredictable weather. How we do this is the challenge.
Fact three: Organic farming doesn't use pesticides
We've never claimed this! The Soil Association's rules allow farmers to use four pesticides, with permission. Non-organic farming uses more than 300. The vast majority of organic farmers have no need for sprays. If all farming was organic, spraying would fall by 98 per cent. Organic sprays are mainly used on potatoes and in orchards. Those we allow are either of natural origin (rotenone and soft soap) or simple chemical products – copper compounds and sulphur. The active ingredients in rotenone and soft soap break down rapidly when exposed to sunlight, minimising risk to the environment. Copper and sulphur occur naturally in the soil, and most copper is applied by non-organic farmers to correct copper deficiencies. None is found in organic food.
Despite the wet weather and greatly increased risk of disease last year, only 3 per cent of Soil Association farmers and 2 per cent of organic crops were sprayed. Our goal is to use no sprays at all.
Fact four: Pesticide levels in conventional food are dangerous
I'd say certainly risky, and potentially dangerous. In the EU, one food item in 30 contains levels above European legal limits. Nearly 40 pesticides, which we were promised were safe, have been banned or withdrawn from use over the past decade. People who want to reduce their exposure to potentially harmful pesticides can buy organic food. A US study showed that within one day of switching to an organic diet no traces of pesticides could be found in children's urine. When the children switched back to a non-organic diet, pesticides were found immediately.
****tails of sprays are not tested when pesticides are passed as "safe", and research has confirmed they pose a risk. Average male fertility has fallen by 50 per cent, coinciding with the use of pesticides. There are alternative views – a government adviser blamed "too much time riding bikes, sitting down too much and wearing tight underpants". Science cannot prove there is no risk from pesticides. In the absence of clear scientific evidence either way, people who think that the accepted nutritional differences or absence of pesticides and artificial additives in organic food will benefit them or their children, should buy organic.
Fact five: Organic farming is healthier
In terms of food safety, the Food Standards Agency says there is no difference between organic and non-organic food. The animal welfare organisation Compassion in World Farming says: "Organic farming has the potential to offer the very highest standards of animal welfare". It believes that the Soil Association's welfare standards are "leaders in the field". Because animals are kept in better conditions, always free range, there is no need for the routine use of antibiotics, and such use is banned. The World Health Organisation says that: "There is growing concern that antibiotic residues in meat and dairy products could result in antibiotic resistance in bacteria prevalent in humans, reducing the effectiveness of antibiotics used to treat human disease." The most bizarre claim in last week's piece was that "Disease is the major reason why organic animals are half the weight of conventionally reared animals – so organic farming is not necessarily a boon to animal welfare." There is no truth in this. An organic steak or chicken are the same size as non-organic – have a look in the shops! Organic animals suffer no more disease, and frequently less, than non-organic.
Fact six: Organic food contains more nutrients
Published research shows that, on average, organic food contains higher levels of vitamin C and essential minerals such as calcium, magnesium, iron and chromium, as well as cancer-fighting antioxidants. Organic milk is naturally higher in Omega 3 fatty acids, Vitamin E, Vitamin A (beta-carotene) and some other antioxidants than non-organic milk.
Diseases such as eczema, asthma and allergies are affecting more and more children. Ten per cent of children in the EU now suffer from eczema. Following research in Sweden, a Dutch government-funded study published last November showed a 36 per cent lower incidence of eczema in children fed on organic dairy products compared with children consuming non-organic dairy products.
Organic standards prohibit a host of additives that researchers say may be harmful to our health, such as hydrogenated fat, monosodium glutamate and artificial flavourings and colourings. Recent Food Standards Agency-funded research found that some common additives can cause hyperactivity in children. You can avoid a wide range and large quantity of potentially allergenic or harmful additives if you eat organic food.
Fact seven: The demand for organic food is growing
Organic is still small. But local and direct organic sales are growing at 32 per cent per annum. In 2006 (the latest figures available) retail and catering sales were worth £1,937m – on average the retail market has grown 27 per cent per year over the past decade, and over the past few years, the proportion of the market supplied by UK farmers has grown. This is no longer simply a middle-class market. Over 50 per cent of people in lower income groups are buying organic food, and if they buy direct from farmers via box schemes or farm shops, it need not be more expensive than the same non-organic food in supermarkets. Three quarters of parents buy organic baby food, which makes up about half the total sold. Many parents and school governors have opted for at least part of school dinners being sourced from organic farms.
Organic farming is helping to reverse the decline in the UK's agricultural workforce, which has fallen by 80 per cent over the past 50 years. Organic farms in the UK provide on average more than 30 per cent more jobs per farm than equivalent non-organic farms – organic farmers tend to be younger, more optimistic and include more women. The choice we face is between oil-based farming with nitrogen fertiliser, or solar-powered organic systems. Producing one ton of nitrogen releases the equivalent of 6.7 tons of CO2. The raw material used to produce nitrogen fertiliser is, currently, increasingly scarce natural gas. UK farming uses three million tons of nitrogen fertiliser annually, half of which is imported. Organic farming is based on renewable processes on the farm, using clover to fix nitrogen and to build soil organic matter.
Recent research suggests that if all farming was organic, the slight decrease in yields in the northern hemisphere would be more than matched by overall increases elsewhere, leading to a slight increase in total food production. Long-term trials in the US found organic yields matching those from non-organic systems, with organic farming outperforming non-organic in drought years. Even with the uncertainties, in a world of increasing scarcity of fossil fuels, organic farming provides the only environmentally, or economically, sustainable system of feeding the world. Organic farming and food do not have all the answers. But solar-powered, animal and wildlife friendly, pesticide- and additive-free farming and food, is where we're heading.
Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-great-organic-myths-rebutted-822763.html
Read 0 Comments... >> |
|
Written by Enviroadmin
|
|
Sunday, 23 May 2010 18:50 |
At 15p a litre, home-brew biodiesel is fuel of the future
Drivers spurn forecourt for the pub restaurant when they need to fill their tanks
# John Vidal, environment editor
# The Guardian,
# Saturday May 10 2008
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/10/biofuels.alternativeenergy
Every few weeks Gordon Elliott drives 22 miles to the Hare and Hounds pub in Marple, Cheshire, collects a barrel of waste cooking oil from his stepdaughter and takes it back to his personal oil refinery in his garage in Leigh, near Bolton. The retired construction site manager then decants the liquid into a machine and adds a few chemicals.
Twenty-four hours later the waste oil has been purified, filtered and refined and is ready to be used in one of his family's two diesel cars. Instead of paying £1.25p a litre at the local supermarket, he has paid 15p to make his own biodiesel. He says he is saving nearly £100 a month - as well as 90% of the greenhouse gases he would normally emit from driving. The cars perform perfectly, the equipment will be paid for within a year and the pleasure of making his own fuel is intense. "It's the principle. I do it for the environment and to spite the exchequer," he said.
Elliott, 79, is part of a cottage industry of people who have turned to making their own recycled "biodiesel" in response to the doubling of fuel prices in just over a year. Companies making biodiesel "reactors" report booming sales and demand for cheaper diesel is outstripping anything they can produce.
"Our business has doubled in size in just the last six months," said David Taylor of Ecotec Resources, the Lancashire company which sold Elliott his machine and which also makes 100,000 litres a year of recycled fuel.
"If you can collect your own oil it works out at about 15p a litre. Otherwise you can buy in your waste oil for about 30p, so you are getting diesel for about 45p. That's a big saving on the forecourt price." He is selling 15-20 biodiesel machines a week and has sold 800 in under a year to taxi firms, hauliers, restaurants and others.
DIY diesel is seen by many as the revenge of the little man on the government, oil companies and the authorities. No one knows how many backroom refineries there are in Britain, but a government study suggested there were around 1,400 small scale plants producing a few thousand litres a year in 2005/6. Since then the price of diesel has more than doubled and the market for machines has risen. People in the industry suggest there are 35 companies refining recycled oil commercially and perhaps 20,000 individuals making private arrangements to collect and process oil from local restaurants, chip shops and food manufacturers.
Since the law was relaxed to allow people to make 2,500 litres a year for their own use, most are working legally, but as the price of fuel rises inexorably, so criminal elements are moving in.
"There are wars going on in London to get the oil," said Tom Lasica, who runs Pure Fuels, London's largest refiner of vegetable oil. "Spanish and German companies are moving in to buy up British used vegetable oil. People are stealing it from each other and selling it abroad. We heard that one fish and chip shop in Southend was broken into just to steal the waste oil."
"A lot of people are making the diesel for new cars. A year ago most people were putting it into old cars. Now the quality of the oil is critical," said Kym Leatt, a director of Envirogroup, which collects, refines and sells 7,500 litres a week in Kent.
"If we could produce five times as much biodiesel we could sell it just like that," said Leatt. "Demand has grown exponentially. Every day we have two or three new businesses asking us. Some companies are saving £25,000 a year. Were selling it to hauliers, taxi firms, fleets of tipper trucks. In the past it would either go down the drain or go to landfill. This is true recycling." He is selling for 98p a litre compared with £1.18-£1.25 at the pumps.
"Demand is going through the roof. We're selling biodiesel machines to the average Joe, universities, schools, restaurants, taxi drivers, absolutely anyone," said James Hygate, a director of GreenFuels. "We've noticed a surge of people driving company cars. They are making their own and then claiming 45p a mile from their firms.
"It's a true grassroots industry. The better quality oil is being taken at source by the small guys. Home scale production is definitely growing fast. Groups of farmers are beginning to grow the crops and make their own diesel."
Demand is growing from institutions and local authorities. The borough of Richmond is this week putting out a tender for a £3.5m contract to run all its 300 council vehicles on recycled vegetable oil for the next three years. The council says it could save nearly £100,000 and reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by several thousand tons.
Back in Marple, Elliott will this weekend be heading for the Hare and Hounds to pick up another barrel. "Everyone wants it. But if I have any left over I'll give it to the lad," he says.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/10/biofuels.alternativeenergy
Read 0 Comments... >> |
|
Written by Enviroadmin
|
|
Sunday, 23 May 2010 18:50 |
By: Reuters
Published: 18 Apr 08 - 16:48
Source: http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article.php?a_id=131672
Biofuels pose a moral problem and the worst of rioting prompted by soaring food costs may be yet to come, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary Fund, said on Friday.
"When we make biofuels from agricultural products not used for food, that is fine. But when they are made from food products, this poses a major moral problem," Strauss-Kahn told Europe 1 radio station on Friday.
Asked if he would support a possible moratarium on biofuels, Strauss-Kahn said: "When they use foodstuffs."
Countries needed to strike a balance between addressing environmental problems and the need to ensure people did not perish from hunger, he said, saying protests sparked by rising food costs around the globe could worsen.
"In terms of food-related riots, the worst is unfortunately possibly in front of us," he said. "Hundreds of thousands of people are going to be affected."
Food shortages and sky-rocketing costs have set off rioting and protests in countries including Haiti, Cameroon, Niger and Indonesia and deeper questioning of first-generation biofuels made from food crops.
Turning to the question of aid, he said it was crucial to mobilise resources rapidly to help affected countries.
The World Food Programme could help in the short-term, but could not be relied on given cash earmarked for food imports would not change the quantity of wheat available, he said.
"What is needed therefore is to raise agricultural production," he said.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy also weighed into the debate over food prices, saying the current crisis called not only for an immediate response but also for an ambitious strategy to support agriculture.
Speaking at an environmental conference, Sarkozy said he would propose a global partnership for food and agriculture, with greater co-ordination needed among international financial institutions, governments and the private sector.
He added that France would double its food aid contributions to 60-million euros this year.
Source: http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article.php?a_id=131672
Read 0 Comments... >> |
|
