Cambridge Friends of the
Earth
Newletter February 2000
Real Food
Pesticide day of confusion
I took part, along with other members of Cambridge FOE, in the
Pesticide Day of Action on Saturday, 30th October. Armed with trays
of organic fruit and vegetables purchased from the market stalls, we
descended on the two city centre supermarkets, Mark's and
Spencer’s and Sainsbury’s. We stood outside the
supermarkets for two or three hours, hoping our trays of organic
produce would attract attention. Instead, the trays served only to
confuse people, who seemed to think we were actually trying to sell
the stuff! But when I explained to people what it was all about, many
people did express concern about pesticides in food, or a preference
for organic or home-grown produce. The overwhelming majority of
people who stopped to talk were opposed to the use of pesticides in
food, and were happy to complete the Concerned Shopper slips
addressed to the supermarkets, objecting to the use of pesticides. We
encountered no opposition from Sainsbury’s staff during our
action. The completed slips were presented to the respective
supermarkets at a later date.
In a survey of major national supermarket chains conducted by
national FOE before the Day of Action, on the attitudes of the
supermarkets to the pesticide issue, their willingness to source
pesticide-free food, the choice of organic food they offer, the
extent to which they are prepared to supply information to the public
on the issue, and other related matters, it was revealed that
Sainsbury’s was actually one of the ‘best’
supermarkets, whereas Tesco had the worst record on the above
issues.
The use of pesticides
Intensive crop production unfortunately involves using large
quantities of pesticides. There are more than 300 chemicals approved
for use on crops in the UK. Farmers spray around one billion gallons
of them each year on 95% of the UK’s crops. UK grown Coxe’s
apples for example, get 35 pesticide treatments before getting to the
supermarket.
Each year 80 tonnes of lindane, an organochlorine (OC) pesticide
related to DDT, is sprayed on crops.
Pesticides in food
Government statistics show that in 1998 one in eight UK lettuces
had pesticide residues over the Government maximum residue level. 40%
of fresh produce contains residues. The Department of Health advises
peeling apples before giving them to children because of pesticide
contamination. Tests have shown that some carrots contain residues of
five organophosphate (OP) pesticides, used to combat carrot root fly.
MAFF studies have found lindane residues in a range of British
produce. In 1996 over one third of cow’s milk was contaminated
with this pesticide. All fruit and vegetables are treated with
pesticides, therefore processed foods also contain pesticides. FOE
research shows that over one third of UK baby food products contain
residue levels ten times those of EU limits. It’s been estimated
that the average British diet contains residues of around 30
different pesticides.
Health effects
Long term effects of exposure to pesticides are unknown but many
pesticides are linked to effects such as disruption of the endocrine
(hormonal) system. Research suggests that effects can occur even when
residues are below Government safety levels. It’s also thought
that the effects of the mixture of different pesticides in our diet
could be greater than the sum of the effects of each pesticide in
isolation.
Possibly the most harmful pesticides are the OPs and OCs, a family
of pesticides used against a wide range of parasites and pests. OPs
were originally designed as nerve gases for use in warfare. The
effects of OPs and OCs on humans include mental and nervous disorders
and a possible link to chronic fatigue syndrome. Lindane has been
banned or heavily restricted in many countries because it's been
linked to breast cancer, but it’s not banned in the UK. In
Lincolnshire where lindane is used extensively, eg. on sugar beet,
breast cancer levels are 40% above the national average.
Lindane and many similar chemicals accumulate in fat tissue.
Recent research shows that more than 350 chemicals can be found in
human milk.
The environment
Many pesticides are non-biodegradable. They stay in the soil for
years, posing a continuous threat to human health and wildlife.
Pesticides are washed into streams and rivers adjacent to farmland,
contaminating the water. In 1997, 8% of English rivers and lakes were
polluted with levels of pesticides above maximum levels recommended
by the Government. The cost of decontaminating water supplies is
around £1 billion per year. Consumers pay for this in their
water bills.
Chemical farming destroys wildlife habitats. It has a serious
impact on many arable weeds which are now highly threatened, in turn
wiping out many seed-eating and insect-eating wild birds such as
skylarks and blackbirds, and mammals such as dormice.
The more pesticides are used, the more that insects and parasites
build up resistance which farmers deal with by applying larger
quantities of pesticides. For example, in the USA, around the start
of chemical farming in 1950, there were less than 20 insect species
with a known resistance to chemical pesticides. By 1990, there were
over 500.
Organic farming
It has been estimated that the best yields produced by organic
farming is theoretically capable of feeding everyone. Organic and
other foods produced without pesticides are already of an excellent
quality. Occasionally fresh produce will have minor blemishes and the
odd bug, but these are easy to see and remove - pesticide residues
are not. Also, low intensity farming systems eg, organic farming,
employ 10% more workers than conventional farming systems.
FOE demands
The Friends of the Earth Real Food Campaign calls for:
· all food to be safe for
people and the environment
· supermarkets to phase out
all pesticide-treated food, and to introduce labelling so that
consumers can tell what residues they’re eating
· a new pesticide tax to
discourage over use and fund research into alternative pest control
measures
· increased support for
organic farmers to at least the highest levels in the EU
· A review of the safety of
all pesticides, and a ban on those that cannot be proven to be
safe
· Government set targets for
pesticide reduction and organic farming.
What you can do
Call up your supermarket and ask what residues are on the food you
buy
Write to your supermarket demanding pesticide-free food and
accurate labelling of fresh foods
Ask your MP to support the Organic Targets Bill and Pesticide
Tax
Buy organic produce whenever possible, and ask your local shop to
supply it
James Murray
______________________________________________________________________________
Environmentally-friendly
food
Farmer’s markets have now been operating in Cambridge’s
Market Square since August. In a farmer’s market, the farmer
him/herself comes to town to sell his/her own produce direct to
customers. The benefits of this arrangement are that the food is
local and fresh. Food miles are drastically reduced, therefore
reducing traffic, the local economy is stimulated, farmer's profits
are boosted as the middle men are bypassed, and customers can talk to
the producers directly, asking them how the food is produced. A wide
range of produce is available, including vegetables and meats. The
farmer's markets are being held fortnightly on Sundays. Details are
available from Annette Joyce on 01223-457524.
There are also a number of suppliers of organic foods based in
Cambridgeshire and many of them operate a home delivery scheme. These
are listed below. Details of suppliers are available from the FoE
office. The Organic Directory, a nationwide directory of suppliers of
organic foods, is also available from the Soil Association on
0117-9290661 for £5.
Arjuna Wholefoods, 12, Mill Road, Cambridge, Tel:
01223-364845. Shop.
Delivery to a radius of 15 miles from Cambridge. Supplies wine,
fruit, vegetables, eggs, dairy products, wholefoods and herbs.
Daily Bread, Unit 3, Kilmaine Close, Cambridge, Tel:
01223-423177. Shop.
Vegetable, fruit, groceries, bread, eggs and wholefoods.
Farmer Giles, 174, Mill Road, Cambridge, Tel: 01223-248526.
Shop, box scheme, and home delivery.
Delivers to Cambridge and 10 mile radius. Alcohol, bread, dairy
produce, eggs, fruit, vegetables and meat.
Karma Farm Natural Produce, 8, Fen Bank, Isleham, Ely,
Cambridgeshire, Tel: 01638-780701.
Farm gate, home delivery. Delivery to a 30 mile radius of Ely.
Beef, eggs, lamb, and potatoes.
Naturally Yours, The Horse & Gate Farm, Witcham Toll,
Ely, Cambridgeshire, Tel: 01353-778723.
Box scheme, home delivery. Free delivery within 50 miles of
Cambridge. Vegetable boxes, cheese, fruit, wholefoods, bacon, pork
and chicken.
Organic Connections International, Riverdale, Town St,
Upwell, Wisbech, Cambridgeshire, Tel: 01945-773374.
Box scheme, home delivery. Salad box, fruit box, standard box,
pasta box, eggs, wholefoods, herbs, bread, cheese and juices.
The Prospects Trust, Snakehall Farm, 50, Swaffham Road,
Reach, Cambridgeshire, Tel: 01638-741551.
Farm shop. Vegetables and herbs.
Waterland Organics, Quaystone Cottage, Reach,
Cambridgeshire, Tel: 01638-742178.
Box scheme and home delivery. Delivery to Cambridge and
surrounding area. Fruit and vegetables.
Wisbech Wholefoods, 8, North St, Old Market, Wisbech,
Cambridgeshire, Tel: 01945-464468.
Shop. Alcohol, fruit, vegetables, dairy produce, wholefoods,
groceries, eggs and herbs.
In addition to the above-named suppliers, the following suppliers
are based in the Cambridge area. These do not necessarily sell
organic produce.
Ida Darwin Farm Shop, Fulbourn Hospital, Fulbourn,
Cambridge.
Roger’s Greengrocer, Trumpington; An outlet for Arjuna
produce.
Farmer Giles Chaplins, Farm Shop, Fulbourn, Cambridge.
Dockerill, Sawston, Tel: 01223-835029.
Sells meat products made on site from free range animals.
Allotments
Information on Cambridge allotments from:
Lee Fish in Leisure Services at Cambridge Guildhall, Tel:
01223-457542; email: leef@cambridge.gov.uk
Cambridge Allotments Network, email: info@allotments.net
Information on Girton allotments from Secretary of Girton
Allotments Society,
Ray Gordon, 10, Pepys Way, Girton, Tel: 01223-276933
James Murray
______________________________________________________________________________
The Sustainable City Food
Forum
The Cambridge Sustainable City Forum on Food, Health and the
Environment was held in the Gilmour Room, Botanic Gardens, on
Wednesday 13th October, 1999. The objectives of the Forum were to
promote local sustainability in food production and awareness of the
issues involved, to encourage networking and to identify areas for
action.
The chairman was Dr. Mark Collins, Chief Executive of the World
Conservation Monitoring Centre and Chair of Sustainable City. The
forum opened with a talk on the overall area by Dr. David Barling
from Thames Valley University’s Centre for Food Policy. This was
followed by shorter presentations on specific areas. These were
‘Food Futures’ by Naomi Diamond of
the Soil Association, ‘Local Food Links’
by Rosemary Hoskins, a consultant who is working with East
Anglia Food Links, and ‘Healthy Living’
by Sue Smith from Cambridgeshire Health Authority.
Food Futures
The theme of the talk on Local Food Links -
local food production - was further developed in the talk on Food
Futures. The Food Futures project is a 3-year nation wide project to
develop the food economy on a local community scale. The principle is
to ensure a local supply of healthy affordable food for everyone. The
Soil Association is planning to run a number of individual 18 month
Food Futures programmes in various parts of the UK. Each programme is
designed to initiate action for developing a sustainable local food
and farming economy through creating and supporting community-based
food production and distribution schemes The project aims to
establish a total of 45 community-based food schemes throughout the
UK.
The Food Future programme would offer guidance, support and
technical input as required throughout the programme. A local Food
Futures programme would depend on involving key people locally, and
using and building upon local expertise. Projects would be adaptable
to a wide range of locations, from rural agricultural communities to
urban communities, through the use of allotments for example. A local
project would involve people from a wide variety of backgrounds:
local authority (Local Agenda 21), health authority, voluntary sector
and community groups, environmental groups, farmers and producers,
allotment groups, food retailers and distributors, and local
universities and colleges. Before the Soil Association committed
itself to initiating a project in any area it would look for tangible
signs of commitment from the local community to such a project.
Workshops
After the talks the participants split into three groups and each
group had a workshop on the theme covered in one of the shorter
talks. These were essentially brainstorming sessions to produce
ideas. Each workshop tried to answer three questions: ‘How can
this project be taken up in Cambridge?’; ‘How can
individuals contribute?’; What support does the project need and
from who?’. After the workshops a member of each group gave a
short presentation on the relevant workshop.
The commonest or most general themes to arise from the workshops
are summarised below.
Allotments
Promotion and protection of; encouragement of use of, for self
sufficiency; selling excess produce for local consumption, especially
to deprived communities at reasonable prices.
Community links
More farm / community joint projects, e.g. farms running cafes,
cafes and restaurants buying local food, mobile farm shops taking
local food to deprived communities, small shops buying from local
producers, harvest festivals at schools where children / parents can
buy produce, consultation of communities to see what people want and
need, and what they are able to contribute for themselves;
experienced people e.g. gardeners working with community groups and
schools.
Support
For all local food producers / distributors, from local farmers
and farmer’s markets to allotment holders and small / organic /
health food shops by buying from them; practical help from voluntary
groups and community schemes.
Information and marketing
Raising awareness of how our food is produced and transported;
collection and dissemination of information on local food production
and distribution, through public places, newsletters, neighbourhood
markets, local directories, information on the website, and through
voluntary groups.
Building on existing initiatives
Like farmers markets, organic produce shops and producers.
Education
Teaching the growing and preparation of food from an early age
e.g. horticultural skills; input from nutritionists into school
menus; and health education.
Influencing decision makers
Demanding that councils, universities, and local businesses have
relevant food procurement policies; lobbying decision makers to
redirect subsidies to organic production; projects also need
political will from local and national politicians.
Funding
Advertisement of EU subsidies for incentives for organic
producers; local investment and sponsorship; working with local
businesses and councils.
Other specific points raised that are worth a mention are as
follows:
The Council should be encouraged to give rate relief to small
local shops, especially shops selling local / organic produce, or
otherwise support them.
Labeling of local food as such.
Establishment of a central local body to coordinate effort, such
as marketing and research into local needs, coordination of projects
to avoid duplication, and sharing of knowledge, resources and
experience.
Finally, encouragement of local meat production by maintaining
local abattoirs.
The forum ended after the presentations. Feedback on the event was
very positive, but there was also a general feeling that the time was
too short for what we tried to cover. However, it was a starting
point to initiate thinking on, and discussion of, relevant
issues.
With a growing concern among the public and community groups alike
for food production and quality, and effects on the environment, and
a growing interest in local and organic food production, the time
seems ripe to initiate new projects and build on current
developments. The next Sustainable City Forum will be 11th May 2000,
inviting business and commerce to address the topic of Enterprise and
sustainability.
James Murray
This article is based on an article on the Food Futures Project by
the Soil Association, and a report on the forum by Cambridge
Sustainable city.
______________________________________________________________________
The GM foods stall
Cambridge residents may remember that for quite a while now, an
intrepid little band of Cambridge environmental activists have been
attending the GM foods stall, usually outside the Guildhall, Market
Square on Saturday mornings and afternoons. During the GM Foods
campaign Cambridge FoE have had stalls at local festivals and got
involved in marches and demonstrations (such as the GM Foods Rally in
London last April, reported in the July 1999 Newsletter, and a local
demonstration at Monsanto’s site in Trumpington early last year
which went unreported), and debates as well (see Cambridge FoE vs.
Monsanto,p. 13 ). But the stall has been the main thrust of
the campaign, and the main reason for it has been to collect
signatures on our petition to Anne Campbell for a five year
moratorium on the outdoor growing of GM crops for anything other than
independent research (no, we’re not accepting the three year
moratorium - see p.14). These petitions are going to Anne very
soon, now.
Of course the stall hasn’t just been a Cambridge FOE affair -
the GM Foods campaign is too big for that. Members of other groups,
such as Cambridge Concerns and the Green Party have helped out as
well. It’s been a sort of pan local anti-GM Foods group stall.
And it’s been about more than collecting signatures as well. A
range of information is available from the stall, some of it quite
in-depth on specific topics. And Cambridge being the sort of place it
is, we’ve encountered a number of people who have a good
knowledge of the subject. We’ve engaged people both for against
the issue, and had some lively debates. It’s a great way of
learning about the subject, and making you think about the issues,
even if you think you know all about it! If anyone is interested in
helping out on the stall, please ring Ursula on 840882.
Cambridge FoE would like to thank all those who have helped out on
the stall including Dave Bailey, Ursula Stubbings, Patrice Gladwin
James Murray, Tony Higgins, Julie Crick, Ken Richard, Ian Ralls, Lucy
Agate, Sarah Foreman, Christina Marshall, and others (apologies to
anyone we’ve forgotten).
Ursula Stubbings and James Murray
______________________________________________________________________________
Cambridge FoE vs. Monsanto
I attended the GM Foods Debate between Dave Bailey and Lucy Agate
of Cambridge FOE and Greg Sage of Monsanto (formerly PBI,
Trumpington), hosted by the World Development Movement in the Emanuel
United Reformed Church in Trumpington Street, at 7.30 on Tuesday 19th
October.
The speakers presented their case, after which there was a
question and answer session, during which members of the audience
could clarify points the speakers had made. This was followed by
questions from the floor addressed to the speakers, asking them to
justify their case. There was no final vote to decide on the winner,
but this last question and answer session provided no doubt as to
which side the audience was on.
The style of presentation of the two sides was almost like a role
reversal. The Cambridge FOE speakers came armed with an impressive
set of very professional-looking overheads which gave their
presentation a very authoritative air. Greg Sage, the man from the
multi-national corporate giant, on the other hand, dressed and spoke
casually as he wandered through the audience, and did without the
overheads and other props.
The root of the problem
Greg Sage spoke first, and during the first part of his talk I was
wondering where the debate was going to come from. He was almost
singing the praises of Cambridge FOE, saying how essential such
organisations were in a democracy to voice the interests of the
public, and to provide a counter-balance to the power of Government
and big business alike (a further attempt to win the hearts and minds
of the public, no doubt). But when that was over and done with, he
got on to his agenda of defending the science of GM foods and
Monsanto. He explained, and justified the reasons why this research
had to be privatised (probably the root of the whole problem). This
was because it was horrendously expensive. The British government
couldn’t pay for it, and as the farmers were going to be the
buyers of these new high-tech products, "let them pay for it", he
said, paraphrasing "the hard-nosed Mrs. T". "Why should the tax-payer
pay?" I thought we were all customers in the food market! The main
thrust of his argument was that if the British public rejected GM
foods, then Britain would lose out in this competitive industry.
It’s a concept of GM foods that doesn’t fit very easily
with feeding the Third World.
Dave Bailey emphasized again the threats of this technology to the
environment, to consumer choice and to Third World development. His
argument came from the interesting perspective that these were
becoming casualties of this new technology while a war raged between
the Green movement and the Biotech industry and Government.
Groovy Marketing Opportunities
The point Lucy Agate seemed to focus on most, was the question - a
very important one in the GM foods issue, perhaps not asked often
enough - "do we really need them?" She suggested that perhaps GMO
really stood for "Groovy Marketing Opportunity". The goods were out
there, now all that had to be done was convince a skeptical public
that they were good for us and good for the environment. Lucy made an
interesting comparison between GM foods on the one hand, and
programmable Frisbees and transparent toasters on the other. They
were being made, they were being sold, but did we really need
them?
After the speakers had presented their case, questions were hurled
at them from the floor, but most of these seemed to be hurled at Greg
Sage, asking him to justify his position. I think the only comment
from the floor in defense of the Biotech industry came from a potato
farmer who stated that some seed law made in the 70’s or
80’s was adequate to regulate certain aspects of the GM food
issue!
After the formal debate was over, members of the audience mingled
and talked among themselves or continued to question the speakers. It
wasn’t until the end of the night that I approached Greg Sage
and asked him if he was ready for more debating or whether he’d
had enough. His reply was inaudible! As I mentioned before, there was
no formal vote to decide on the winner, but I think the feelings of
the audience were plain enough. As far as the Cambridge public are
concerned GMOs are still a Groovy Marketing Opportunity.
James Murray
______________________________________________________________________________
The three year moratorium
The GM foods industry and the Government have jointly agreed on a
three year voluntary ban on the commercial growing of GM crops in
Britain, to allow time for independently funded research scientists
to ascertain whether GM trial sites have adverse affects on the
biodiversity of the countryside. This means that commercial growing
will be delayed until at least the spring of 2003. The announcement
was made recently by Michael Meacher, the Environment Minister.
In spite of the emphasis placed on the importance of a sound
knowledge of the effects of GM crops on our native fauna by the Royal
Society in their report on the GM issue last April, the Government
had apparently intended to plough ahead with commercial planting even
though independent research on the effects of GM crops is still
clearly far from completion. It seems that the voice of the "Green
Lobby" is beginning to take effect.
Obviously this is a compromised situation between the demands of
the Greens and the desires of Government and industry, which they are
hoping will give them a way out of their dilemma.
Licenses for GM crops
The trials will be held on spring- and autumn-planted GM oil seed
rape, maize and possibly sugar beet. Plantings will be limited to
about 200 hectares per crop spread out around
the country. Mr. Meacher said the sites would not be secret but he
would be dismayed if "misguided activists seek to destroy these trial
crops. They will be destroying the evidence of the effects of these
crops on biodiversity. They will be shooting themselves in the foot
if they destroy the evidence that could get these crops banned".
At present all the crops are destroyed when they seed because no
licenses to use them in animal or human food has been granted.
However, the possibility of licenses being granted for these crops
during the three year trial period was raised by Stephen Smith, a
spokesman for the GM foods industry.
Patrick Holden of the Soil Association, said, "We are not going to
have directly commercially marketable crops in this country for three
years, but what happens when the three years is up? The
Government’s position seems to be that ‘British Biotech plc
’ needs to get a bite of the GM cherry as quickly as
possible".
Change in thinking
What stance should the environmental movement take on the three
year moratorium? Personally, I would like to think that it is an
acknowledgment that the concerns of the public and the green movement
alike are valid concerns, that there is a real possibility that GM
crops could have an adverse effect on the environment, and that the
research done so far is inadequate. Or maybe the Government and GM
industries felt they had to give way to public pressure to save their
credibility. Either way it indicates a change in thinking on the
issue, and as such it must be welcomed. I am not saying we should
accept a three year moratorium. There is the worrying prospect of
licenses being granted for these crops during the three year trial
period, as raised by Stephen Smith. And what if, after three years,
there is no evidence that GM crops poses a threat to the environment?
"No evidence of risk" gets translated, along the long and tortuous
route from independent research labs via Whitehall to the House of
Commons, as "No risk", unless we have learned something from the BSE
crisis!
Research can not be rushed
Of course we don’t know for certain yet if these crops will
pose a threat to the environment, and that is why we need to impose a
moratorium to allow more independent research to be done. Supposing
these crops do pose a threat to the environment? Equally we have no
way of knowing how long it will take before detrimental effects
become apparent. The Specified Bovine Offals Regulations - the main
measure for the protection of public health against the BSE agent -
came into force in 1989. It wasn’t until 1996 that nvCJD emerged
(the human form of BSE thought to be caused by eating infected meat
products). It wasn’t until late 1997 that it was shown that "the
molecular ... type of nvCJD was ... indistinguishable from BSE.......
There is still no way of knowing the total number of people who will
succumb to nvCJD. ...a very wide range of total epidemic sizes is
still compatible with the observed annual incidence to
date."(Professor Sir John Pattison, Chairman of the UK Spongiform
Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, Microbiology Today,
February 1999, published by the Society of General Microbiology). The
picture was no clearer late last year. "We are still no wiser as to
what the total death toll will be" (Dr. James Ironside, Biologist,
September 1999, published by the Institute of Biology).
This is why this research can not be rushed. Supposing we accept
the three year moratorium, and if after three years there are still
doubts as to the safety of these crops, should we start another
campaign all over again for another moratorium? No! We should stick
to our original demands. Maybe five years isn’t enough. Maybe
ten years isn’t enough. But the green movement decided on a five
year moratorium at the start, and we have to stick to our demands. If
the Government wants a way out of this dilemma, what’s another
two years to them?
James Murray
Back to Newletter contents
page
|
