Apart from being knowledgeable about all things organic and a champion for the green movement in Australia, our man on the ground – Anthony – is also an extremely talented musician. For those of you who don’t already know, Anthony is the lead singer in one of Australia’s hottest new bands, Frequency Drive. Recently, he’s been putting in some long hours readying the band’s latest video for public release. “Such is Life”, a song capturing and reflecting Anthony’s energy, enthusiasm and passion, can now be viewed online. I strongly encourage you to check it out now on YouTube!

Shot in Sydney, Australia, the video is beautifully put together and features some of the more historic locations in and around the city. Congratulations to Ryan B (aka Film Guy) and Frequency Drive on all of the hard work that went into producing this amazing clip.

If you know Anthony, you’re already aware that he has something special. “Such is Life” is transformational. It’s as though Anthony has pooled all of his energy and channelled it into one song. As far as I’m aware, the only other artist that had the capacity to do that sort of thing within the confines of a song was Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys (I’m thinking “God Only Knows” from the Pet Sounds album right now).  “Such is Life” represents fresh beginnings and the embodiment of hopes and dreams that are finally crystallising. My heartiest congratulations go to Anthony and the boys. Well done!!!

Do you like it – let us know? Better still, jump on to Frequency Drive’s myspace site and let them know what you think…

Here’s a speech delivered by HRH The Prince of Wales at the inaugural “Food for Life” Awards in London recently. It’s so insightful that I thought it should be included in full. This is the kind of support the organic movement needs to combat the assault from industrial agricultural concerns. Enjoy.

Ladies and gentlemen, if I may say so, it really is a huge pleasure to be here this afternoon to present these inaugural “Food for Life Partnership Awards”. 

I know from Peter Melchett and Emma Noble, who have worked so tirelessly on this campaign, that they are immensely heartened that so many schools have met the criteria to be award winners in this first year of the awards. 

The fact that there is no gold winner this year proves just how tough the standards are and I can only congratulate all the silver and bronze winners – and, particularly, the “School of the Year”. 

I know you are all longing to find out which one of you has won this prestigious title, but I hope you will forgive me for prolonging the suspense a little longer because I just wanted to say a few words about precisely why I believe it is so crucial to follow the example you are all setting and to transform the food culture in this country… 

Over the last forty years it would appear that we have managed to create a whole generation – the parents of the children you teach – whose understanding of where food comes from and how it is produced is severely limited. 

And it is causing real harm.  The over-reliance on packaged, processed food is not just damaging our own health, but damaging our bio-diversity, our soil through agro-chemicals and our water-table through pesticides. 

And, linked to all this, our family farmers have seen ever-diminishing returns on their produce, which means that rural communities have suffered from the loss of local distinctiveness, traditions and culture.

So we have much to mend, but the prize if we succeed is enormous.  And what is so encouraging is that there are signs of real optimism.  Things are beginning to change, not least as a result of the heroic efforts of a really remarkable man, Jamie Oliver.  But at the heart of the progress which has been made is the work of the “Food for Life Partnership”. 

I am proud to say that two organizations of which I am patron – the Soil Association and Garden Organic – are members, together with the Focus on Food Campaign and the Health Education Trust.

I was reflecting over the weekend that it was only in 2004 – just four years ago, long before this had become a public issue – that I spoke to teachers, school cooks and farmers at a Soil Association “Food for Life” event in Skipton. 

Everyone agreed that radical change was needed, but there was a real sense that it was probably too difficult because even if caterers could be persuaded to put fresher, healthier food on the menu, pupils would not eat it. 

However, there were two people at that meeting who knew it was possible because they had done it and it had worked.  One was Steve Hatcher, the Deputy Head of St Aiden’s, a secondary school in Harrogate, who had brought in a restaurant chef with the result that the numbers of pupils eating school lunch increased massively, there was a significant improvement in behaviour and concentration and far fewer pupils were going out into the town at lunchtime.  In other words, the food was better on the inside than the outside! 

The second pioneer at that meeting was the most extraordinary dinner lady, Jeanette Orrey, who had revolutionized the school meals at her primary school, St Peter’s in Nottinghamshire.  I am so pleased to see her here today since I can only say she is owed the greatest possible debt of gratitude because she inspired the creation of Food for Life which has led the revolution in school food.

But, of course, what everyone here knows is that it isn’t enough just to offer healthy food.  The Food for Life Partnership has shown that the take-up of school meals rises – on average by 16 per cent across the award-winning schools that are here today – when school meal changes are supported by practical food education like learning to cook, growing food and visiting farms to learn where food actually comes from. 

So it is crucial that we teach children about the link between the soil, the countryside and food production; we must allow them to discover the joys of planting a seed in the earth, to see it grow, to harvest it themselves and then to eat what they have grown.  Above all, they need to learn to cook it.  This is the only way to educate children about healthy eating – about slow food, not fast food. 

How else can we possibly expect children to care about the food they eat unless they understand how it is grown?  If they don’t know that milk comes from a cow and carrots from the soil, how can they make judgements on what is good or bad for them?  That is why I was so pleased that my own Duchy Originals food company developed a programme with Garden Organic to encourage children to grow their own food.  Any school can do it.  As St John the Baptist school in Hackney – represented here today – has shown, even inner city schools on very restricted sites can find somewhere for pupils to grow food – all they need to do is tear up some of that endless, depressing black tarmac!

And if young people can begin to learn the skill and care which goes into producing food then perhaps we can begin to tackle the appalling waste of food in this country – £10 billion worth every year; that is over £600 a year for every household with children.  It is nothing short of criminal and obscene, but is a symptom of our “throwaway society”.  Some of it, at least, you might have thought, could be used to feed to pigs instead of importing hideously expensive grain and some to be anaerobically digested to provide a clean source of power and heat.

But I think we need to ask ourselves a more searching question, not least about the cause of some of the anti-social behaviour of some young people.  Many of you here today would attest to the clear link between the quality of food that young people eat and their behaviour.  I was interested to hear one of the headteachers here today say “The change in children’s behaviour when we changed the food from processed to freshly prepared and organic was incredible!  They’re much happier and more attentive in class now.” 

But I wonder if there is something deeper here?  Do you think, perhaps, that the disconnection from the land, from the natural world and from understanding the rhythms of Nature, is part of the cause too?  There was some research published at the beginning of the Year of Food and Farming, of which I was patron, by Dr Aric Sigman which showed that children who have contact with Nature score higher on tests of concentration and self-discipline; that exposure to natural environments improves children’s cognitive development and that schools with outdoor education programmes have better academic results and classroom behaviour. 

This, I can only say, is one of the reasons I have for so long been such a committed supporter of school farms.  For those that find academic studies more of a struggle, they learn practical skills and they also tend to respond extremely positively to working with farm animals.  The great thing is that every child can be a success at something and this gives an enormous sense of self-confidence and self-worth.  Incidentally, I don’t know how many of you know that a few years ago The Royal College of Physicians did a report on allergies.  I am sure you know that there is an epidemic of allergies and the Report found three causes: a lack of exposure to animals, chemicals in products and hermetically sealed buildings.

Now we are beginning to make progress with healthy eating in schools, we need to tackle – yes –  you have guessed it! – we need to tackle how we feed patients in our hospitals.  As we are what we eat and as we know that the sort of food we eat makes a difference to our health even when we are not ill, it would seem sensible that the food hospital patients are given helps, rather than risks hindering, the process of recovery.  So we need to encourage them to source locally, seasonally and, where possible, organically.

There are some shining examples already in existence, not least at the Royal Brompton Hospital here in London, which is sourcing its food from a local farmers’ hub thus bringing benefit to the patients through better quality food, to the farmers through a reliable and local market, and to the environment through lower food miles and less waste.

In the best tradition of meddling, it has occurred to me that if it could be organized – and I cannot see why it couldn’t – the ideal would be to create local hubs, not just of hospitals, but schools too which would buy local food from hubs of local farmers.  This would massively reduce transport costs and food miles, while contributing greatly to local economies and to patient and pupil health.  In other words, it would be possible to create a genuinely virtuous circle.

I know that there are caterers we are celebrating here today who are beginning to do just this.  “Local Food Links” is serving a “Food for Life” Gold menu to twenty-four schools in Dorset, and “Shire Services” has successfully launched a “Food for Life” Silver menu with seasonal, local and organic food to 130 primary schools in Shropshire.  This has to be the way forward and I do hope that others will be inspired to follow the lead you are giving.  Incidentally, the Home Farm at Highgrove has been supplying a local school in Gloucestershire with potatoes and carrots for the last four years.

Ladies and gentlemen, please be under no illusions about the importance of the mission in which you are engaged.  It is about rescuing today’s generation of over-industrialized children; about instilling in them a life-long appreciation of food and the way it is produced and reconnecting them with Nature so that they may have a better understanding of why it is so precious to the health and well-being of each and every one of us.  It is about transforming attitudes to food and farming and, in particular, the fortunes of Britain’s family farmers.  My warmest congratulations to all the winners.

Everyone here knows that China produces lead toys, flame attracting pyjamas and the odd gyoza (savoury dumpling) made from boiled cardboard. But who knew that pesticide tainted ginger would be added to the list???

Now I know a lot about China and I must say, having visited the place many times, consider myself a friend of China. But to tell the truth, I really don’t trust Chinese organic producers. I think that is because I know the country – money is king. Now, I don’t blame the people. Why if you were living on around a dollar and a half a day, you’d probably boil cardboard and sell it too. You may not even care for the environment, as the folk over at thenvironmentalblog.org point out often enough (check that link out – 460,000 Chinese a year die from pollution – aaaargh). But my cross-cultural understanding ends when it comes to this.

Basically, there are a lot of smart capitalists in China, and they know that organic produce is big over here – so beware. My tips are as ever – buy local organic first. Know your farmer and know what you’re eating!

You know it kind of makes me a little angry that the candidates can play to the image while doing as little as possible to support the cause. Probably unknown to them, the ‘Organic Food Bar’ is the only consumer brand name product that is available at both the Democrat and Republican conventions. Obviously this is a huge scoop for the makers of Organic Food Bar – and I congratulate them on that. It’s important that organic food reaches a wider consumer base, which will ultimately make access easier and cheaper for all of us.

But as for policies that support organic consumers and industry… well hold back – both parties have little or none! What I am really worried about is that the next administration will inevitably have to make some major policy decisions, which will have a huge impact on organic consumers. Will organics be in the hands of your local farmer or in the hands of the major corporations? Will there be regulations in place to ensure that both are protected? Will there be regulations that ensure that WE ARE PROTECTED?

We should all be aware of these choices. Over at the Organic Consumer’s Association (OCA) they are prepared for these choices. We as consumers should get behind them, or at least be aware of what they are saying. You don’t have to agree with them (and many don’t) but at least know what they are saying!

Ecological Internet, the group responsible for ClimateArk.org and Forests.org announced today their intention to publish a new ezine called New Earth Rising. They’re currently seeking submissions from established and new environmental writers, scholars and activists. Given the length of time Dr Glen Barry and his team has been involved in scholarly discussion on all matter relating to ecological sustainability this is sure to be a well-researched, thoughtful and timely publication. So, what exactly are Ecological Internet looking for in submissions? The following should assist…

New Earth Rising’s editorial tone will strongly favor truthful ecological writings regarding global eco-crises, identifying necessary and sufficient solutions, and organizing action for their implementation. Submissions should be personal essays of 2-4 pages in length, and need not be scholarly and footnoted, but must be well-researched, informed and passionate.

The publication will be grounded in the ethics of biocentrism, deep ecology and political ecology. It will emphasize the need for ecological science and rationalism in formulating environmental public policy; examination of the seriousness of ecological and related social issues; propose necessary, sufficient and workable solutions involving global citizens, society and governments; and be skeptical regarding secular and religious ideologies.

This is a good opportunity for the organic community to highlight the role organic agriculture can play in addressing climate change. To find out more, please check out ClimateArk.org.

The Soil Association today announced the appointment of Rob Haward, operations director at Riverford Organic Vegetables, as grower representative on its standards board, following an open recruitment process. This appointment completes the Soil Association’s new, independent standards board.

Rob Haward, operations director of Riverford Organic Vegetables, said “I am delighted to have been appointed. I hope my input will be of value to the Soil Association in enabling them to continue to lead the way on standards development. This process is essential in order to protect consumers, while balancing the technical constraints of growers.”

The Soil Association Standards Board is responsible for maintaining and developing all of the Association’s organic standards. Current issues under consideration include:

• airfreight and the possibility of linking this with ethical trade (to ensure airfreight really does benefit African, and other, farmers);
• the Soil Association’s response to the confusion likely to be caused by the new mandatory EU logo;
• the development of specific standards for glasshouse production;
• the creation of common international standards for health and beauty products.

Anna Bradley, chair of the Soil Association Standards Board, said “I welcome Rob to the standards board. With the new standards board complete, I hope all our stakeholders will be confident that their interests will be understood at the standards board table. We can now develop the Soil Association standards with the vigour, transparency and accountability expected of such an organisation and its public interest responsibilities.”

With just over one week until the start of the Organic World Congress in Modena, Italy, five finalists for the prestigious One World Award, which is sponsored by IFOAM, have been announced. The award aims to recognize people committed to permanently protecting and conserving the world we enjoy. The five finalists of the One World Award 2008 have all shown extraordinary commitment to protecting the viability of the planet for future generations. In doing so, they have demonstrated that the future of globalization is positive. The finalists are:

Harald Schützeichel started the foundation for solar energy in Ethiopia in 2004 with the aim of supplying the rural population of Africa with energy. He is consistently trying “to help people help themselves” by creating jobs to promote economic development and education.

Anil Rana, started the Janhit foundation in India in 1988, with the aim of providing cleaner drinking water and fighting water pollution. He also started an ecological cultivation program in 2002 to make a contribution to bio diversity.

Lal Emmanuel, started the Nagenahiru foundation in Sri Lanka in 1991, to campaign for the protection and the reforestation of Mangrove woods. To this day, about 15 hectares have been forested. He has also set up a teaching and training center, to educate teenagers about ecological issues.

Master Sheng Lyun, started the Fo Fa Shan foundation in Taiwan in 1995. Using ecological methods tea, vegetables and other agricultural products are cultivated on about 45 hactares of land. The aims of the foundation are the promotion of ecological farming, ecology and conservation, as well as cultural education.

Victor Ananias, opened his first bio store in Turkey about ten years ago and founded the organization Bugday to support the development of ecological farming and environmental protection.

The winner of this exciting competition will receive the first, hand manufactured One World Award statue and prize money of 25,000 euros made available by Rapunzel Naturkost AG. The jury members are: Joseph Wilhelm, founder of Rapunzel Naturkost AG, two previous Nobel Prize winners Vandana Shiva from India and Tewolde Egzeabher from Ethiopia, as well as the IFOAM vice-president Alberto Pipo Lernoud from Argentina.

As the patron of the OWA, IFOAM will lead the selection of the One World Lifetime Achievement Award. The Lifetime Achievement Award acknowledges pioneers and personalities who have played very active roles in the ecology movement and the winner will as well be announced in Modena during the Organic World Congress.

Australian scientists have found that fish exposed to sub-lethal concentrations of endosulfan and chlorpyrifos showed significant reductions in the ability to survive in warmer waters. Both endosulfan and chlorpyrifos are commonly used in cotton, horticulture and sugar cane production.

The study published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry predicts that global warming will make fish more susceptible to dying from pesticide-contaminated water. According to the study affected fish displayed “erratic swimming…, uncoordinated movement with body quivering, rolling over on sides or back” and loss of the ability to swim upright.

Combine this with the strain already imposed on global fish stocks as a consequence of over-fishing by commercial operators and it’s not difficult to envisage a future without many popular fish varieties.

So, what exactly are endosulfan and chlorpyrifos?

According to the Pesticide Action Network of North America, endosulfan is an antiquated insecticide. Here are some facts about endosulfan:

• It is highly toxic and persistent
• It has been banned in the European Union
• It is used extensively throughout rural U.S., India, China, and many other countries.
• Studies indicate that it endangers the health and wellbeing of children, farmworkers, and those living proximate to affected areas
• Poisoning symptoms include headaches, nausea, vomiting, seizures, and in extreme cases unconsciousness and even death
• It is a suspected endocrine disruptor, with low dose exposure while in the womb being linked to autism, male reproductive harm, and birth defects.

Much like endosulfan, chlorpyrifos is a dangerous yet widely used pesticide. Here are some facts about chlorpyrifos:

• It is a neurotoxic organophosphate insecticide, acaricide and miticide used to control foliage and soil-borne insect pests on a variety of food and feed crops.
• About 20 million pounds of chlorpyrifos are applied in the U.S. every year according to the EPA, with about half for agricultural uses and half for residential uses
• Until recently it was used extensively in homes for pest control (mostly as a termiticide and in pet flea collars)
• It causes cholinesterase inhibition in humans which can result in nausea, dizziness, confusion, respiratory paralysis and even death.

 
What can be done?
Studies such as this are an important reminder of the need to remove dangerous pesticides from our food chain. Apart from the obvious potentially adverse health consequences associated with pesticide use, their persistent nature means that many of them will continue to wreak environmental havoc long after their initial application. Here are some steps to take if you’re keen to remove pesticides from our food chain:

• Support organic agriculture
• Join PANNA.
• Write to your local politician requesting that endosulfan and chlorpyrifos be banned from use.

The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) und the Foundation Ecology and Agriculture (SÖL) will present the latest statistics about organic agriculture worldwide at BioFach 2008. The results of this year’s study titled “The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics and Emerging Trends 2008” will be presented at the world’s largest trade fair for organic products on Friday February 22nd 2008 at 10:00 in Room Shanghai.

The study shows that 30.4 million hectares are currently certified according to organic standards (data as at the end of 2006). Australia continues to account for the largest certified organic surface area, with 12.3 million hectares, followed by China (2.3 million hectares), Argentina (2.2 million hectares) and the USA (1.6 million hectares). The greatest share of global organic surface area is in Oceania/Australia (42%), followed by Europe (24%) and Latin America (16%). In terms of certified land under organic management as a proportion of national agricultural area, the Alpine countries, such as Austria (13%, 361,487 hectares) and Switzerland (12%, 125,596 hectares), top the statistics. Compared to the adjusted data of the previous survey, the global organic area grew by approximately 1.8 million hectares during 2006. Growth was strongest in Oceania/Australia (more than 600,000 hectares) and Europe (more than 500,000 hectares). From the first figures available for 2007, Helga Willer of FiBL expects that the area under organic management has continued to grow.

The global market for organic products reached a value of 38.6 billion US Dollars in 2006, with the vast majority of products being consumed in North America and Europe, according to Organic Monitor. This constitutes a growth of five billion US Dollars compared to the 2005 data. Healthy growth rates are expected to continue in the coming years. Angela Caudle de Freitas, IFOAM Executive Director, suggests that the ever-growing demand for organic products offers attractive opportunities for producers – especially those in developing countries.

The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics and Emerging Trends 2008 is being presented for the ninth consecutive year at BioFach 2008. In addition to chapters reviewing organic agriculture worldwide, numerous illustrations and graphs, and completely revised reports about the emerging trends and regional development highlights on each individual continent, the study includes a comprehensive annex with the entire data set and expanded coverage of land-use data.

Performance of the global survey and production of the yearbook has been supported by NürnbergMesse since 2000. Starting in 2008, support is now also being provided by the Swiss State Secretariat of Economic Affairs (SECO), Berne/Switzerland, within the framework of its support activities for organic production in developing countries and by the International Trade Centre (ITC), Geneva/Switzerland, which has joined the survey as a partner. The global survey on organic farming and the publication of the yearbook have been carried out jointly by IFOAM, FiBL and SÖL since 2000.

A recent Australian study has found higher than acceptable pesticide residues in strawberries from conventional farms (Choice magazine, February 2008). It has been pointed out that this highlights the potential for chemical abuse in all produce. ‘Chemical cocktail’ mixes are shown to be of particular concern for parents and growing healthy crop plants, warns Australia’s largest organic representative group, Biological Farmers of Australia (BFA).

Soil health technician and BFA spokesperson, Mr Greg Paynter, says the mixed use of pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides, and fungicides weaken crops in the long-term when applied in un-tested combinations at the discretion of farmers.

“Excessive reside levels are a problem – but what may be more concerning and is also carried through to the end consumer, are the unknown effects of blends of different types of synthetic farming inputs. The toxic permutation that occurs as a result is unidentified and untested with regards to human or eco-health, because standard practise is to test a chemical product in isolation,” says Mr. Paynter.

Adverse affects on health from low doses of agricultural chemical combinations have been recorded in the past, with a particularly negative response from tested animals in the pairing of Atrazine – a herbicide widely used on maize and sorghum – with nitrate fertilizer.

Mr. Paynter said chemical mixes damage a crop’s ability to respond naturally to growth obstacles, and often lead to changes in plant metabolism, physiology, chemical composition and nutritional patterns.

“Plants which take up one particular pesticide will then inevitably be exposed to other environmental problems with a weakened natural defence system. A farmer who began using one type of pesticide may be forced to apply an additional herbicide, and then another type of pesticide to compensate for a vulnerable crop (for example),” he says.

“Organic growers, in comparison, tend to utilise the design of ecosystem services to replace the use of synthetic inputs in their farming practice.”

There are around 8,700 registered agricultural and veterinary products used in Australia, a number subject to fluctuation daily.

Children are the other party most susceptible to high toxicity levels from chemical blends, according to BFA Nutritionist Shane Heaton. “Children are more vulnerable to food toxins than adults – they have a larger intake of food per kilo of body weight than adults, and immature organs and detoxification and immune systems,” he says.

According to the 20th Australian total diet survey in 2003, dietary exposure to pesticide residues is highest for the toddler age group. Mr. Heaton said pesticides had proven effects on developing cognitive systems.

Adding to this he says “A study in South America showed impaired cognitive ability in children (aged four and five) from a village that routinely used farm pesticides – they had a lower capacity for things like hand-eye co-ordination and short term memory, and less ability for play-based learning tasks like drawing a recognisable person, or catching a ball,”.

Mr Heaton said concerned parents could opt for organic to reduce their child’s exposure to chemicals – children eating a predominantly organic diet have been proven to have less (one-sixth) the level of pesticide metabolite in their urine than those who don’t.

“At the end of the day it’s about peace of mind in parenting – organic choices reduce transferred chemical risk from ‘uncertain’ to negligible,” he says.

One of the great unifying events for the global organic movement, the Sixteenth IFOAM Organic World Congress, will be held in Modena from 16th to 20th June. Evo Morales, Vandana Shiva, Serge Latouche, Carlo Petrini and Wolfgang Sachs are among the delegates to have confirmed their attendance. Over 750 papers have been sent in from all over the world. Registration opens on 20th February.

If names and numbers are anything to go by, the Sixteenth IFOAM Organic World Congress promises to be one of the most noteworthy and top level organic sector conferences ever.

This June, Modena will play host not just to the Indian Vandana Shiva and the Ethiopian scientist Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher, both winners of the Right Livelihood Award but also to the Bolivian President Juan Evo Morales, former trade union leader of the “cocaleros”. The food and wine connoisseur Carlo Petrini, founder of the Slow Food movement and recently featured in the authoritative columns of The Guardian as “one of the 50 people who could save the planet” will partake as well in this global event. Also the agro ecologist Miguel Altieri, from the University of Berkeley (California), the doctor and obstetrician Michel Odent, pioneer of natural childbirth, and the American Frances Moore Lappé, author of the book “Diet for a Small Planet” will show presence.

The sociologist Wolfgang Sachs, Scientific Director of the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, has already confirmed his attendance, as have the agronomist and geneticist Howard-Yana Shapiro, who has been one of the major exponents of organic agriculture for the past 35 years or more, the Director General of UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) Achim Steiner, the anthropologist and economist Serge Latouche, one of the greatest advocates of downscaling society and localism, and the Indonesian obstetrician and environmentalist Ibu Robin Lim.

The Conference is being organized by IFOAM and ModenaBio, a consortium created by the Province of Modena and AIAB Emilia-Romagna, and is expected to bring together about 2000 participants. It will run for five days and will provide a platform on which the latest developments in scientific research will be expounded and it will act as a catalyst for the strategies and instruments needed to preserve diversity and to disseminate ecologically and economically sustainable methods of production. 757 papers have actually been submitted by as many researchers and activists from all five continents; they will be screened by a team of 100 scientists and experts who will then select the most innovative and ground-breaking ones.

Two main threads will drive the discussions: information (Systems Values Track) regarding the presentation and exchange of practical experiences, and science (Scientific Research Track), which will illustrate the most outstanding on-going research projects. In over 100 sessions, scientists, producers, consumers and activists from all over the world will debate themes ranging from nutritional safety to the role of women in organic agriculture, international cooperation in renewable energy, market access and the importance of widespread health education, from GM products to the right to food, the protection of biodiversity to the very real contribution that Organic can make towards mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change. Wine and viticulture, textiles, organic cosmetics, aquaculture and fruit farming will be dealt with in specialized pre-conferences and modules.

Registrations for the IFOAM Organic World Congress will be accepted from 20th February onwards. Bookings can be made either online or by sending in the completed application form downloadable from the following Internet sites: www.ifoam.org.

For any further information and program updates, details of those attending and the cultural events that will be held as part of the IFOAM Congress, please log on to www.ifoam.org or www.modenabio2008.org (latter in Italian language).

As most of you are no doubt aware, British celebrity chef – Jamie Oliver – has been stirring things up again. And he’s good at it! His documentary series entitled “Jamie’s Fowl Dinners”, which recently aired in the United Kingdom, featured graphic scenes of battery hens being slaughtered. Although the scenes depicting the awful conditions and miserable existence of birds awaiting slaughter would come as no surprise to anyone that’s had anything to do with the commercial poultry industry, apparently many scenes shocked viewers.

According to a recent article published in The Telegraph, sales of organic and free-range chickens have soared following airing of the show. This sudden increase in demand for organic and free-range chooks suggests to me that many consumers are either unaware of, or at least sufficiently divorced from, the realities of modern food production.

Here are some of the realities of commercial chicken meat production:

• Birds are slaughtered after about 40 days.
• Birds are reared in cramped “battery” conditions.
• To ensure birds gain weight they are routinely fed the rendered down fat from livestock discard.
• Routine debeaking, a process involving the removal of part of a bird’s beak, is used to prevent agitated birds from pecking each other to death.
• Disease outbreaks, which are commonplace, are controlled with the routine administration of antibiotics.
• To ensure they are sufficiently large at slaughter, hormonal treatments are applied to the grain and supplemental feed given to developing birds.
• Due to them being caged and unable to roam freely, birds tend to develop abnormally large bodies that are unable to be supported by their underdeveloped legs.

Birds raised according to organic principles experience an entirely different existence. These birds have the capacity to forage for food on farms rather than being caged and force-fed in factory sheds. Unlike battery-farmed chickens, which often receive protein and fat supplements in the form of rendered down livestock discard, organic birds have the opportunity to supplement their grain diet with worms and other insects. Organically reared birds are treated humanely throughout their lives and are not permitted to receive either antibiotic or hormone treatments.

More often than not, efficiency gains come at a cost. Whether it’s food quality, safety, hygiene or animal welfare, something generally has to give. While these additional costs might not be immediately evident, they are real and they have the capacity to catch up with us. Just ask anyone with a family member or friend that was exposed to BSE during the 1990s! In our never-ending quest to squeeze more out of less, we’ve reduced food production standards to an accounting number. Unit cost – an accounting concept – has become the surrogate barometer with which we gauge the acceptability or otherwise of our food production standards. Clearly, this needs to change!

The unfortunate reality of food price inflation, as pointed out in a recent article appearing in The Independent, is that those on fixed incomes – the unemployed, disability beneficiaries, and retirees – tend to be the hardest hit. At least that’s the case in most developed nations. But as the latest report from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) points out, high grain prices are hitting, and will continue to hit, developing countries the hardest. In some countries, such as in Mexico, Morocco, Yemen and Senegal, rioting has erupted due to the rising price of cereal based food staples.

According to The Independent’s Michael Savage, there are essentially three factors underpinning spiralling global food costs. These are:

• Higher oil costs;
• Increased demand driven largely by China’s increasingly voracious appetite for global resources, including foodstuffs; and
• The diversion of much of the world’s cereal crops away from food production to biofuel production.

With the UN suggesting that the world’s population will exceed nine billion by 2050, the current disquiet in relation to spiralling food costs may be nothing more than a prelude to more significant unrest.

While Michael’s article focuses on increases in global grain and cereal crops, the most dramatic food price increases, which many developed countries have yet to factor in, will relate to sources of animal protein.

Most animals reared for human consumption are fed grain. The conversion of grain into a source of animal protein fit for human consumption is not an efficient one. It is estimated that for every pound of lean beef produced approximately 20 pounds of grain is required. Accordingly, any increase in grain prices will also impact cattle, pig and poultry farmers.

Additionally, the as yet unaccounted for impacts of climate change, the costs of which will be far higher for animal protein production than grain production, means that the developed world is not currently paying anything close to the real price for animal protein. As social pressure and political will turns into legislative imperative, the real costs associated with animal protein consumption will inevitably be passed on to consumers.

Add to this the fact that China’s appetite for global protein sources is predicted to increase dramatically in the coming years and there exists the potential for many consumers who currently enjoy animal protein to be priced out of the market altogether.

Unfortunately, it seems inevitable that competition for sources of animal protein between those living high on the food chain and those on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder will become more pronounced.

Does organic agriculture have a role to play?

It is often argued by many that farmers applying organic agricultural principles are less efficient than their conventional counterparts. This argument, when put to the test, is often found wanting. Indeed, many scientific studies have shown that organic agricultural practices, when applied to both grain and animal protein production, are more efficient and cost-effective than so-called conventional techniques.

Additionally, there is a strong push within the organic movement toward sourcing food locally. This decreases, at least to an extent, the impact that higher oil costs have on food production.

Accordingly, while organic agriculture is by no means the panacea to all of the challenges and issues facing the world, it certainly has an important role to play.

Within the organic sector, it remains important that innovation and enterprise be recognised and rewarded where appropriate. I have already commented on the importance and functionality of the producers cooperative, particularly in marginal economies where establishment costs of farming equipment and primary infrastructure might be shared amongst several members. The additional benefits of this model might include the ability to distribute practical agricultural knowledge and experience and to negotiate improved terms of trade.

Producer Cooperatives in prosperous regions often have the additional resources which enable them to undertake more sophisticated operations. This might include capacity to engage specialist technical consultants, managerial advisors, and to encourage capital investment or beneficial partnerships through a range of external sources. Closely linked to most business success these days is the ability to generate favourable media and public relation profiles. These might be limited to the promotion of a particular product or service, but can also incorporate the challenging task of educating and informing consumers.

The Canadian organic sector is admirably represented by Quinte Organic Farmers Coop (QOFC). On October 17th, QOFC received the New Cooperative of Distinction Award, presented by the Ontario Cooperative Association. In addition to supplying organically certified foods for regional farmers markets, QOFC members have demonstrated their commitment to facilitating wider appreciation and understanding of organic agriculture and food production technologies. Members express their community spirit through a series of radio programs which broadcast as “Listen to the Land”. Throughout the series of eight documentary style episodes, one learns of the challenges and rewards associated with various forms organic agriculture.

“Listen to the Land” is currently posted on the QOFC website as a series of downloadable audio files. After listening to these, I was impressed by members’ awareness of important connections between the cooperative business model and their motivation to protect the environmental resources which sustain local communities as well as ensuring a future agricultural livelihood. Highly recommended.

Kevin Rudd, Australia’s newly elected Prime Minister, has ratified the Kyoto Protocol. In doing so, Australia joins the growing list of countries getting serious about climate change. It’s refreshing to see a newly elected Government act on its election commitments as early as the Rudd Government has. And things are looking up for Australia’s organic industry too. The Rudd Labor Government has announced plans to fund changes to the way Australia’s organic certification system works. Finally it appears as though Australia’s burgeoning organic industry and the consumers it serves will benefit from a uniform domestic organic standard. Good news indeed!

A recent decision by Australia’s Victorian and New South Wales State Governments to allow the planting of GE herbicide tolerant canola represents a significant blow for both Australia’s organic industry and those seeking out alternatives to Genetically Engineered food. “The announcement today by Victorian and NSW governments that they will allow the planting of Genetically Engineered food crops next year is a major affront to the organic food industry, and in turn consumers in Australia”, said Scott Kinnear, BFA GMO spokesperson today.

“The planting of GE herbicide tolerant canola will make it impossible to know whether organic or non-GE farmers are at risk, where GE canola has been planted and its pollen remains floating in the environment. Unless farmers undertake expensive tests they will not know if they have been contaminated.

“Organic and non-GE food processors will be burdened with additional requirements for tests of grains and oils to manage and eliminate contamination risk. In addition costly supply chain segregation such as containerisation will need to be considered by grain farmers and food processors. Other potential costs may include expensive food recalls where contamination has occurred.

“The support for GE canola flies in the face of significant evidence of costs to the economy, health and environment presented to the panels in both Victoria and NSW. The BFA put in a submission to both governments outlining substantial issues in all three areas and it is of significant concern that our submission appears to have been completely overlooked.”

“The organic food industry is the global good news food story that is growing at 15-20% per year. Governments would reap benefits for the environment and public health by supporting more organic food production rather than GE foods,” said Mr Kinnear.

Chairman of the BFA’s Organic Standards Committee, which presides over the Australian Organic Standard (AOS) by which the majority of the country’s organic farmers are certified, noted that “this step will mean the inevitable unleashing of pollens that cannot be completely regulated nor controlled in the open environment and the food and seed chain. This will restrict choice and freedom, particularly for organic farmers and a wider range of consumers, under current regulatory and market arrangements, said Dr Andrew Monk.

“In the absence of sufficient labeling regulation which gives consumers a transparent and complete choice of GMO and non GMO, the only real choice in the market place for non GMO foods will remain certified organic products, which prohibit such technologies as GMOs. This proposal by Victoria and NSW to potentially allow the release of food crop GMOs into the environment next year will impact on this sector by the admitted inevitable contamination of such crops and their seed lines. It will also risk future export markets and further burden that sector with compliance and regulatory costs.

“Both the National Standard, regulated for export by AQIS, as well as the Australian Organic Standard which regulates both for domestic and international markets, prohibit any presence of GMOs in organic food products. Their presence would lead to the decertification of such products and their removal from the marketplace, placing further cost, and loss of choice, on consumers and producers alike.” noted Dr Monk.

Online surveys by professional market researchers like the AC Nielsen group provide only approximate insight into those factors influencing consumer behaviour in the market for organic goods and services. Experience shows that rapidly shifting views about health, environmental issues, and food safety can also precipitate abrupt shifts in consumer behaviour. In many such instances the most immediate economic effects are delivered prior to the distribution of relevant statistical data.

AC Nielsen’s most recent survey on organic consumer trends identified price and lack of credibility as two of the significant barriers against the purchase of foods promoting specific health benefits. From a large sample distributed across Europe, Asia Pacific, and the Americas, the survey reported that 47% of respondents considered organic foods too expensive. Whether this information offers some practical benefit to producers, manufacturers, or retailers of organic goods is uncertain. It obviously requires an appreciation of specific regional influences and some further engagement as a means of contextualisation. For example, what did respondents have in mind as the alternative when asked about their attitudes towards organic food items? Clearly, the diversity of social and cultural influences in the aforementioned regions would suggest that any alternatives to organic food would not necessarily be uniform or easily defined.

Similarly, concerns about credibility are not particularly useful unless they qualify the specific areas where problems are perceived to occur. The AC Nielsen survey finds 31% of respondents from the Asia Pacific region are skeptical that foods labelled organic are produced in the manner described. Consequently, it becomes imperative to know the history of food production scandals or other difficulties which might have resulted in those current attitudes. Similar questions might be raised in relation to varying levels of credibility afforded to individual examples of organic produce. In a given region, why would organic eggs be given a higher credibility rating than organic vegetables?

In each of these instances, the perception of affordability and credibility can alter dramatically within a brief period of time. There is also the potential for consumer behaviours to precede the distribution of statistical data relating to these (time sensitive) perceptions.

This weekend Australians will vote in the 2007 Federal election. A vote for the status quo – John Howard’s conservative government – will ensure Australia continues to ignore the global imperative to reduce carbon emissions and its need to behave in an ecologically responsible manner. It was only a matter of months ago that John Howard publicly challenged the notion and validity of climate change and global warming. Not surprisingly the Howard Government will, if re-elected, continue with its plans to mine and export uranium. They have also signalled their clear intention to build nuclear power stations within Australia. Perhaps most alarmingly, the current Government’s policies, which clearly favour large multinationals, have the potential to turn Australian agriculture into one of the world’s largest GMO experiments. Is this the type of leadership sought by those keen to ensure the continued viability of organic agriculture in Australia?

Fortunately we have choices. Both The Australian Greens and the Australian Labor Party present with clear alternatives to the current Government. The Australian Greens website and also the Labor Government’s Kevin 07 website are worthwhile checking out. I found the blog post detailing conversations with voters turning to Kevin 07 to be interesting. However, of particular relevance to those of you interested in the future of organic agriculture in Australia will be the Green’s policy on genetically engineered organisms in Australian Agriculture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ys4SPNimuA

Does Australia need leadership that goes beyond myopic self-interest? I think so. If you checked out Bob Brown’s speech above, which was delivered at the recent Walk Against Warming held in Sydney, I think you’ll gain a sense of why we need the Greens to play a more prominent role in Canberra this time around. However, Bob’s right of course – it’s a seismic change that’s needed. But we can do it.

Nearly all the milk, dairy products and pork in UK supermarkets are being produced from animals fed on GM crops, and none of this is labelled, according to a Soil Association investigation. Tests of animal feed and a survey of company policies have revealed that all the supermarkets are widely allowing the use of GM feed. The report found that around 60% of the maize and 30% of the soya fed to dairy cattle and pigs is GM. Most consumers are unwittingly eating food produced from GM crops everyday.

Supermarkets have been trumpeting their non-GM food policies, having removed all of their own-label foods made directly with GM ingredients by October 2002 in response to consumer concerns. However, unknown to most of the public supermarkets did not prohibit the use of GM animal feed. Because of a legal loophole, there is no requirement to label food produced from GM-fed animals so shoppers will find it hard to avoid food produced from GM.

Currently, the only food standard that guarantees the non-use of GM feed is organic. The basic food industry mark, the ‘Little Red Tractor’, allows the use of GM feed. Even ethical labels like ‘Freedom foods’ allow animals to be fed GM crops. For non-organic food, Marks & Spencer offers the only refuge in offering all its milk and fresh meat from non-GM feed, but it does allow GM feed for its frozen and processed foods. All meat and dairy foods can and should be produced from non-GM feed. Unlike the dairy and pig sectors, the poultry sector has widely adopted non-GM feed policies, though around a third of eggs are from GM-fed hens.

This GM stealth invasion of the UK food-chain is denying consumers their right to make fully informed choices. For years, the Food Standards Agency has been assuring consumers they would not be exposed to GM material by eating meat and dairy products from GM-fed animals. Scientific studies have now found small amounts of GM DNA in milk and animal tissues from GM-fed livestock. And studies on GM-fed livestock are finding horrendous effects, including lesions on the gut, toxic effects in body organs, unexplained deaths and stunted growth in their offspring. This raises concerns about the long-term health impacts on humans consuming products from GM-fed animals.

According to Patrick Holden, Soil Association director, “This amounts to deception on a large-scale. This is not just accidental contamination, hundreds of thousands of tonnes of GM grain are being used to produce our food each year. Biotechnology companies have clearly used imported animal feed as a Trojan Horse to introduce GM into the UK food chain, despite the fact that the British public have voted overwhelmingly against GM. “The research on the presence of GM DNA in food from GM-fed animals and the impacts on animals is alarming. We urge the public to only buy meat and dairy that are known to be produced from non-GM fed animals, and to write to the supermarkets and ask them to stop allowing the use of GM feed. While it is excellent that Marks & Spencer and the poultry industry have restricted GM feed already, all retailers and food sectors should follow their lead. We also call on the supermarkets to label these products so they are being honest with their customers.”

A key concern is that future supplies of non-GM feed will be threatened unless there is wide-spread consumer awareness on this issue and pressure on the food industry to ensure that meat and dairy products come from livestock raised on non-GM feed.

In the past, supermarkets have resisted direct demands for the use of non-GM feed, citing inadequate supplies of non-GM soya or excessive costs for farmers. The Soil Association has established that supplies are abundant and can expand to fit demand. The retail cost is minimal and should be paid for by the retailers, not farmers. The example of the poultry sector shows it can be done.

Although food from GM-fed animals does not have to be labelled, animal feed does have to be labelled if it contains GM ingredients. Most feed (75%) is now labelled as ‘GM’, however, our survey found that most farmers (59%) did not know if their feed was GM. Soil Association tests also revealed a high level of breaches of the EU labelling laws – nearly 20% of feed contained GM soya above the 0.9% labelling threshold but bore no GM label. The FSA are responsible for enforcing the legislation but are not conducting any tests to do so.

A newly published scientific study conducted by the Louis Bolk Institute Department of Health Care and Nutrition in the Netherlands shows that the incidence of eczema in infants fed on organic dairy products, and whose mothers also consumed organic dairy products, is 36% lower than in children who consume conventional dairy products.

Why is this particular study significant? While a large number of studies have found that organic food contains higher levels of beneficial nutrients than non-organic foods, this is the first example of a definite health impact (i.e. isolated from other potential beneficial factors) of organic food consumption being published in a peer reviewed journal.

Professor Carlo Leifert, at Newcastle University, leader of the EU’s 80m euro Quality Low Input Food (QLIF) project, said: “The Louis Bolk Institute together with medical schools in the Netherlands and the UK has published data which show that the composition differences between organic and conventional milk (as shown by the results from the QLIF project and other published studies) translate into higher levels of CLA in human breast milk and lower incidence eczema in infants. This is the first example of a definite health impact of organic food consumption being published in a peer reviewed journal.”

Whilst the study confirms it is organic dairy consumption that protects against the development of eczema, the scientists could only hypothesise as to the mechanism which delivered this protection. Their hypothesis follows the established facts of increased levels of the beneficial conjugated linoleic acid isomers (CLA) found in milk from organically managed cows. A separate recent study confirms that higher levels of conjugated linoleic acids are not only found in cows’ milk but also in the breast milk of women consuming organic milk. This therefore underpins the hypothesis that the higher levels of CLAs in the breast milk of organic milk drinking mothers are a key mechanism in reducing eczema, as well as the organic dairy diet of the infants themselves.

References
Consumption of organic foods and risk of atopic disease during the first 2 years of life in the Netherlands, Louis Bolk Institute Department of Health Care and Nutrition, Driebergen, the Netherlands. Ischa Kummeling, Carel Thijs, Machteld Huber, Lucy P. L. van de Vijver, Bianca E. P. Snijders, John Penders, Foekje Stelma, Ronald van Ree, Piet A. van den Brandt and Pieter C. Dagnelie. British Journal of Nutrition (2007).