Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Saturday, 21 May 2016

Fixing My Own Food Systems

It's only May, but it's feeling like a tough year on the allotment already. We made a great start, and took advantage of the mild winter by getting everything cleared and the soil prepared in good time, so that it was all ready for planting and sowing come March. But March and April were so cold and windy and forbidding – and so busy for us in other ways – that we somehow still got behind with things. Now, we're just about back on track – at least we would be, but the slugs are eating everything in sight, and the warm spell we had in early May means the weeds are the healthiest thing on the plot once again. And I seem to be having trouble germinating any squashes, which is unheard of and really frustrating.

In the garden, however, I can really keep an eye on things, and the fact I'm going to be hosting one of Transition St Albans' Open Food Gardens later in the summer has provided extra motivation to make it great this year. In the garden I can do a quick two minutes' weeding here and there as soon as I see the need, and I can go out at night and pick the slugs off things. The garden brings me pleasure every day; every time I look out the window.


Yet there's one thing that's really bothering me in the garden. My March-sown spinach plants are bolting and I haven't picked a single leaf yet. My gorgeous stand of rare perennial kales has been virtually untouched all spring. My radishes are going woody. I'm somehow far more efficient in the garden than I am in the kitchen, and gorgeous organic homegrown produce actually goes to waste. Can you believe it? I'm ashamed to admit it. And it's strange because I used to have a great, great passion for cooking, and love to spend hours in the kitchen cooking up complex dishes with virtually any ingredients.

Since I quit my nice safe (frustrating, oppressive) full-time job five years ago, I feel like everything about me has changed. I see the world differently now I've learned different things about it. Some old hobbies and passions have been replaced with new ones – others are just... gone. I've struggled to fill my time, and then I've overfilled it. I don't think I have time, anymore, for a passion for cooking.

I had a bit of a revelation watching Rick Stein's Long Weekend in Bologna on TV last night. It painted a picture of a culture which still makes real, handmade food the absolute centre of their lives; where everyone spoke of the wonderful local produce, and all those involved in making food were real craftspeople. TV is always selective in what it depicts, of course, and I do wonder how true a picture it was of the place, but clearly it was different from the food culture that I know. Towards the end of the program, Rick asked food blogger Enrica Lazzarini what she thought was so 'particular' about the cuisine of Bologna. "The love of cooking and the love of food is in our DNA," she said. "We grow up looking at our granny and mother cook from the very beginning of the day, all day long". And I thought yes, that's what it takes. Growing and harvesting and preserving and cooking and feeding and clearing up and storing and composting... It's an endless cycle. It's not the first time I've thought this, but it was certainly a timely reminder. You've got to be dedicated. You've got to give time. "It's your identity," she finished. "Without food, who are you? No-one."

You probably already know that I believe fixing our food systems could fix or improve a great many of the world's problems, and that food is and must be a central focus of our lives. Yes, our identity. 

So is it a worthwhile compromise that for man to occupy himself with more advanced things he must sacrifice his health and the world's by forgetting where his food comes from? Do any of the 'more advanced things' really matter anyway? Advancement is eating the world. Industrialism consumes itself. Automation removes the need for people. Innovation consumes the innovation of the generation earlier. 'Advanced' modern factory farms are poisoning us and 'advanced' modern crops need more chemical application than ever. What is the great goal? Wealth, of course, but for what? Convenience? Luxury? The freedom to sit back and get fat and sick? The freedom to enjoy leisure activities in diminishing open spaces and polluted air? The freedom to produce art about how dreadful everything is?

I'm not about to quit everything and become a full-time home-farmer and housewife – I couldn't possibly – but in the quest to fix my own food systems I need to make time for cooking again and try to get that passion back.

There are people that think I should be doing something 'better' with my time and energy; something more 'intelligent' or 'noble' or 'advanced' or even 'useful'. To me there's nothing more noble, useful or intelligent than feeding those around me real food that is produced in harmony with the natural world; I'm already growing food for us and for the community but I just need to get that spark back in the kitchen. And 'advanced' can go screw itself.

Monday, 9 February 2015

The Food Shortage is a Lie

It's easy to be confused by the current opposing issues of world hunger and food waste. We seem to hear them everywhere now: Hundreds of millions of people are going hungry! We need to grow more food for our fast-growing population! 30-50% of food produced is not eaten! Huh?!

But this article - How the Great Food War Will Be Won - clears things up thoroughly, and I'd like to urge everyone to read it.

The fact is, we produce an overabundance of food; the stats show it and the World Bank Institute admits we produce enough, globally, for 14 billion people. This isn't exactly new news; I've argued before that we could already produce more than enough food for the global population. But yet industrial agriculture and its supporters - from the UK's National Farmers Union to CropLife International to, of course, Syngenta, Bayer and Monsanto - want us to believe we do not - perhaps cannot - produce enough. The article points out;
The strategic centrepiece of Monsanto’s PR, and also that of just about every major commercial participant in the industrialised food system, is to focus on the promotion of one single overarching idea. The big idea that industrial producers in the food system want you to believe is that only they can produce enough for the future population.
It's a lie. An industry lie, to promote industrial agriculture over small-scale agroecological growing. An industry lie to make money, at great cost to the earth.
...in every single case where industrial agriculture is implemented it leaves landscapes progressively emptier of life. Eventually, the soil turns either into mud that washes into the rivers or into dust that blows away on the wind. Industrial agriculture has no long term future; it is ecological suicide. 
The article goes on to describe how the ecological food movement needs a new strategy; one that involves dismantling this lie and changing perception. Do give it a read:
How the Great Food War Will Be Won

Wednesday, 28 May 2014

FoodSmiles

Well, I haven't really been blogging as much as I intended this spring, but there's a very good reason. I've been unexpectedly busy with an exciting new community food project...

I joined the steering group for FoodSmiles back in September when it formed - the outcome of a public meeting run by Transition members as part of the St Albans Food and Drink Festival. The idea was to start a CSA - Community Supported Agriculture - project in St Albans. CSAs across the world take many forms, from meat-shares and food co-ops or 'hubs' to community-run farms, but our aim was to rent a smallish piece of spare land from a local farmer or grower, grow our own produce there, and share it among our members, with the aims of reducing food miles and making food-growing and locally-grown food more accessible to the community.

In April we secured a piece of land at the organic-certified Hammonds End Farm, just outside St Albans. It's small, but it's a lovely spot, with polytunnels already onsite, and we couldn't ask for a more supportive landlord!


Starting late in the spring has meant it's a bit of a race-against-time to get all our seeds in the ground, which is hard clay and very stony (the farmer generously ploughed and harrowed it for us before we arrived, but it still needs lengthy prep before sowing!) and a bad flea beetle problem has meant resowing the first of our brassicas. The polytunnels had some big holes and needed repairs before use (one still does), and the organic certification of the farm, while a really positive thing, means we have to be very careful to use only organic seeds and plants, soil amendments and treatments, and keep strict records of everything we do onsite. So as 'site co-ordinator', I have been quite busy...

 

But we've got some dedicated and enthusiastic members, we've had some great support from local garden centre Aylett Nurseries, who donated organic compost and equipment to get us started, and it's all go on the site! Our potatoes, carrots, lettuces, parsnips, swedes and broad beans are all growing well, we're raising courgettes and squashes ready to plant out soon, and we're about to fill the polytunnels with cucumbers (from seed), peppers, chillies and tomatoes (from Rocket Gardens).


As you'll know if you read this blog often, bringing food production back home and back to communities is something I'm really passionate about, so I'm enormously honoured and proud to be so heavily involved in a project like this, and very grateful to those with the vision to kickstart it! We can only support 25 to 30 members this year, but we hope to grow and grow, possibly producing eggs, meat, and who-knows-what-else in the future, and truly bringing a new source of local food to St Albans. Its hard work at the moment but the plot's already a wonderful place and I know in a few months it will be bursting with lovely fresh veg for us all - and it's great to see lots of new friendships between like-minded people blossoming too!


FoodSmiles is on facebook and twitter if you want to know more or follow our latest updates. We still have a few membership places available so if you're local and you'd like to join us, get in touch!

Friday, 4 April 2014

Grow Your Own Nutrition!

Okay, this post is going to be long, and I'm sorry about that, but I promise it will be absolutely worth it! During the winter I had the pleasure of reading two fascinating and wonderful books about soil nutrition and its impact on our health, and I've got to tell you why my approach to growing food will never be the same again.


The first book, which I just happened upon while idly browsing for free Kindle books one day, was Beyond Organic: Growing for Maximum Nutrition by Dr Jana Bogs. It kicks off with an analysis showing how vastly different the levels of vitamins and minerals could be in vegetables grown in different soils across the US: "not by just 10 or 20 percent, or even a two-fold difference..." but "...as great as 1,938ppm (parts per million) iron in some tomatoes as opposed to only 1ppm in other tomatoes of the same variety. This is nearly a 2000-fold difference!" Not rocket science, is it, to work out that more nutritious soils would grow more nutritious veggies? But I'd always assumed that a carrot was a carrot was a carrot, and any variations would be so small as to be irrelevant.

It's funny the way we often just go on doing things the way we were taught, without really thinking about them. For years I've believed it when I was told that all my soil needed was as much compost as I could make, plus a bit of horse manure or fish, blood and bone for a boost, and some lime every few years to keep the pH level where it should be. 

Nutrition levels in our food have dropped off by around 75% in the last hundred years or so. Concerns about depleted soils and nutrition deficiency leading to poor health in Americans were first brought to the US Senate way back in 1936. Between 1948 and 1991, Australia's 'Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization' recorded an 80% drop in vitamin C in apples, an 82% drop in magnesium in broccoli, a 75% drop in iron in potatoes and an 89% drop in calcium in potatoes, and a similar American study showed that roughly half the vitamins in vegetables had significantly decreased between 1950 and 1999. An analysis on canned peaches over a hundred years old found that they contained more vitamins, even after a hundred years in a can, than today's canned peaches do! We'd need to eat a huge amount of today's fruit and veg to get the same nutrients we would have got from our 'five-a-day' a hundred or a thousand years ago. Is it any wonder we're all fat and sick??

Dr Bogs explains some of the complex interplay between nutrients in plants: minerals taken up by their roots activate enzymes which create the proteins, fats and vitamins we need. Though plants need only around 20 nutrients to survive (some say up to 42), if given a fuller range of nutrients they are capable of generating all the 50+ (some say up to 90) nutrients that we humans need. In other words, a vegetable might have everything it needs to reach maturity looking and tasting good, but that doesn't mean it has reached its full potential by producing all the nutrition it can, and should, contain: plants pass on a certain amount of nutrition from the soil (iron, copper, magnesium, calcium) but they're also little factories producing fatty acids, proteins and vitamins, as long as they have the building blocks to do so. You might have plied your plot with N:P:K fertilisers, but have you ever wondered whether your veggies get enough zinc, cobalt, boron, molybdenum or selenium? I hadn't!


The second book, The Intelligent Gardener: Growing Nutrient Dense Food by Steve Solomon, was even more eye-opening and exciting, not to mention more practical, offering a full hands-on approach to finding out what your soil needs and making it the best it can be, and I have to thank Douglas of @SweetPeaSalads for recommending it to me! This book busts some myths about the usual organic approach to feeding the soil, and offers a really good and easy-to-understand lesson in soil science. Solomon speaks from a broad range of experience from gardening on a variety of soils in several different parts of the world, and tells of healthier, tastier plants, a complete halt to fungal disease, and dramatic improvements in his own health when the soil on which he grows his food is properly nutritionally balanced. He also keeps a free online library - The Soil and Health Library - full of books, papers and studies on holistic agriculture, the connections between soil and health, and more, and he draws heavily on the works in this library to explain his theory and method.

He particularly highlights a study published in 1939 by one Weston Price called Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. Price visited remote communities around the world; tribes and isolated villages that as yet had no access to the mass-produced "foods of civilization", but survived on what they hunted, foraged or grew on a small scale locally with old methods. Despite his subjects having a wide variety of colours and shapes, of diets and of lifestyles, across the board their health was far, far better and when analysed, their foods were found to contain a huge amount more nutrition; for example, the primitive people's diets contained at least ten times more vitamins A and D than the American diet even back in the 1930s! Steve Solomon believes that the ideal human diet "has more to do with the soil food comes from than which foods are chosen"; some of these people ate no animal products while others ate virtually no vegetables, and others subsisted on just fish and oats supplemented with a few leafy greens. You can read Solomon's in-depth review of Price's book here, and I highly recommend it.

It would be impossible to share everything of importance in The Intelligent Gardener here - it's a fabulous and fascinating book - but here are my main take-aways:

Leaching is the factor with the biggest impact on nutrient density. Leaching is what happens when soil becomes saturated with rain, which dissolves a lot of the soil minerals and eventually drains downward carrying those minerals with it so that they end up in the subsoil or offsite altogether. Leaching is worse in climates where evaporation is also low - warmer weather slows leaching - and in climates where there is a lot of heavy rain in a short period of time. It's also a great deal worse where soil is left bare. Some nutrients leach out of soil more easily than others: calcium goes fast, while potassium tends to get left behind. This leads to imbalances.

Loss of soil microlife and organic matter is another major factor that harms nutrient density, since micro-organisms help to release the nutrients from the soil for use by plants, and high-quality humus holds a lot of nutrition in the soil and helps prevent leaching! This isn't generally a big problem for us organic food-gardeners, but industrial farming methods have devastated agricultural soils.

Compost isn't enough! Composting waste from the plot to feed the plot cannot provide all the nutrition the plot needs - unless the plot is already perfectly balanced. In fact, feeding a plot exclusively with compost from the plot will only magnify existing imbalances! There's a sustainability discussion to be had here: feeding your plot with compost alone is a permaculture ideal; a natural recycling process where we make the most of our waste to fulfil another need without importing costly additional materials from elsewhere. But Solomon explains that a soil can virtually sustain itself nutritionally - once it's properly healthy and balanced and cared for.

Remineralisation is the answer, Solomon says. Soils that have not been cared for properly have lost their ability to stay balanced, and their mineral content has been devastated. Solomon's own experiences and research (and Jana Bogs' studies) show that remineralised soil allows crops to reach their full genetic potential, enjoy proper health with much less chance of pest attack and disease, and provide the maximum nutrition for us.

Total Cation Exchange Capacity (TCEC) is a measurement (calculated in a lab) of how much minerals a soil can hold. Clay and humus particles in the soil have a tiny electrical charge that makes positively charged mineral particles in the soil attach to them - a bit like static cling. These positively charged particles are called cations, and include calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium and others. The clay and humus particles have a set number of 'exchange points' where cations can stick, so a soil with lots of clay and humus has a high TCEC and a lot of these exchange points, and a light sandy soil with very little organic matter has a low TCEC and few exchange points. Some cations cling harder than others: calcium will always take first priority, magnesium second and the others will follow suit if there's space left. Solomon likens the TCEC to the number of shelves in a pantry. Calcium will fill up the shelves first and the others fill up the gaps in order. If the shelves are empty, they just fill up with air - hydrogen actually, from the soil water. As well as from the TCEC, plants can also get nutrition from the soil solution: mineral particles in the soil (or in slow-release fertilisers) breaking down slowly in tiny amounts and dissolving in the soil water. But that soon runs out and needs recharging. The soil solution is like plates on the table. When the plates are empty they can be refilled from the pantry (the TCEC). The bigger the pantry, the longer the meal goes on. Thus while a plant relying on nutrients in the soil solution would require very regular feeding to keep up with its needs, the TCEC buffers plants against nutritional ups and downs: with big reserves, their plates are never empty!

Balance, balance, balance. It's not about having a certain weight or volume of each nutrient in your soil, nor about throwing all the nutrients you can at it; too much of a good thing can lead to overdosing and cause even more problems. Instead, it's all about balance and the interplay between the nutrients.

Not all compost is made equal. As we all know, organic matter is vital for healthy soil. It improves texture, structure, and moisture retention. Most crucially, it feeds soil life, and it holds anions (negatively-charged mineral particles such as phosphorus, sulphur, nitrogen and boron) in the soil. But Solomon warns against adding too much organic matter and recommends only a 1/4" to 1/2" inch layer per year! Too much compost, he says, can overload the soil and its nutrients can end up just going to waste. He also warns that you never know what you're getting when you buy in compost (or organic waste to compost yourself); it may contain contaminants, or you could be importing unbalanced material that adds to your soil's imbalances without you knowing it. Most crucially, he teaches that much of our home-made compost (and shop-bought compost) is only partially decomposed organic matter, but our goal should be truly mature humus...

Humus and clay, clay and humus. These are the two most important components of soil, and they must both be present in abundance to hold a lot of nutrition. Humus is organic matter that has broken down to a point of stability and will change no further. It stays in the soil, instead of breaking down and disappearing. And while clay holds cations in the soil, humus holds both cations and anions. But great humus needs clay to form properly, so it will only form in your compost heap if you add enough clay to the heap as well. Solomon recommends adding around 5% by volume soil, of which 40% should be clay, to your compost heap. If your soil doesn't contain much clay, he recommends finding some, creating a clay slurry with water in a bucket, and sprinkling it generously between layers! Humus might also form in the ground when you add your partially-decomposed compost to a clayey soil - but when added to a light, low-clay soil, little humus will form, if any, and the organic matter will rot away to nothing, and so light sandy soils have great difficulty building up a useful level of organic matter.


Calcium is arguably the most important mineral in a garden soil, not because plants need a lot of it, but because it is critical for good soil structure: not enough calcium but too much of the other cations (especially magnesium) leads to a closed and airless soil structure in which microlife cannot thrive and other nutrients remain unavailable. Calcium is also the mineral most often lacking, as it's so easily leached away. A soil's TCEC should be around 68% full of calcium.

Magnesium takes second priority after calcium, when it comes to sticking to these exchange points in the soil, so it's the magnesium/calcium balance which will most often cause a problem. Magnesium is present in dolomite lime, often used by organic gardeners, so care must be taken to avoid an excessive build-up. Magnesium should fill around 12% of the soil's TCEC.

Potassium always rolls to the front of the pantry shelves, so if there's an abundance of it, plants use it first instead of reaching to the back for the other cations. When plants have lots of potassium they make lots of sugars and starches, but fewer proteins and vitamins and other more important nutrients. An excess of potassium, therefore, can boost yields, but those yields will be lower in nutrition than they should be, and higher in calories. Potassium can accumulate in soils because it doesn't leach away as much as other cations, and because imported composts made with hay, straw and woody wastes are often very high in it (potassium accumulates in the structural parts of plants; the trunks, barks and stems). I guess endlessly throwing N:P:K fertiliser at a plot might well add to this imbalance too, and presumably potassium is a particularly beneficial yield-booster for commercial growers whose primary concern is the size of the crop. Solomon recommends a soil balance that leaves potassium "just a little bit scarce" - just a few percent of the TCEC - for crops with the highest nutrition.

Sodium. We all know salt isn't good for most plants, but a small amount of sodium in soil is crucial and some crops need it. However, Solomon warns that growers using tapwater to irrigate their crops should be aware of the sodium level in their irrigation water. Annually, twelve inches of water containing 50ppm sodium would bring 200lbs per acre of sodium! There's something I'd never considered before! My local mains water contains an average 17ppm sodium, according to an analysis on my water company's website, but I have no idea how many inches of it I put on my soil... There should be around 1-2% sodium in the TCEC.

Phosphorus is a controversial soil amendment, since it is mined from the ground and we are steadily running out - but even a slight deficiency slows plant growth. Many agricultural soils are severely depleted of phosphorus and heavily dependent on phosphate fertilisers, but a healthy balanced soil can hold on to phosphorus for decades, because phosphorus is held in the soil by humus. If it fails to connect with humus, it soon connects with other minerals and becomes insoluble iron phosphate or calcium phosphate instead, and remains unavailable to plants long-term. Solomon suggests there should be around the same amount of phosphorus as potassium in soil, but that it should be added gradually over a number of years to ensure as little as possible goes to waste. Bonemeal provides a sustainable source, but comes with additional sodium and calcium too.

Nitrogen is crucial for healthy green growth: it's vital for production of the plant protein chlorophyll, which plants absolutely depend on for photosynthesis and energy. Dark leafy greens grown on fully mineralised soil can contain up to 20% protein - as much as beef steak! Nitrogen is released when soil organisms feed on organic matter - annually, every 1% of organic matter existing in a soil will provide 15-25lbs of nitrogen per acre, and to produce a good crop, 100lbs/acre is needed. So a healthy soil with 4-7% organic matter should have plenty of nitrogen available (although if it is hitherto dependent on nitrogen fertilisers, it might need weaning off them first). Solomon also advocates digging in leguminous green manures to provide nitrogen naturally, and points out that a healthy stand of field beans can provide the full 100lbs/acre needed.

Sulphur is a really interesting nutrient which helps plants to form amino acids (proteins) and enzymes, and boosts flavour. While we see sulphur as a fungicide and dust it on our plants as a defence, Solomon suggests that fungal disease is actually a symptom of sulphur deficiency, and describes how the onion root-rot on his plot completely disappeared when he rebalanced his soil. This is great news for me, as I've had to give up growing onions on my allotment thanks to my white rot problem! Sulphur is another anion, held in the soil by humus, and when it dissolves into the soil solution it bonds with cations to become a water soluble sulphate (iron sulphate, calcium sulphate, zinc sulphate etc.) Thus too much sulphur can leach cations from the soil - or it can be used, with care, to deliberately deal with a cation excess.


Micro-nutrients and trace nutrients are vital for maximum plant health and maximum nutrition too, and Solomon reveals the amounts needed for good balance and recommends amendments such as seaweed or Azomite for adding trace elements. Surprisingly, he's not such a fan of rock dust, and his analysis of it makes interesting reading.

pH. Wow, now this is important! pH is NOT the be-all-and-end-all of soil health, but a side-effect of the chemical and microbiological activity in the soil. It's not really as meaningful as we tend to think, and it fluctuates in a much more complex way than most of us know! pH stands for 'potential hydrogen' and is defined as the density of hydrogen atoms in water (or in a solution of a substance, such as soil). All the exchange points in the soil must always be filled up, so if there is no calcium, magnesium or other useful minerals around, hydrogen atoms from the water in the soil will stick instead, and the soil will contain a lot of hydrogen and have a low pH (an acidic soil). A soil rich in cations such as calcium and magnesium, on the other hand, has very little hydrogen and a high pH (an alkaline soil). So the pH of your soil can indicate how nutrient-rich it is - certainly an acid soil is lacking in cations. BUT a soil high in cations (alkaline) may have completely the wrong balance of cations and still benefit from liming, and in fact, the liming might not raise the pH further (since the new calcium ions knock off and replace the excess magnesium, potassium or sodium ions) but allow it to fall because correcting the balance allows the microlife to thrive again and kicks off the normal cycles of nitrate release and so on!

Soil testing is the only way to really know what's going on in a soil, and this is the method Solomon recommends to get the maximum potential out of any food-growing plot. The book explains how to take a soil sample and where to send it, and provides worksheets for readers to interpret the results and work out a perfect prescription of amendments for their soil. He also acknowledges that a soil test and a bunch of calculations won't be for everyone and might be severely over the top in a very small plot - so he offers a generic one-size-fits-all solution too, which he promises will greatly improve virtually all garden soils and increase its benefits year by year. He calls this his Complete Organic Fertiliser, or COF.

The Intelligent Gardener is a garden-changing book - maybe even a life-changing book - and I thoroughly recommend it to all home-growers. It's the kind of book that, once you've read and understood it, you just have to put into action. Steve Solomon believes that "many of our current social problems would also vanish by themselves, if only the mass average health of people were uplifted", and I'm inclined to agree, having seen the enormous variation possible in the nutrient content of our foods, and considering how far the impact of an unhealthy soil can reach into every part of our diets. If I'm going to grow my own food, then I want to do it properly and really get the best out of it. And if brilliant health is within my grasp (and my family's), just by changing what I feed my soil... well, no-one's getting in my way!

I intend to have my soil analysed and to remineralise it with The Intelligent Gardener's guidance, but not this year, with so much else going on. This year I'm trying Steve Solomon's Complete Organic Fertiliser (more on this in a future post), both on the allotment and on my beds at home, and I have high hopes for some excellent results.

I hope you're itching to go out and read this book for yourself right away! (I don't get anything for that, by the way.) But if money's tight or you're not convinced yet, there are three great interviews with Steve Solomon available free on the Ruminant Podcast website, here, here and here - do have a listen. And watch this space for more on Complete Organic Fertiliser...

Tuesday, 11 March 2014

You Vote Three Times Every Day

For some reason I've always been under the impression that organic food - and organic farming - was the environmentally friendly choice. Organic farmers avoid pesticides or herbicides or fungicides, and they only use environmentally friendly fertilisers, right? They use methods like polyculture, soil-building, companion planting and encouraging beneficial predators, and when they have a problem they deal with pests manually or use strictly-controlled organic pesticides if they really, really have to, right?

Wrong! I got quite a shock when I saw this video:


(For the purposes of this post, I'm talking only about the first 1m40s of the video - the rest is another issue, which I've commented on before, here, and about which I'll have plenty more to say in the next few weeks...)

It seems some organic farmers don't give two hoots about environmentally-friendly methods, and use organic-certified pesticides, fungicides and herbicides liberally - in fact, at much higher rates and much more often than conventional fertilisers. Apparently I should have known this back in 2010, when a study showed that use of organic pesticides could actually be more damaging to the environment and its wildlife than synthetic pesticides. In fact, some organic-certified (i.e. derived-from-nature) pesticides are much more toxic than their synthetic counterparts: organic-certified rotenone, derived from the roots of tropical bean plants and effective against caterpillars and beetles, is six times more toxic than carbaryl, a synthetic product used for the same pests. Nicotine sulfate, extracted from tobacco, is six times more toxic than its synthetic counterpart, diazinon. 

Now, some say this study is irrelevant:
"...the implications of the study are minimal because organic farming is not about replacing synthetic pesticides with organic pesticides, say organic farmers, retailers and regulators.
The culture and approach of organic farming is what distinguishes it from conventional farming, organic farmer David Cohlmeyer said. He runs Cookstown Greens, which supplies organic produce to restaurants and hotels in Ontario. Organic pesticides are "irrelevant" to his business, he said.

"When you're doing it right, you don't have pest problems," Mr. Cohlmeyer said. "We don't use any pesticides because we don't need to."

Organic farmers are only supposed to use natural pesticides as a last resort. Instead, crop rotation, planting habitats for beneficial predators and good soil are an organic farmer's first priority, said Simon Jacques, Ontario representative for organic certification program Ecocert."
Good news! I wasn't completely delusional about the good of organic farming then. But the attitudes of the two farmers in the video demonstrate very clearly that an organic farmer is not necessarily a farmer who cares for the environment or supports wildlife on his land. For the two farmers in the video, organic farming IS about replacing synthetic pesticides with organic ones. I don't know why I hadn't seen it coming, to be honest: profit trumps the greater good every time, doesn't it? If you're going to grow big monocultures, you're going to need more pesticides, whether organic or synthetic. And - as well as rendering the 'organic' label fairly meaningless - this revelation highlights again what I think is really wrong with our food supply chain: industrialisation.

It's the sheer scale of industrial farms that causes the trouble. Monocultures push out nature. Small farms and big gardens are far better suited to chemical-free growing, good soil care, manual pest-control and rich biodiversity. On a huge industrial farm, a relatively small number of workers have to deal with a vast area of land in the way that makes the most profit. Doesn't our food supply deserve a little more attention-to-detail than that? They plant monocultures because they're simpler to care for and make the most money. They use chemicals because they're the easiest way to deal with a problem, not the best way. They don't feed or protect the soil any more than they must to get their crop. Wildlife? Wildlife doesn't make a profit.

Food is the foundation of our survival and wellbeing. It's the cornerstone of economy; the number one most important commodity in every country. It's the linchpin of society; civilisations have risen and fallen according to their ability to produce it. You can't build a shelter, use a computer, drive a car or win a war without it. It's our first and foremost concern when it comes to looking after our families and our health - food is personal. As human beings, it is and must be our primary industry, and because it's SO important - because we must throw so much time and energy and resources and land into it - HOW we do it is crucial too.

So why are we so dreadfully out of touch with our food supply? Why have we pushed food production out of our communities? Why have we given up responsibility for it, preferring to pay money for other people, often in other countries, to sort it out for us? How much time and energy and resources and land do we as individuals and families and communities give to it?

Our modern food and farming system has transformed some 700,000,000 hectares of woodlands, forests and meadows into vast, featureless swathes of cereal crops, replacing natural ecosystems, displacing wildlife and sometimes destroying whole species. It depletes soils worldwide up to ten times faster than nature can restore them. It's an enormous source of pollution - the biggest source in many countries - and could even be depleting the ozone layer, scientists say. It's the world's biggest source of animal cruelty. And the worst thing of all? It's not even working! 12% of the world still goes hungry, and a good deal more than that struggle to get the food they need.

And I'm sick to death of claims that GMOs are the answer - the only way to feed the world. Recent news of a GM potato that resists blight failed to mention the naturally-bred potatoes already developed by the Sarvari Research Trust. These 'Sarpo' potatoes are resistant to all strains of blight and have been around for six years - if you grow your own you may well already be familiar with them. The trust is currently busy trying to crowdfund £50,000 to expand their business and make their blight-free potatoes available to farmers and growers across the globe (you can help them reach their target here). Meanwhile, £3,200,000 of public money has been spent trying to genetically-engineer potatoes to do exactly the same thing that Sarpo spuds can already do - and it has taken three years to achieve resistance against just one strain of the disease! Whatever the GM industry is about, it is NOT about feeding the world. Imagine the benefits to the food supply by now if Sarpo had been given that £3.2 million, three years ago!

I've said it before and I'll say it again: divide the worlds 21,800,000 square miles of agricultural land by its 7 billion people and we get nearly two acres each! That's more than enough to feed the world by anyone's logic; we're just managing the land - and its produce - insanely badly. Once upon a time, everyone was involved in their own food production. Today, we get our food from shelves, in buildings, without a second thought, and for that reason we've forgotten that because it's SO important, food production is perhaps THE biggest influence on how our world is run.

Every time you eat, you vote for how you want the world to be. You vote for or against biodiversity. You vote for or against animal cruelty. You vote for or against wildlife, and deforestation, and pollution, and slavery, and CO2 emissions, and chemical food additives. You vote for or against the corporations that seek to own the food supply. You vote for or against your own local economy, and your personal food security in times of trouble. Change never happens overnight, but every pound you spend, every consumer choice you make, every meal you eat is an opportunity to influence the system.

We need to take back responsibility for our food supplies; we need to bring food production back to our communities. We need to get involved. Please, get involved. Support your local farmers and producers and, crucially, talk to them about how the food was produced. Join a CSA, a community garden project or a similar group in your area - or start one! If you don't already, grow some food for yourself! Take the One Pot Pledge. Start some herbs and salad greens in containers - they're easy and some of the most heavily-sprayed conventional crops. Put your name down for an allotment. Do anything to take the power back and have some say about how you want our food system to run. Do it now!


Wednesday, 1 May 2013

URGENT: Save Our Seeds

On May 6th, the EU will vote on new legislation governing plant varieties, proposed by the Directorate-General for Health and Consumers in response to hard lobbying by the globalised agricultural seed industry - Monsanto and its buddies. This legislation will mean that no seed (or other plant reproductive material) can be sold, swapped or given for free to anyone anywhere in the EU unless it is registered on the EU Plant List as an 'approved' variety.


If the legislation passes, it will kill off innumerable heirloom, heritage and amateur varieties. It won't (I believe) impact the varieties already licensed for commercial use, but it will impact the huge number of 'amateur' varieties, all those that breed plants on a small scale at home, all those that forage seed and propagate wild plants, and all the rare seeds being preserved and brought back to cultivation by small businesses. It will mean high costs for seed merchants to put their varieties through rigorous tests to get them on the list - and since the tests are designed around high-output industrial varieties, many are unlikely to be approved anyway. Once a variety is approved, the seller will have to pay an annual fee to keep it that way. Heirloom varieties and other less-popular varieties will undoubtedly be lost. Small seed merchants preserving and supplying rare varieties will undoubtedly not be able to continue. Biodiversity will fall dramatically. Consumer choice will be reduced. Food security will be damaged. With every variety that dies out, the pool of genetic material for breeding future varieties will be diminished. That unique heirloom bean your grandfather gave you will be outlawed - it will be illegal to pass it on to anyone else. There'll be no seeking out local varieties when you move to a new area. There'll be none of the seed-saving and -swapping and -sharing that we growers enjoy so much - unless they're on the EU Plant List. And all this so that agricultural giants can make more money and take yet more control of our food supply.

This legislation flies in the face of nature, which propagates, adapts and evolves freely, constantly creating sub-species and sub-sub-species. It's an attempt by corporations to claim ownership of the plant world, and it's an assault on our right as earth-dwellers to enjoy and interact with the earth's natural world.

I personally grow many unusual and heritage varieties which are at risk; seeds I've saved myself and seeds I've bought from Real Seeds and others - many listed as 'amateur' varieties 'not for commercial exploitation', which Real Seeds must get round by charging 1p per year to join their 'club'. Many of these are my favourite varieties. I have a Caucasian vining spinach plant which I've only ever seen shared informally and sold by one-woman company Backyard Larder. I suspect most of these varieties would quickly become endangered if the legislation passes, and next year I'd have to grow a dramatically different selection.


I'd like to think there's no way this insane law would pass when put to the vote, but Monsanto seems to have ways to get anything it wants. I have had no replies so far to my letters to MEPs and it's simply too important an issue to just wait and see without expressing my opposition.

Whether or not you grow food yourself, this legislation has implications for your food security, the natural world all around you, and thus the future of the planet. PLEASE inform yourselves about this issue and TAKE ACTION.

Here are some links to help you:


Please share this post. We must not let this happen.

Friday, 7 September 2012

The Only Thing That Matters About Organic Food

Organic food doesn't use chemicals.

This is inarguable fact; organic certification standards are stringent. And it has several benefits; chemicals are not manufactured, not transported around the country/world, they don't pollute the soil and waterways, they don't harm the wildlife, they don't harm agricultural hired-hands in the fields, and they don't harm us. It's possible - perhaps likely - that organic produce may pick up other pollutants already in the environment or somewhere along the way to the supermarket shelf, but without the direct use of chemicals in its production, you are guaranteed to reduce your exposure by choosing organic food.

So I'd love to know why this week's headlines regarding a recent US study on organic foods proclaim that organic is "not healthier" than the alternatives.


If you've read these articles you'll have noted that despite the condemning headlines, they note that organic food doesn't use chemicals, so choosing it reduces your exposure to pesticides, antibiotics and the like. Which is exactly the point of it. They also note that organic produce is less likely to be contaminated with bacteria, such as e-coli. More good news. So why the negative press?

Oh, apparently an organic carrot contains just the same nutrition as a non-organic carrot. So THAT's why it's not good for us! But hang on - did anyone actually think an organic carrot was more nutritious in the first place? I've certainly never heard organics promoted that way, and the hundreds, perhaps thousands of comments on the news articles repeat the same sense of surprise again and again: we never thought it was more nutritious - we just don't want to eat chemicals! Are these media outlets missing the whole point deliberately, or is this lazy, thoughtless and misleading writing across the board just coincidence? With the vote on labelling of GMOs in California approaching, the timing of this astounding attempted smear on organics certainly couldn't be better for big industrial producers such as Monsanto.

Roger Cohen of the New York Times went as far as to label "the organic ideology... an elitist, pseudoscientific indulgence shot through with hype" and driven by the "narcissism of the affluent". Yup. Read it here. Bizarrely, he did actually note that organic food doesn't use chemicals, as well as some other benefits, while claiming it was a cultish fad of no use to the world. Again, is he missing the point deliberately, or is he just stupid? Does he have shares in big ag? Or a particularly nasty grudge against a hippy somewhere? Can anyone tell me how the desire to eat food not tainted with toxic chemicals is pseudoscientific? Thought not. He goes on to claim that only GMOs can end world hunger, ignoring the facts that GM crop yields are lower and GM crops are falling, one by one, to their self-created super-pests and super-bugs. And he obviously doesn't realise just how much food can be grown in a small space with traditional organic methods.

As for affluence, elitism and narcissism... Sure, organic may be more expensive (not always; some items are the same price or just a few pence more than their organic counterparts these days), but these accusations outright insult all those working hard to grow their own organic produce for a fraction of the prices in the shops. I don't always buy organic, but I won't be labelled a snob because I support it, I grow it, and I choose it when I can. The world has thrived without industrial chemicals for thousands of years and I reject the idea that pouring poisons on it now can possibly be a good thing.

Admittedly, some of the articles do raise one negative effect of organics; apparently organic meat and grain production produces slightly more greenhouse gasses. Not good news, but with a choice between further chemically polluting the earth or increasing greenhouse gasses, it seems to me we're avoiding the real issue; our overconsumption of meat and grain (consider how much grain is grown for animal feed, junk foods and alcohol production).

The Huffington Post got it right, eventually, sort of, in one little blog post which you can read here.

So kids, if you want more nutrition, eat less junk and fill the gap with more fruits and vegetables of all the colours in the rainbow, and add some undomesticated wild greens such as nettles to your diet too - they tend to be far richer in vitamins and minerals. But if you want to reduce your exposure to pesticides, fungicides, chemical fertilisers and systemic herbicides, eat organic. Because organic food doesn't use chemicals.


EDIT: There's an excellent article here examining the study a bit closer, which exposes some rather significant and misleading flaws. Do take a look.

Saturday, 14 July 2012

The Solution to World Hunger

Well, not exactly. But some interesting statistics came to my attention recently which really show how badly we're doing at looking after the world.

Let me start by introducing you to the Dervaes family, who live in Pasadena, Los Angeles. In their 8,700 sq.ft. (1/5 acre) property they grow 350 varieties of fruit, veg and herbs, and, though vegetarian, they raise chickens, ducks, goats and rabbits, for eggs, milk and manure, and they keep bees and run an aquaponics system which produces tilapia while providing extra nutrients for their plants. The four of them grow 75% of their own food (99% of their produce) and have plenty of surplus to sell on their porch stand. They achieve this using all-organic and natural growing methods, companion planting and polyculture, composting and caring for their soil, eating seasonally and saving their own seeds. Take a look around their website - I've been following them for several years and they really are an inspiration.

While their efforts and results are exceptional, the Dervaes family represent something which most of us veg growers already know - with a bit of practice and dedication, with careful intercropping and proper care for the soil, it's possible to grow huge, enormous amounts of food on a surprisingly small area of land.

The world's population is currently estimated to be around 7 billion, and we've been led to believe that this is too many - that we can't provide for everyone - that the planet can't support us all.

The numbers, however, suggest something different.

If we gave everyone in the world - not every family but every individual - a quarter of an acre (that would give the Dervaes family a whole acre - five times the land they have now) then 2560 people could grow more than enough for themselves in a square mile. It would take 2,734,375 square miles to provide for 7,000,000,000 people.

2,734,375 square miles...

Australia is 2,941,299 square miles. More than enough.

So, in theory, we could put all the people of the world just in Australia with 1/4 acre each, and the whole of the rest of the world would be empty of people...

I know what you're thinking. Most of Australia is desert, and across the world there are all kinds of habitats unsuitable for growing food. Deserts, wastelands, jungles, frozen tundras. How much agricultural-quality land is there in the world?

21,852,301 square miles, that's how much (an estimated 38% of the world's total 57,506,055 square miles of land). Eight times enough.

There are caveats, of course. Africa doesn't have enough agricultural land to support its huge population. Our cultural near-dependence on meat would have to change. But it's clear we could do better.

Vast, habitat-destroying, soil-draining, chemical-hungry grain monocultures don't work. What works is diverse, local, small-scale polyculture that works with nature instead of against it. (And don't get me started on GMOs, or how developed countries buy agricultural land for cash crops in Africa...) While chemical products and genetically-modified crops are touted as the answer to farming problems in arid countries (and everywhere else), the results consistently show otherwise.

We're not overpopulated. We're just rubbish. Whether you think it's by stupidity, by greed or by design, we're doing this aaaaaall wrong. 


Monday, 21 May 2012

It's National Vegetarian Week...

I'm not a vegetarian, and despite my fussiness about the meat I eat, I don't aspire to be one. I believe we humans are meant to eat meat and animal products - that it is an important part of healthy nutrition. (This account from a young vegan forced to realise that not everybody can survive on a vegan diet is fascinating and eye-opening.) I also believe the replenishment animals provide to the soil is vital to farming; that the healthiest way to produce food is in a polycultural system where animals and plants support and feed off each other, and that a wide variety of produce reduces the need for chemicals and treatments and encourages a healthier, more natural ecosystem where 'good' and 'bad' organisms are in balance.

But I also believe the amount of meat many are accustomed to eating these days is far too much. The amount we eat can be detrimental to our health, and too-often takes the place in our diets of other essentials such as vegetables. The amount we eat forces producers to farm animals intensively, which compromises animal welfare as well as the quality of the meat we eat. The amount we eat necessitates vast monocultures to feed the livestock, which deplete the soil, interfere with natural ecosystems and are detrimental to the planet. The amount we eat is ultimately unsustainable, and if we all ate less meat - perhaps just two or three times a week - the world would undoubtedly be a better place.

So this week, why not try a few meat-free recipes and cut down a little? I don't mean baked potatoes and beans, or macaroni cheese, or a mushroom pizza - vegetarian food can be far more exciting and nutritious than that; if you're stuck for ideas, try here or here for inspiration. Or check out Meat Free Monday - a campaign to get everyone eating meat-free at least once a week, with lots of recipes to tempt you to join in! (I was thinking of feeding my lot meat-free all week this week and seeing if they noticed, but planned badly and have half a pack of mince in my fridge to use up, and I promised I'd do steak one night... but five nights out of seven still ain't bad!)

And here's a simple offering to get your mouth watering; a beanburger recipe I've been working on recently (loosely based on a standard recipe that's all over the internet in various forms) which my family loves. (Not exciting enough for you? You haven't tasted it yet!) It's not quite seasonal right now, I confess, but summer round the corner means burgers on my mind. It's seriously tasty, family-friendly, and couldn't be much healthier either. Give it a try!


Mexican Beanburgers
(makes eight large burgers)
  • Finely chop a large onion, a green pepper and a red pepper, and fry gently in a teaspoon of olive or rapeseed oil.
  • Peel and chop a large carrot, and steam/boil in a little water until soft. 
  • When the onions are translucent and the peppers soft, add a small can sweetcorn (160g), a clove or two chopped garlic, 2 tsp ground cumin, 2 tsp ground ginger, 1 tsp chilli powder (or to taste), 1 tsp dried oregano, 1 tsp dried coriander leaf, a tbsp lemon or lime juice, a good grinding of black pepper and a pinch or two of salt. Stir in and cook for a couple more minutes, then turn off the heat.
  • Mash the carrot (or puree in the food processor) and add it to the pan.
  • Drain and rinse two cans beans (I use one can cannellini, one can kidney), pulse half in the food processor until finely chopped, then add the rest and pulse until coarsely chopped for texture. Add to the pan.
  • Add 100g plain flour. Mix everything together really well.
  • Separate the mixture into eight balls and flatten them into patties about 2cm thick. It's messy, but stick with it!
  • Place on an oiled and floured baking tray, and bake at 200C for around 20 minutes, turning halfway through, until the burgers are lightly browned and firm.
  • Serve in bread rolls, with guacamole (or avocado), salsa (or sliced tomato), salad and a little cheese.

Friday, 9 March 2012

Charity for the Facebook Generation

In this age of information, I am regularly appalled by the amount of misinformation out there, and the number of people who repeat what they've heard without verifying their facts. Sharing links is one thing - you're just pointing people to an author's opinion. Taking on that opinion yourself and spreading it without even a cursory look at the evidence is inexcusable, and foolish.

You probably already know that a campaign video made by charity Invisible Children has taken the world by storm. The campaign's aim is to raise awareness about Joseph Kony, the leader of a guerrilla army in central Africa responsible for the abductions of up to 66,000 children and the deaths and displacement of many thousands more, and to put pressure on governments (who apparently think the matter is irrelevant) to do something about it. If you haven't seen the video, you can find it here. You'll need half an hour, and tissues.

Not long after the video started trending on the internet, the backlash began - a couple of bloggers pointed out what they felt were flaws in Invisible Children's methods, and an apparent lack of transparency surrounding their finances. You can read all that here, here and here, if you want. Accusations have spread about as fast as the video itself did, and include spending too much on awareness and media and not enough on actually helping people, oversimplifying a complex issue, exaggeration and manipulation of facts, foolish tactics, funding Ugandan militia who are known for their own humanitarian crimes, perpetuating the 'white man's burden' and saviour complex, promoting 'slacktivism' (the belief you might be able to change things by sharing stuff on the internet), over-sentimentality, propagandism, and being 'a scam' - an accusation made without any indication how so. Invisible Children posted this this morning to rebut all the claims made about them - a must-read for anyone who is not sure what to think. (This brief interview with the man behind the film is worth a read too.) For the record, they absolutely deny that they fund the Ugandan military, and their financial records are online for all to see.

But I'm afraid the damage has already been done. Most people see too much in black and white, and will have dismissed the campaign. It makes me furious how some cynics will condemn something when they find it isn't perfect, without recognising the value it has even in its flawed state.

Sure, if you don't want Invisible Children to have your money, don't donate. But don't dismiss the campaign to make people more aware, or to pressurise governments to act. Those are the key things here and they're entirely valid.

So called 'slacktivism' is better than ignorance. Simplification is unavoidable in a short campaign video, and in any focused campaign. No-one's claiming this guy is the only evil in the world or that getting rid of him will solve all of the region's problems - again, he's just the focus of one little campaign, and it's a step in the right direction. The white saviour thing is something we should think about but not a valid criticism. Anyone accusing the filmmakers of making an uncomfortably moving and provocative piece of propaganda has failed to realise that's just the way the world rolls these days. And on some rare occasions, sadly, military intervention is a necessary evil.

Invisible Children, as well as building schools and managing welfare and economic projects, puts more importance on producing media and spreading awareness than most charities. So what? Who says there's only one way to run a charity? I give monthly to a major global charity, but I don't keep up with what campaigns they're working on or where my money's going. Isn't that wrong? Aren't I just giving to satisfy myself, sitting comfortably at my computer, rather than because I see an injustice or feel a burden for someone? If the charity I support, or any other, made moving and rousing films about everything they got up to, less money would go to their causes - but I might be prompted to give more, and more might be prompted to give. It's different, but it's not wrong. Kony 2012 is charity for the facebook generation - it's visible, it's colourful, it's focused, it's exciting, it's dramatic. It's waking whole generations of kids up to the fact that Justin Bieber/being thin/Twilight/Louis Vuitton is not the only thing that matters. I never saw Christian Aid, Oxfam, Greenpeace or Cancer Research do that.

Awareness is so important. I know how it is - everyone's so busy worrying about money and school and work and chores and family that there's no time to think about stuff that doesn't affect them. And there's so much stuff going on in the world we'd never catch up with all of it, anyway. But it's dangerous to assume that foreign issues will never affect us. There's a hell of a lot going on out there - I've been blown away by some of the things that have shown up on my radar since I've had enough spare time and energy to start paying attention. My whole world view has changed (it's amazing how narrow the lens of the mainstream media is, when you look outside it). We must always strive to be more aware of what is happening in the world.

This guy has to be stopped. However much research you do into the situation in central Africa, however complex things are over there, you won't find a reason to justify what he's doing nor to allow it. And if we don't act, that's exactly what we're doing - permitting it. Yes, you and I are extremely limited in what we can do, but I'm not letting the government who represents me - who can do something - turn a blind eye just because it doesn't affect our country. If enough of us put the pressure on, maybe we can change things. Maybe we can't. But shouldn't we try?


You can find more info on Kony 2012 and what you can do here, and a UK e-petition here. There are also many, many more charities supporting human rights, peace and development in Africa.

Wednesday, 29 February 2012

Rapeseed Oil is GOOD for you!

For as long as I've been cooking, olive oil has been the oil to use. It's heart-healthy, stable, natural, comes with or without its fruity flavour, and most of all it's trendy - it's what the food-loving Italians swear by, after all, and what TV chefs told us we had to use for years.

But it's from Italy, Spain or Greece, and in my efforts to buy less from overseas and reduce my food miles, it just wouldn't do. Heck, I'm far from perfect in that endeavour; I still buy Spanish tomatoes in the winter when I feel the need, asparagus from Peru when I crave it, oranges from goodness-knows-where, and the occasional avocado, but I try to keep these things to a minimum, and cooking oil is something I use every single day. So about a year ago I gave up olive oil completely, in favour of cold-pressed British rapeseed oil - a truly British product grown here for centuries, with an impressive nutritional profile, a pleasant floral flavour well-suited to cooking or raw use, and a high smoke point making it suitable for all types of cooking.

Photograph by David Castor, via Wikimedia Commons

So imagine my surprise and horror when an online acquaintance told me rapeseed oil was terribly bad for me and should be avoided by the health-conscious individual at all costs!

A few minutes of internet research showed that she wasn't alone - it appears a great many people believe rapeseed oil (or Canola oil across the pond) is dangerous stuff. But I quickly noticed virtually all the information cited on the subject of its dangers was from just two articles; one derived from a book by a certain John Thomas and the other a viral email that did the rounds years ago, which borrows heavily from John Thomas' theories. These articles have been reproduced over and over again on blogs and websites - a Google search suggests some 6000 times - despite being packed with misinformation, misquotation, innuendo and lies, and widely discredited (see here, here or here)! So I want to set the record straight here. And unlike the anti-rapeseed articles, I will make all my sources available via links, so you can check it out for yourself and make up your own mind. 

The Myths About Rapeseed Oil

So for what reasons do some people think rapeseed oil is bad news?

Canola is not the name of a natural plant. 
No, but it is a natural plant. Canola was a trade name derived from the words CANadian Oil, Low Acid. Rapeseed oil was originally grown for industrial purposes and was not very palatable because of its high levels of bitter erucic acid and glucosinolates, but in the 70s, agricultural scientists in Canada developed a low acid, disease- and drought- resistant cultivar which made an excellent and cheap cooking oil. In Canada, much of the Canola grown is genetically modified to be resistant to herbicides. Here in the UK, it has been bred naturally to achieve the same low-acid properties, just as we have cultivated and domesticated pretty much every other food crop we grow to reach its maximum commercial potential. Canola is now a generic name given to rapeseed oils up and down America. Here, we just call it rapeseed oil.

Rape is part of the mustard family. It's the most toxic of all food-oil plants. Insects will not eat it; it is deadly poisonous.
Rape is indeed in the mustard family (usually called brassicas), along with such nutritious and common edibles as, well, mustard, cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, turnips, swedes, brussels sprouts, kale, radishes, horseradish, pak choi, rocket and cress. Although eating the wrong parts of a few species of wild mustards might upset your stomach, it does not follow that rape is toxic. Rape stems and leaves have long been used as a food in parts of Asia. Insects do eat rapeseed plants; flea beetles and cabbage moths are a particular problem, as with most brassicas.

Rapeseed oil is used in insecticides.
Any gardener who knows his stuff will know that many oils can be, and are, used as insecticides. A spray of oil easily blocks the spiracles (air holes) which allow insects to breathe, and they suffocate.

Rapeseed oil is an industrial oil, used as lubricant, fuel, soap and even in making plastics.
The author had obviously forgotten that olive oil was used as lamp oil for millenia and makes excellent soap, and that flax oil has long been used in paint, sealants and linoleum. They obviously didn't realise that sunflower, palm and castor oil have all been used widely as lubricants, and had never heard that Rudolf Diesel designed his first engines to run on peanut oil, nor that Henry Ford's first automobiles were actually made from hemp and soybean, two more highly nutritious food oils which also make excellent plastics.

Rape oil is strongly related to symptoms of emphysema, respiratory distress, anemia, constipation, irritability and blindness in animals and humans. Also increased risk of heart disease, low birth weight, disruption of the nervous system and cancer. It inhibits proper metabolism of foods, prohibits normal enzyme function and suppresses the immune system. In the blood, it causes red blood cells to stick together in clumps and congests blood flow.
No sources are given, and no evidence is available. Most of these claims appear to come from the book 'Young Again: How to Reverse the Aging Process' by John Thomas, in which the author makes many unusual claims which are completely unsupported. He uses no citations or scientific references, and in fact eschews science, calling the scientific mind 'muddled'. Some anti-rapeseed articles cite the Encyclopedia Britannica as saying rape is toxic. The online version does not make this claim, but clearly notes that it is a popular food crop. 

It contains unhealthy trans fatty acids.
Fats become trans fats when they are processed with hydrogen to make them solid, stable and increase their shelf life. It is true that a refined and processed canola oil may contain small amounts of trans fats - as any refined and processed oil may. Trans fats are legally limited to just 2% in Canada and banned in an increasing number of cities and countries. No cold-pressed oil contains trans fats. Some anti-rapeseed articles claim that the oil must be heavily processed to get rid of its strong odour, colour and flavour. Any fan of British cold-pressed oil, with its rich golden colour and peppery floral flavour, will disagree. 

Feeding rapeseed oil to livestock caused mad cow disease.
There is no evidence for this and no sources are given. It was rapeseed meal with the oil pressed out, not the oil itself, which was used as animal feed. Here in the UK, rapeseed meal is still used as nutritious animal feed and fish food, but there is no longer any CJD problem.

Rapeseed oil was the source of the chemical warfare agent 'mustard gas'.
This is just plain falsehood. Mustard gas is made from chemicals in a laboratory; commonly by treating sulfur dichloride (chlorinated sulfur) with ethylene. (Ethylene serves as a plant hormone in all plants, but has no special connection to mustard or its relatives.) The name simply came from its yellow colour and pungent mustard-like smell.

When rapeseed oil was fed to rats, they developed fatty degeneration of heart, kidney, adrenals, and thyroid gland. The fatty deposits disappeared when the oil was withdrawn from their diets but scarring remained.
The natural diet of a rat is grains and other plant matter. Is it any wonder that feeding them high levels of fats caused health problems commonly associated with consuming high levels of fats?

Rapeseed oil contains VLCFAs which can cause a rare fatal degenerative disease called adrenoleukodystrophy.
Adrenoleukodystrophy is an inherited disease which causes a disastrous build-up of fatty acids in the blood; not because sufferers consume too many VLCFAs (very long chain fatty acids) but because they simply cannot process those they do consume. The VLCFA present in rapeseed oil is erucic acid - the very acid that was bred out of rape cultivars (down to a maximum 2%, usually less) in order to make the product palatable. The source cited for this little claim (Fats That Heal, Fats That Kill, by Udo Erasmus) is severely misquoted; in fact the author actually goes on to describe how erucic acid has been used to normalise fatty acid levels and treat this very disease.

Rapeseed oil is a penetrating oil which leaves a stain on fabric that won't wash out.
Maybe I'm doing my laundry wrong, but I've never been able to get olive oil or sunflower oil spots out of clothes either... This does not make it toxic! 

Rapeseed oil causes lung cancer.
Any oil heated past its smoke releases carcinogenic free radicals. No cooking oil should be heated above its smoke point, nor reheated so many times that its smoke point is significantly lowered through deterioration. 

The Truth About Rapeseed Oil

Cold-pressed rapeseed oil is a healthy, natural, low impact food with an erucic acid level of around 1%. It contains only 6% saturated fat - that's half as much as olive oil - and has up to 11 times more essential omega 3 fatty acid and much less omega 6 than olive oil, giving it an essential fatty acid balance better suited to human consumption than any other oil (not enough omega 3 or too much omega 6, which is common, make us prone to inflammatory conditions and blood problems). Rapeseed oil provides lots of antioxidant vitamin E (though sunflower oil trumps it), is stable for up to a year, and has one of the highest smokepoints of any cooking oil, making it suitable for all kinds of cooking. (Source, source)

In short, rapeseed is the most heart-healthy oil, suitable for all culinary uses and with a far lower environmental impact than foreign oils.

Let me make a couple of disclaimers. First, processed oil is a different creature from cold-pressed, and the sterilising, deodorising, degumming, bleaching and chemical treatment of any processed oil will increase its bad fats and decrease its micro-nutrient content. I do not recommend processed or refined oils, or generic vegetable oil which is usually full of low-grade and refined oils. Second, Canadian/US Canola is (largely, though not exclusively) genetically modified and I do not support this. Time is showing that GM/GE crops give lower yields and pose other risks, and multinational GMO agribusiness Monsanto is very scary indeed, threatening farmers and crops all across America and Canada - watch this video or read this or browse here. We need to fight back against GM foods and I do not recommend GM Canola oil. Thankfully, GM crops are not grown in the UK.

As long as it's cold-pressed and British, rapeseed is the oil for me.

Photograph by Prazak, via Wikimedia Commons



A Quick Lesson in Fats (more here)

Cholesterol is a substance made in the body (and consumed in animal products) and essential to cell structure, hormones and vitamin D production. Cholesterol also moves fat around the body. There are two main types of cholesterol, with which we are concerned here:
Low-Density Lipoproteins (LDL cholesterol) are manufactured by the liver to carry cholesterol to the body’s cells and tissues. When there are too many, LDLs form deposits on the walls of arteries and elsewhere, and increase your risk of heart disease.
High-Density Lipoproteins (HDL cholesterol) pick up and carry excess cholesterol from artery walls and bring it back to the liver for processing and removal. HDLs decrease your risk of heart disease.

All fat has the same number of calories per gram (9) and will make you fat if you eat too much, but fat is an essential nutrient for our brains and nervous systems, not to mention joints, skin and hair. We must all eat fat, but the type of fat we choose can make a big difference to our health. Dietary fat is made up of fatty acids, which are grouped into three main types:
Saturated fats increase bad (LDL) cholesterol. They are usually solid at room temperature. Examples are butter, cheese, animal fat, coconut and palm oil.
Monounsaturated fats decrease bad (LDL) cholesterol but maintain your good (HDL) cholesterol. They are liquid at room temperature. Foods high in monounsaturated fats are olives, avocadoes and many nuts.
Polyunsaturated fats decrease your good (HDL) and bad (LDL) cholesterol. They are liquid or soft at room temperature. Sources include corn oil, soybean products, many seeds, and oily fish.

Trans fats are man-made; they are unsaturated fats which have undergone processing (hydrogenation) to make them more solid (as in many margarines), or just to increase their shelf life and make them more stable (this is partial hydrogenation). They not only increase bad (LDL) cholesterol, but they reduce the good stuff (HDL) and have been reported to cause a number of side effects too. They occur almost exclusively in processed foods (small amounts also occur naturally in some animal products) and are the unhealthiest fats of all - in fact many countries are moving towards banning them. Unsaturated cooking oils (such as rapeseed) can break down and turn to trans fats when heated in cooking, but in a domestic environment under normal conditions this risk is negligible, unless your oil is already oxidised by age, air/light/heat exposure, repeated use or overheating past its burn/smoke point.


Thank you to Hill Farm Oils and Yellow Fields Oil for providing information for this article.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...