A thought on genetic-engineering and farming
In 1951 Jack Williamson, a Texan born writer also known as the ‘Dean of Science Fiction’, conjured up a crazy idea from the depths of his imagination. He called it ‘genetic engineering’. The concept was that you could isolate an organism’s DNA and manipulate it to create a scientifically-designed being. Scary stuff.
Within a year scientists had proven that DNA was hereditary and soon after was the famous discovery of the double helix structure in DNA molecules. The science of DNA developed in breakthroughs until in 1973 two American Scientists created the worlds first transgenic-organism; commonly known as a Genetically Modified Organism or GMOs.
Quite quickly the uses of GMOs were obviously apparent. If one could change the DNA structure of an organism, one could create new beings to whatever specifications one chose. Farming and science had changed forever. Virus resistant crops, fruit with enhanced size and flavour, seeds designed for growth in foreign climates. Mother nature had gotten involved in a sordid love-affair with a younger guy – Father Science.
The topic of GMOs and farming methods is highly controversial and hosts a wider spectrum of rights and wrongs than the Metallica discography. Yet, what relevance does it have for us consumers living on the Southern tip of Africa?
In the early 1990s, as many South Africans had political foresight and envisioned a country developed by a new political and economic order. One man set his mind on developing a different type of sustainability. The idea was to develop urban lands, connecting communities to the soil on which they lived, invest in sustainable farming, and provide South Africans with the basic means to feed themselves and even profit off of the little resources at their disposal.
This was the birth of Abalimi Bezekhaya. Abalimi builds community farms and environmental action groups. Abalimi plants gardens in schools. Abalimi subsidize low income gardening projects and businesses. Abalimi mobilises public support in lobbying government and industry to farm sustainably. Abalimi links communities to government and interest groups.
And my personal favourite, Abalimi developed the Harvest for Hope project. A flawless circle of good: Littered and arid pieces of land in township communities are cleaned up, and urban vegetable farms are build in their place. Community members learn to farm beautiful organic vegetables. These vegetables are then sold in a box scheme to other South Africans who want to eat locally, organically grown fresh vegetables. The money goes directly back to the farmers.
Urban farming is not for everyone. Most people are intrigued by the convenience and possibilities of genetically modified farming. I am one of them. However, if Michael Ruppert and other conspiracy theorists are correct, then Monsanto and the oil companies are going to destroy the world and our economy – and it is people like Rob small and his extensive network of Abalimi volunteers, farmers and supporters who will be kings in the new world order. Or at very least, they’ll just be eating healthy, tasty food and supporting a truly sustainable initiative while doing so.
Check out the eLabel of the Harvest for Hope box!
http://www.elabel.co.za/special-preview/2327/Abalimi-Bezekhaya-Harvest-of-Hope-box
Bad Science
If I was sick growing up my parents took me to a doctor. A good Jewish doctor who studied at a reputable institution to be precise. Then when I was about 14, I got sick and my mother took me to a homeopath as an alternate solution. This was the first time I had heard of such a thing, and I remember being like; “wait a minute, herbs cure disease?” Incredible. My eyes were now open.
Today there are fortunes of alternate medicines. Its a massive industry. Nutritionists, homeopaths, naturopaths, snake charmers. The list goes on. Now I’m not passing too much judgment – because I do believe that every body is unique and different remedies work for different people. So by all means, dowse yourself in aura-cleaner if you so choose. However there is one limit to this – and its a legal one.
You cannot claim, in a public advertisement, that your remedy has benefits which you cannot prove exist. So for instance, you cannot claim that the pills you sell will cure AIDS, because thus far, there is no proven cure for AIDS. You also cannot advertise that a combination of Vitamin C and D will reduce the risk of Cancer, because there is no evidence to back this up. These claims, which are real both examples of claims made by Patrick Holford, are no different to claiming that you coca-cola cures Alzheimer’s or that watching television enhances ones libido.
And this week, the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa (http://www.asasa.org.za/) put a significant halt to his quackary. Holford writes books and sells health supplements called Mood Food. He makes several claims about his remedies. AZT is less effective than Vitamin C in treating AIDS. Smart Kids Brain Boost will improve a child’s school marks. Weight lose, treatment of depression, links between the MMR vaccine and autism. The list goes on.
Now no one wants to be a spoil-sport or the grumpy old man telling kids not to believe in fairies. But the danger of Holford’s claims on South African’s public broadcasting space are immense. Incorrect treatment for terminal patients, money wastage on fake remedies, support of an industry of quackery in a country so desperate to fight real medical issues.
And this week the ASA agreed, once again: Holford may not advertise claims which he cannot substantiate. And while the ASA does not have the authority to take the products off the shelves, you do; by not buying them.
http://www.elabel.co.za/special-preview/2862/Patrick-Holford-Patrick-Holford-Mood-Food
(Log in – create a profile – have your say)
Greet your meat.
So the idea is to keep this blog away from disgusting images of animals suffering or general ‘anti meat eaters’ posts. We don’t mind meat eaters. In fact some of our best friends have best friends who eat meat. However, I stumbled upon an article which actually got me thinking. While its debatable whether the article is actually factually correct, it does raise an interesting idea which I want to share with you. And in the end of the day we are trying to promote responsible consumerism and making the mental link between one’s purchases and the effects of those purchase. So on that note, allow me to introduce to you to, your meat.
The question is, how does your dinner go from looking like this:
to looking like this:
Well the answer is complex and there are a variety of processes involved, many of which differ depending on the factory which is transforming your cow in to your hotdog. One such process is known as Mechanically Separated Meat (MSM) or Mechanically Separated Poultry (MSP) for those hotdogs of the more chicken-dog persuasion. The process is about taking the animal carcass and extracting as much meat off the bones as possible. So instead of simply chopping up the meat and mincing it like any good ol’ family butcher would do, this process is aimed at getting those hard, but still technically healthy, bits of meat of those bones.
Now the reason I want to highlight this issue is funnily enough to defend some meat manufacturers; as not all meat manufacturer use MSM in their produce. Pictures like the one below are posted online to totally turn you off of meat. And initially the obvious ‘bad guys’ come to mind and you think; “sis, that is the last time I use that as a hangover cure”.
But in truth. We don’t know what this pink substance is. It could be meat or McDonalds chicken (as the article claims), it could be soft-serve ice cream for all we know. It is actually more likely that only cheap polonies and hotdogs are made by using the MSM process and in fact the guys that spend billions of dollars harvesting cows and marketing their fast food chains are not going to take the risk of diseases and bad press for that one unreachable spec of meat left on the bone (for the moment we can ignore the whole other side to the meat industry which is that tiny little details of that animals’ lives).
So I guess my conclusion is this: Get to know your meat. If you buy an edible, yet former living being for R10 off the side of the road, it may be possible that it resembled the ‘soft-serve chicken’ pictured above. Yet that gourmet hunk of flesh from a reputable institution may be less revolting. The point is, don’t stop eating meat. Just get to know the poor guy a little better. Wine him, dine him and at the end of the night make sure he’s not going to make you sick the next morning.
___
Article referred to: http://docakilah.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/can-you-guess-what-mcdonald%E2%80%99s-food-item-this-is/
The Appletiser debate
It looks as though Appletiser and Grapetiser, a popular South African alternatives to conventional fizzy drinks, is no longer able to claim that they are preservative-free:
100% pure Appletiser is deliciously good for me with only 3 ingredients, concentrated apple juice, pure water and carbon dioxide. Appletiser contains no added sugar, preservatives or colourants, making it the perfect anywhere, anytime guilt-free indulgence. With its clear, sparkling, golden appearance this delicious indulgence is both the perfect alternative to alcohol, and the perfect mixer for a sophisticated cocktail. (http://www.cocacolasabco.com/Product.aspx/Show/Appletiser)
That is what they used to say. Now that they’ve started packaging the drinks in PET bottles as well as glass bottles and cans, they’ve had to resort to using preservatives:
As a sparkling fruit juice with a delicious fruit taste and aroma Appletiser is a biological product- unlike many other sparkling soft drinks. This makes it vulnerable to the degenerative effects of bacteria, which is the case with many other food products. Cans and glass are currently preserved for twelve months via a pasteurisation process. This entails heating the product for a period of time to counteract the degenerating effects of bacteria. PET does not cope with the pasteurisation process so we are therefore required to include food friendly preservatives in order to maintain the products excellent quality. (http://www.appletiser.co.za/aw/view/aw/en/page2470)
As this article illustrates, the controversy around this move is that on the one hand, the glass-bottled drinks have a higher carbon footprint due to the greater weight of the product and the correspondingly higher fuel requirements for transport; and on the other hand, the PET bottled drinks, which have a lower transport footprint, contain preservatives – a nutritional no-no…
Exploring the Corpus of The Body Shop
When you think of The Body Shop, you think of lovely smelling, good quality and ethical beauty products. The Body Shop enjoys being the face of ethical cosmetics in a sense – and it is precisely because of the prestige it has experienced since its inception under Anita Roddick in 1976, that it has the power to develop the standards and practices that concerned consumers would generally approve of. In recognition of the influence The Body Shop holds, we decided to meet with two of the South African branch’s representatives: Sean Kristafor (General Manager) and Kim Edwardes (Merchandise Assistant).
Before going into the particular themes provoked by the meeting, I think it would be good to give a little background to The Body Shop, which will help shape how it has earned its current reputation.
From the beginning of its being a public company, The Body Shop has allied itself with environmentalism and ethical trade. This was seen by its 1986 ‘Save the Whale’ campaign with Greenpeace and the establishment of its Environmental Projects Department. Even the concept of Community Trade (which I’ll elaborate on later) began in these early days, particularly with Teddy Exports in India, which supplies The Body Shop’s Footsie Rollers. The Body Shop engaged in a number of projects and campaigns between then and now. See their history for more details. I’ll just highlight some key events that I think are relevant for this article: in 1997 they signed the Humane Cosmetics Standard. 2001 saw their franchise being established in South Africa under the New Clicks Holdings. In 2006 The Body Shop joined the L’Oréal Group.
All too often, companies that boldly state their commitment to ethical or environmentally friendly practices are fiercely scrutinised as not doing enough. It seems that putting oneself out there in this light is a huge risk, one that could possibly outweigh the rewards of advertising such principles. I’m not asserting that we should not be critical, and I would like to officially recognise the good work The Body Shop has done so far. Before moving on, I would like to state that I will not be criticising them for what they are not doing, but rather, I will look at the practices they have elected to take on, and discuss those. These practices include animal-free testing and Community Fair Trade.
The Vibe on Fairtrade: what the label means…
Last week on Wednesday the 29th of June we met with Arianna Baldo – the marketing co-ordinator for Fairtrade Label South Africa (FLSA) which was set up in Cape Town in 2008. The purpose of the meeting? To learn more about them little details about Fairtrade.
“What is Fairtrade?” you chime. Fairtrade essentially is a label you will see on some products which subscribe to certain guidelines seeking to promote the idea of ‘sustainable production’ through ensuring fair wages and working conditions for small-scale farmers and workers. You may be wondering why I’m typing Fairtrade like such a douche. Well, this is actually a very necessary distinction. Fair trade (two words) is a set of principles which any producer could subscribe to. Fairtrade as one word refers particularly to the registered label.
The label guarantees that the product before your eyes is 100% fairly traded by the organisation’s standards. This is important to note since you could potentially have the case where a product is partly Fairtrade, but it won’t have this label since it isn’t completely. An example of this is Pick n Pay’s Organic Rooibos tea – the leaves are from Heiveld (a Fairtrade rooibos farm) but the packaging process is not fair trade. (I actually think that they should then use the ingredients list to their advantage and indicate what is Fairtrade or ethically sourced, for example: cocoa butter (Fairtrade), sugar, milk.)
Free Range? Not so much…
If you live in the Western Cape (South Africa), you’ll probably know of a brand of dairy products called Fair Cape Free RangeTM. You may have felt compelled to purchase this dairy in the place of another brand, “because it’s free range”. Well, I did: if you are going to consume dairy, free range dairy is the ethical choice, isn’t it? The bottle even says so:
However, somewhat less conspicuous is the trademark symbol:
“Fair Cape Free Range” is the brand-name of their dairy products: nothing more. It’s not certified free range. Common sense tells me that if it were truly free range, it would be significantly more expensive – not 15% more, but closer to 40% more expensive – right? After all, that’s pretty much why factory farming took off in the first place: to cut costs.
I decided to visit the farm.
Cocoa Most Fair
Hello Concerned Consumers! This is my blogging debut, please enjoy.
Mark asked me to write up about the meeting we had with Karlien van Straaten from CocoaFair on Wednesday.
Here’s a link to their site (still kind of under construction) : http://www.cocoafair.com/
CocoaFair is a chocolate factory based at the Old Biscuit Mill, under the Silo. What makes them super special is that they’re the first Social Enterprise in South Africa. What is a social enterprise you ask? A good question! It’s exactly what we love in business (I think I should write and illustrate children’s books sometimes). All the profit that CocoaFair generates is reinvested into social skill initiatives. They also have a completely transparent production process and are striving to make it even better. Their cocoa is organic and ethically traded – all monitored by a European company (with Skal as the organic certifying body). CocoaFair are hoping to make more direct links with their farms where basically they’d be able to say: “hop on a plane and go look for yourself.”
What does the term “Free Range” mean to the average concerned consumer?
The term “free range” is being widely misused in South Africa by various producers of dairy, eggs, and meat. As it turns out, there is no legislation regarding the term “free range” – with the result that producers and retailers that use the term are setting their own standards.
When it comes to poultry and eggs, the South African Poultry Association has set industry guidelines for producers (which are not necessarily strictly monitored). The guidelines for “free range” eggs specify a packing density of no more than 10 chickens (layers) per square metre, and for “free range” chickens that end up as meat, no more than 15 broilers per square metre. The barns in which they are housed are required to have enough “popholes” where “allowance must be made for at least 2 [metres] per 1000 birds.” These openings are meant to be accessible for at least 6 hours per day, except where there are “extreme weather” conditions.
What about dairy, you say? There is a company based in KZN called Free Range Dairy, that provides audits for dairies. On their home page, they note that “it has been our experience that cows that are “free range”, that is grazing on pastures for a large part of the day, are generally healthier and more contented”. However, there appear to be no such requirements in their audit categories…
So why are producers using the term “free range”, and others? Because they’re able to get away with it, because consumers don’t ask questions! According to the Food Safety Network, the New Requirements of Labelling and Advertising of Food Products include that “No statements can be printed on packaging which reads as follows: … A more humane treatment/rearing of animals e.g ‘karoo lamb’, ‘grass fed’, ‘grain fed’, ‘country reared’, ‘free range’, ‘pure’, ‘organic’, or similar wording” (page 28).
According to good old Wikipedia,
“Free-Range” is a term which (outside of the US) denotes a method of farming where the animals are allowed to roam freely as opposed to being contained in any manner. In the US, The USDA regulations apply only to poultry and indicate that the animal has been allowed access to the outside. The USDA regulations do not specify the quality or size of the outside range nor the duration of time an animal must have access to the outside.
So. Next time you automatically reach for that “free range” product, take a moment to check whether the term forms part of a trademarked brand, or if it is simply slapped onto the packaging by the retailer – or, if it is “certified” free range, who is the certifier and what are their standards?
GAP: a new animal-welfare rating system
It looks like the animal industry is finally waking up…
The Global Animal Partnership is a nonprofit organization that has developed a 5-step rating system for animal welfare in the agricultural sector. The organisation launched its pilot program at Whole Foods Market in the U.S., successfully certifying over 1000 producers. Currently, the programme sets standards for producers of beef cattle, broiler chickens and pigs, and is to be expanded to include laying hens, dairy cows as well as other species of animals used in agriculture.
Reassuringly enough, GAP’s board of directors includes a number of animal welfare enthusiasts:
• Joyce D’Silva (Compassion in World Farming) – Chair
• George Siemon (CROPP Cooperative) – Vice-Chair
• Mike Baker (World Society for the Protection of Animals)
• Steven Gross, Ph.D. (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)
• John Mackey (Whole Foods Market)
• Wayne Pacelle (The Humane Society of the United States)
• Dan Probert (Probert Ranch)
• Bernard Rollin, Ph.D. (Bioethicist at Colorado State University)
• Paul Willis (Niman Ranch Pork Company)
The organisation employs Miyun Park as Executive Director, and Ian Duncan as Chair.
In brief, the programme sets the following standards for its rating (the detailed standards can be obtained here, for beef, chicken and pork).
Step 1: no cages or crates, no crowding;
Step 2: indoor production systems must include environmental enrichment to encourage natural behaviour;
Step 3: animals must have access to outdoors;
Step 4: production must be pasture-centered;
Step 5: production must be animal-centered, allowing no physical alterations;
Step 5+, the entire life of the animal must be spent on a single farm.
Positives:
• Because the GAP rating includes a range of standards, a much larger number of producers is included, thereby providing more options for consumers;
• Producers that have minimal animal welfare standards are encouraged to work their way up the ladder;
• The system rewards producers for the good that they are doing, instead of picking out the best of the lot and ignoring the efforts of the rest;
• Consumers are better informed about what production methods are behind the food they eat – instead of being labeled as “good” and “not good enough”;
Negatives:
• The 5(+1) different ratings could confuse consumers instead of informing them of good practice in animal welfare;
• By rewarding producers with lower standards of animal welfare, the system might be seen as condoning those practices;
• It appears that Whole Foods is one of the primary funders of the organisation – which may mean that the animal welfarists on the Board of Directors have less say than one might hope for.