Dec 19, 2007
Very important & well-written new paper from leading oil expert Richard Heinberg -- combines a macro-level analysis of the world's food-security dilemma in light of climate, energy & environmental trends, with a call to the sustainable & organic agriculture movement to lead the world with a "focus on averting famine under crisis conditions." Forward widely!
Published on 3 Dec 2007 by Global Public Media. Archived on 3 Dec 2007.
What will we eat as the oil runs out?
by Richard Heinberg
Our global food system faces a crisis of unprecedented scope. This crisis, which threatens to imperil the lives of hundreds of millions and possibly billions of human beings, consists of four simultaneously colliding dilemmas, all arising from our relatively recent pattern of dependence on depleting fossil fuels.
The first dilemma consists of the direct impacts on agriculture of higher oil prices: increased costs for tractor fuel, agricultural chemicals, and the transport of farm inputs and outputs.
The second is an indirect consequence of high oil prices - the increased demand for biofuels, which is resulting in farmland being turned from food production to fuel production, thus making food more costly.
The third dilemma consists of the impacts of climate change and extreme weather events caused by fuel-based greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change is the greatest environmental crisis of our time; however, fossil fuel depletion complicates the situation enormously, and if we fail to address either problem properly the consequences will be dire.
Finally comes the degradation or loss of basic natural resources (principally, topsoil and fresh water supplies) as a result of high rates, and unsustainable methods, of production stimulated by decades of cheap energy.
Each of these problems is developing at a somewhat different pace regionally, and each is exacerbated by the continually expanding size of the human population. As these dilemmas collide, the resulting overall food crisis is likely to be profound and unprecedented in scope.
I propose to discuss each of these dilemmas briefly and to show how all are intertwined with our societal reliance on oil and other fossil fuels. I will then argue that the primary solution to the overall crisis of the world food system must be a planned rapid reduction in the use of fossil fuels in the growing and delivery of food. As we will see, this strategy, though ultimately unavoidable, will bring enormous problems of its own unless it is applied with forethought and intelligence. But the organic movement is uniquely positioned to guide this inevitable transition of the world's food systems away from reliance on fossil fuels, if leaders and practitioners of the various strands of organic agriculture are willing to work together and with policy makers.
Until now, fossil fuels have been widely perceived as an enormous boon to humanity, and certainly to the human food system. After all, there was a time not so long ago when famine was an expected, if not accepted, part of life even in wealthy countries. Until the 19th century - whether in China, France, India or Britain - food came almost entirely from local sources and harvests were variable. In good years, there was plenty - enough for seasonal feasts and for storage in anticipation of winter and hard times to come; in bad years, starvation cut down the poor, the very young, the old, and the sickly. Sometimes bad years followed one upon another, reducing the size of the population by several percent. This was the normal condition of life in pre-industrial societies, and it persisted for thousands of years.1
By the nineteenth century a profound shift in this ancient regime was under way. For Europeans, the export of surplus population to other continents, crop rotation, and the application of manures and composts were all gradually making famines less frequent and severe. European farmers, realizing the need for a new nitrogen source in order to continue feeding burgeoning and increasingly urbanized populations, began employing guano imported from islands off the coasts of Chile and Peru. The results were gratifying. However, after only a few decades, these guano deposits were being depleted. By this time, in the late 1890s, the world's population was nearly twice what it had been at the beginning of the century. A crisis was in view.
But crisis was narrowly averted through the use of fossil fuels. In 1909, two German chemists named Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch invented a process to synthesize ammonia from atmospheric nitrogen and the hydrogen in fossil fuels. The process initially used coal as a feedstock, though later it was adapted to use natural gas. After the end of the Great War, nation after nation began building Haber-Bosch plants; today the process yields 150 million tons of ammonia-based fertilizer per year, producing a total quantity of available nitrogen equal to the amount introduced annually by all natural sources combined.2
Fossil fuels went on to offer other ways of extending natural limits to the human carrying capacity of the planet.
In the 1890s, roughly one quarter of British and American cropland had been set aside to grow grain to feed horses, of which most worked on farms. The internal combustion engine provided a new kind of horsepower not dependent on horses at all, and thereby increased the amount of arable land available to feed humans. Early steam-driven tractors had come into limited use in 19th century; but, after World War I, the effectiveness of powered farm machinery expanded dramatically, and the scale of use exploded throughout the twentieth century, especially in North America, Europe, and Australia.
Chemists developed synthetic pesticides and herbicides in increasing varieties after World War II, using knowledge pioneered in laboratories that had worked to perfect explosives and other chemical warfare agents. Petrochemical-based pesticides not only increased crop yields in North America, Europe, and Australia, but also reduced the prevalence of insect-borne diseases like malaria. The world began to enjoy the benefits of "better living through chemistry," though the environmental costs, in terms of water and soil pollution and damage to vulnerable species, would only later become widely apparent.
In the 1960s, industrial-chemical agricultural practices began to be exported to what by that time was being called the Third World: this was glowingly dubbed the Green Revolution, and it enabled a tripling of food production during the ensuing half-century.
At the same time, the scale and speed of distribution of food increased. This also constituted a means of increasing human carrying capacity, though in a more subtle way. The trading of food goes back to Paleolithic times; but, with advances in transport, the quantities and distances involved gradually increased. Here again, fossil fuels were responsible for a dramatic discontinuity in the previously slow pace of growth. First by rail and steamship, then by truck and airplane, immense amounts of grain and ever-larger quantities of meat, vegetables, and specialty foods began to flow from countryside to city, from region to region, and from continent to continent.
The end result of chemical fertilizers, plus powered farm machinery, plus increased scope of transportation and trade, was not just an enormous leap in crop yields, but a similar explosion of human population, which has grown over six-fold since [the] dawn of [the] industrial revolution.
However, in the process, conventional industrial agriculture has become overwhelmingly dependent on fossil fuels. According to one study, approximately ten calories of fossil fuel energy are needed to produce each calorie of food energy in modern industrial agriculture.3 With globalized trade in food, many regions host human populations larger than local resources alone could possibly support. Those systems of global distribution and trade also rely on oil.
Today, in the industrialized world, the frequency of famine that our ancestors knew and expected is hard to imagine. Food is so cheap and plentiful that obesity is a far more widespread concern than hunger. The average mega-supermarket stocks an impressive array of exotic foods from across the globe, and even staples are typically trucked or shipped from hundreds of miles away. All of this would be well and good if it were sustainable, but the fact that nearly all of this recent abundance depends on depleting, non-renewable fossil fuels whose burning emits climate-altering carbon dioxide gas means that the current situation is not sustainable. This means that it must and will come to an end.
The Worsening Oil Supply Picture
During the past decade a growing chorus of energy analysts has warned of the approach of "Peak Oil," the time when the global rate of extraction of petroleum will reach a maximum and begin its inevitable decline.
During this same decade, the price of oil has advanced from about US$12 per barrel to nearly $100 per barrel.
While there is some dispute among experts as to when the peak will occur, there is none as to whether. The global peak is merely the cumulative result of production peaks in individual oilfields and whole oil-producing nations, and these mini-peaks are occurring at an increasing rate.
The most famous and instructive national peak occurred in the US in 1970: at that time America produced 9.5 million barrels of oil per day; the current figure is less than 5.2 Mb/d. While at one time the US was the world's foremost oil exporting nation, it is today the world's foremost importer.
The history of US oil production also helps us evaluate the prospects for delaying the global peak. After 1970, exploration efforts succeeded in identifying two enormous new American oil provinces - the North Slope of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. During this period, other kinds of liquid fuels (such as ethanol and gas condensates) began to supplement crude. Also, improvements in oil recovery technology helped to increase the proportion of the oil in existing fields able to be extracted. These are precisely the strategies (exploration, substitution, and technological improvements) that the oil producers are relying on to delay the global production peak. In the US, each of these strategies made a difference - but not enough to reverse, for more than a year or two at a time, the overall 37-year trend of declining production. To assume that the results for the world as a whole will be much different is probably unwise.
The recent peak and decline in production of oil from the North Sea is of perhaps of more direct relevance to this audience. In just seven years, production from the British-controlled region has declined by almost half.
How near is the global peak? Today the majority of oil-producing nations are seeing reduced output: in 2006, BP's Statistical Review of World Energy reported declines in 27 of the 51 producing nations listed. In some instances, these declines will be temporary and are occurring because of lack of investment in production technology or domestic political problems. But in most instances the decline results from factors of geology: while older oil fields continue to yield crude, beyond a certain point it becomes impossible to maintain existing flow rates by any available means. As a result, over time there are fewer nations in the category of oil exporters and more nations in the category of oil importers.4
Meanwhile global rates of discovery of new oilfields have been declining since 1964.5
These two trends (a growing preponderance of past-peak producing nations, and a declining success rate for exploration) by themselves suggest that the world peak may be near [or here].
Clearly the timing of the global peak is crucial. If it happens soon, or if in fact it already has occurred, the consequences will be devastating. Oil has become the world's foremost energy resource. There is no ready substitute, and decades will be required to wean societies from it. Peak Oil could therefore constitute the greatest economic challenge since the dawn of the industrial revolution.
An authoritative new study by the Energy Watch Group of Germany concludes that global crude production hit its maximum level in 2006 and has already begun its gradual decline.6 Indeed, the past two years have seen sustained high prices for oil, a situation that should provide a powerful incentive to increase production wherever possible. Yet actual aggregate global production of conventional petroleum has stagnated during this time; the record monthly total for crude was achieved in May 2005, 30 months ago.
The latest medium-term report of the IEA, issued July 9, projects that world oil demand will rise by about 2.2 percent per year until 2012 while production will lag, leading to what the report's authors call a "supply crunch."7
Many put their hopes in coal and other low-grade fossil fuels to substitute for depleting oil. However, global coal production will hit its own peak perhaps as soon as 2025 according to the most recent studies, while so-called "clean coal" technologies are three decades away from widespread commercial application.8 Thus to avert a climate catastrophe from coal-based carbon emissions, our best hope is simply to keep most of the remaining coal in the ground.
The Price of Sustenance
During these past two years, as oil prices have soared, food prices have done so as well. Farmers now face steeply increasing costs for tractor fuel, agricultural chemicals, and the transport of farm inputs and outputs. However, the linkage between fuel and food prices is more complicated than this, and there are other factors entirely separate from petroleum costs that have impacted food prices. I will attempt to sort these various linkages and influences out in a moment.
First, however, it is worth taking a moment to survey the food price situation.
An article by John Vidal published in the Guardian on November 3, titled "Global Food Crisis Looms As Climate Change and Fuel Shortages Bite," began this way:
Empty shelves in Caracas. Food riots in West Bengal and Mexico. Warnings of hunger in Jamaica, Nepal, the Philippines and sub-Saharan Africa. Soaring prices for basic foods are beginning to lead to political instability, with governments being forced to step in to artificially control the cost of bread, maize, rice and dairy products. Jacques Diouf, head of the FAO, said in London early this month, "If you combine the increase of the oil prices and the increase of food prices then you have the elements of a very serious [social] crisis. . . ." FAO statistics show that grain stocks have been declining for more than a decade and now stand at a mere 57 days, the lowest level in a quarter century, threatening what it calls "a very serious crisis."10
Record world prices for most staple foods have led to 18 percent food price inflation in China, 13 percent in Indonesia and Pakistan, and 10 percent or more in Latin America, Russia and India, according to the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO). Wheat has doubled in price, maize is nearly 50 percent higher than a year ago and rice is 20 percent more expensive. . . .
Last week the Kremlin forced Russian companies to freeze the price of milk, bread and other foods until January 31. . . .
India, Yemen, Mexico, Burkina Faso and several other countries have had, or been close to, food riots in the last year. . . . Meanwhile, there are shortages of beef, chicken and milk in Venezuela and other countries as governments try to keep a lid on food price inflation.9
According to Josette Sheeran, director of the UN's World Food Program (WFP), "There are 854 million hungry people in the world and 4 million more join their ranks every year. We are facing the tightest food supplies in recent history. For the world's most vulnerable, food is simply being priced out of their reach."11
In its biannual Food Outlook report released November 7, the FAO predicted that higher food prices will force poor nations, especially those in sub-Saharan Africa, to cut food consumption and risk an increase in malnutrition. The report noted, "Given the firmness of food prices in the international markets, the situation could deteriorate further in the coming months."12
Meanwhile, a story by Peter Apps in Reuters from October 16 noted that the cost of food aid is rising dramatically, just as the global need for aid is expanding. The amount of money that nations and international agencies set aside for food aid remains relatively constant, while the amount of food that money will buy is shrinking.13
To be sure, higher food prices are good for farmers - assuming that at least some of the increase in price actually translates to higher income for growers. This is indeed the case for the poorest farmers, who have never adopted industrial methods. But for many others, the higher prices paid for food simply reflect higher production costs. Meanwhile, it is the urban poor who are impacted the worst.
Impact of Biofuels
One factor influencing food prices arises from the increasing incentives for farmers worldwide to grow biofuel crops rather than food crops. Ethanol and biodiesel can be produced from a variety of crops including maize, soy, rapeseed, sunflower, cassava, sugar cane, palm, and jatropha. As the price of oil rises, many farmers are finding that they can produce more income from their efforts by growing these crops and selling them to a biofuels plant, than by growing food crops either for their local community or for export.
Already nearly 20 percent of the US maize crop is devoted to making ethanol, and that proportion is expected to rise to one quarter, based solely on existing projects-in-development and government mandates. Last year US farmers grew 14 million tons of maize for vehicles. This took millions of hectares of land out of food production and nearly doubled the price of corn. Both Congress and the White House favour expanding ethanol production even further - to replace 20 percent of gasoline demand by 2017 - in an effort to promote energy security by reducing reliance on oil imports. Other nations including Britain are mandating increased biofuel production or imports as a way of reducing carbon emissions, though most analyses show that the actual net reduction in CO2 will be minor or nonexistent.14
The US is responsible for 70 percent of world maize exports, and countries such as Mexico, Japan, and Egypt that depend on American corn farmers use maize both as food for people and feed for animals. The ballooning of the US ethanol industry is therefore impacting food availability in other nations both directly and indirectly, raising the price for tortillas in Mexico and disrupting the livestock and poultry industries in Europe and Africa.
GRAIN, a Barcelona-based food-resources NGO, reports that the Indian government is committed to planting 14 million hectares with Jatropha for biodiesel production. Meanwhile, Brazil plans to grow 120 million hectares of fuel crops, and Africa up to 400 million hectares. While currently unproductive land will be used for much of this new production, many millions of people will be forced off that land in the process.15
Lester Brown, founder of the Washington-based Earth Policy Institute, has said: "The competition for grain between the world's 800 million motorists, who want to maintain their mobility, and its two billion poorest people, who are simply trying to survive, is emerging as an epic issue."16 This is an opinion no longer being voiced just by environmentalists. In its twice-yearly report on the world economy, released October 17, the International Monetary Fund noted that, "The use of food as a source of fuel may have serious implications for the demand for food if the expansion of biofuels continues."17 And earlier this month, Oxfam warned the EU that its policy of substituting ten percent of all auto fuel with biofuels threatened to displace poor farmers. Jean Ziegler, a UN special rapporteur went so far as to call the biofuel trade "a crime against humanity," and echoed journalist George Monbiot's call for a five-year moratorium on government mandates and incentives for biofuel expansion.18
The British government has pledged that "only the most sustainable biofuels" will be used in the UK, but, as Monbiot has recently noted, there are no explicit standards to define "sustainable" biofuels, and there are no means to enforce those standards in any case.19
Impact of Climate Change and Environmental Degradation
Beyond the push for biofuels, the food crisis is also being driven by extreme weather events and environmental degradation.
The phrase "global warming" implies only the fact that the world's average temperature increase by a degree or more over the next few decades. The much greater problem for farmers is destabilization of weather patterns. We face not just a warmer climate, but climate chaos: droughts, floods, and stronger storms in general (hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes, hail storms) - in short, unpredictable weather of all kinds. Farmers depend on relatively consistent seasonal patterns of rain and sun, cold and heat; a climate shift can spell the end of farmers' ability to grow a crop in a given region, and even a single freak storm can destroy an entire year's national production for some crops. Given the fact that modern agriculture has become highly centralized due to cheap transport and economies of scale, the damage from that freak storm is today potentially continental or even global in scale. We have embarked on a century in which, increasingly, freakish weather is normal.
According to the UN's World Food Program (WFP), 57 countries, including 29 in Africa, 19 in Asia and nine in Latin America, have been hit by catastrophic floods. Harvests have been affected by drought and heatwaves in south Asia, Europe, China, Sudan, Mozambique and Uruguay.20
Last week the Australian government said drought had slashed predictions of winter harvests by nearly 40 percent, or four million tons. "It is likely to be even smaller than the disastrous drought-ravaged 2006-07 harvest and the worst in more than a decade," said the Bureau of Agriculture and Resource.21
In addition to climate chaos, we must contend with the depletion or degradation of several resources essential to agriculture.
Phosphorus is set to become much more scarce and expensive, according to a study by Patrick Déry, a Canadian agriculture and environment analyst and consultant. Using data from the US Geological Survey, Déry performed a peaking analysis on phosphate rock, similar to the techniques used by petroleum geologists to forecast declines in production from oilfields. He found that "we have already passed the phosphate peak [of production] for United States (1988) and for the World (1989)." We will not completely run out of rock phosphate any time soon, but we will be relying on lower-grade ores as time goes on, with prices inexorably rising.22
At the same time, soil erosion undermines food production and water availability, as well as producing 30 percent of climate-changing greenhouse gases. Each year, roughly 100,000 square kilometres of land loses its vegetation and becomes degraded or turns into desert, altering the temperature and energy balance of the planet.23
Finally, yet another worrisome environmental trend is the increasing scarcity of fresh water. According to United Nations estimates, one third of the world's population lives in areas with water shortages and 1.1 billion people lack access to safe drinking water. That situation is expected to worsen dramatically over the next few decades. Climate change has provoked more frequent and intense droughts in sub-tropical areas of Asia and Africa, exacerbating shortages in some of the world's poorest countries.
While human population tripled in the 20th century, the use of renewable water resources has grown six-fold. According to Bridget Scanlon and colleagues, writing in Water Resources Research this past March 27, in the last 100 years irrigated agriculture expanded globally by 480 percent, and it is projected to increase another 20 percent by 2030 in developing countries. Irrigation is expanding fastest in countries such as China and India. Global irrigated agriculture now accounts for almost 90 percent of global freshwater consumption, despite representing only 18 percent of global cropland. In addition to drawing down aquifers and surface water sources, it also degrades water quality, as salts in soils are mobilized, and as fertilizers and pesticides leach into aquifers and streams.24
These problems all interact and compound one another. For example, soil degradation produces growing shortages of water, since soil and vegetation act as a sponge that holds and gradually releases water. Soil degradation also worsens climate change as increased evaporation triggers more extreme weather.
This month the UN Environment Program concluded that the planet's water, land, air, plants, animals and fish stocks are all in "inexorable decline." Much of this decline is due to agriculture, which constitutes the greatest single source of human impact on the biosphere.25
In the face of all these daunting challenges, the world must produce more food every year to keep up with population growth. Zafar Adeel, director of the International Network on Water, Environment and Health (INWEH), has calculated that more food will have to be produced during the next 50 years than during the last 10,000 years combined.26
What Is the Solution?
International food agency officials spin out various scenarios to describe how our currently precarious global food system might successfully adapt and expand. Perhaps markets will automatically readjust to shortages, higher prices making it more profitable once again to grow crops for people rather than cars. New designer-gene crop varieties could help crops adapt to capricious climactic conditions, to require less water, or to grow in more marginal soils. And if people were to simply eat less meat, more land could be freed up to grow food for humans rather than farm animals. A slowdown or reversal in population growth would naturally ease pressures on the food system, while the cultivation of currently unproductive land could help increase supplies.
However, given the scale of the crisis facing us, merely to assume that these things will happen, or that they will be sufficient to overcome the dilemmas we have been discussing, seems overly optimistic, perhaps even to the point of irresponsibility.
One hopeful sign is that governments and international agencies are beginning to take the situation seriously. This month the World Bank issued a major report, "Agriculture for Development," whose main author, economist Alain de Janvry, appears to reverse his institution's traditional stance. For a half-century, development agencies such as the World Bank have minimized the importance of agriculture, urging nations to industrialize and urbanize as rapidly as possible. Indeed, the Bank has not featured agriculture in an annual report since 1982. De Janvry says that, since half the world's population and three-quarters of the world's poor live in rural areas where food production is the mainstay of the economy, farming must be central to efforts to reduce hunger and poverty.27
Many agencies, including the INWEH, are now calling for an end to the estimated 30 billion dollars in food subsidies in the North that contribute directly to land degradation in Africa and elsewhere, and that force poor farmers to intensify their production in order to compete.28
In addition, there are calls for sweeping changes in how land use decisions are made at all levels of government. Because soil, water, energy, climate, biodiversity, and food production are interconnected, integrated policy-making is essential. Yet policies currently are set by various different governmental departments and agencies that often have little understanding of one another's sectors.
Delegates at a soils forum in Iceland this month took up a proposal for a formal agreement on protecting the world's soils. And the World Water Council is promoting a range of programs to ensure the availability of clean water especially to people in poorer countries.29
All these efforts are laudable; however, they largely fail to address the common sources of the dilemmas we face - human population growth, and society's and agriculture's reliance on fossil fuels.
The solution most often promoted by the biggest companies within the agriculture industry - the bioengineering of crops and farm animals - does little or nothing to address these deeper causes. One can fantasize about modifying maize or rice to fix nitrogen in the way that legumes do, but so far efforts in that direction have failed. Meanwhile, and the bio-engineering industry itself consumes fossil fuels, and assumes the continued availability of oil for tractors, transportation, chemicals production, and so on.30
To get to the heart of the crisis, we need a more fundamental reform of agriculture than anything we have seen in many decades. In essence, we need an agriculture that does not require fossil fuels.
The idea is not new. The aim of substantially or entirely removing fossil fuels from agriculture is implicit in organic farming in all its various forms and permutations - including ecological agriculture, Biodynamics, Permaculture, Biointensive farming, and Natural Farming. All also have in common a prescription for the reduction or elimination of tillage, and the reduction or elimination of reliance on mechanized farm equipment. Nearly all of these systems rely on increased amounts of human labour, and on greater application of place-specific knowledge of soils, microorganisms, weather, water, and interactions between plants, animals, and humans.
Critics of organic or biological agriculture have always contended that chemical-free and less-mechanized forms of food production are incapable of feeding the burgeoning human population. This view is increasingly being challenged.
A recent survey of studies, by Christos Vasilikiotis, Ph.D., U.C. Berkeley, titled "Can Organic Farming Feed the World?", concluded: "From the studies mentioned above and from an increasing body of case studies, it is becoming evident that organic farming does not result in either catastrophic crop losses due to pests nor in dramatically reduced yields. . . ."31
The most recent publication on the subject, by Perfecto et al., in Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, found that "Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food on individual farms in developing countries, as [conventional] methods on the same land. . . ."32
Moreover, is clear that ecological agriculture could help directly to address the dilemmas we have been discussing.
Regarding water, organic production can help by building soil structure, thus reducing the need for irrigation. And with no petrochemical runoff, water quality is not degraded.33
Soil erosion and land degradation can be halted and even reversed: by careful composting, organic farmers have demonstrated the ability to build humus at many times the natural rate.34
Climate change can be addressed, by keeping carbon molecules in the soil and in forests and grasslands. Indeed, as much as 20 percent of anticipated net fossil fuel emissions between now and 2050 could be stored in this way, according to Maryam Niamir-Fuller of the U.N. Development Program.35
Natural gas depletion will mean higher prices and shortages for ammonia-based nitrogen fertilizers. But ecologically sound organic-biological agricultural practices use plant and manure-based fertilizers rather than fossil fuels. And when farmers concentrate on building healthy topsoil rich in beneficial microbes, plants have reduced needs for nitrogen.36
The impending global shortage of phosphate will be more difficult to address, as there is no substitute for this substance. The only solution here will be to recycle nutrients by returning all animal and human manures to cultivated soil, as Asian farmers did for many centuries, and as many ecological farmers have long advocated.37
What Will Be Needed
How might we actually accomplish this comprehensive transformation [f]or world agriculture? Some clues are offered by the example of a society that has already experienced and dealt with a fossil-fuel famine.
In the late 1980s, farmers in Cuba were highly reliant on cheap fuels and petrochemicals imported from the Soviet Union, using more agrochemicals per acre than their US counterparts. In 1990, as the Soviet empire collapsed, Cuba lost those imports and faced an agricultural crisis. The average Cuban lost 20 pounds of body weight and malnutrition was nearly universal. The Cuban GDP fell dramatically and inhabitants of the island nation experienced a substantial decline in their material standard of living.38
Several agronomists at Cuban universities had for many years been advocating a transition to organic methods. Cuban authorities responded to the crisis by giving these ecological agronomists carte blanche to redesign the nation's food system. Officials broke up large state-owned farms, offered land to farming families, and encouraged the formation of small agricultural co-ops. Cuban farmers began employing oxen as a replacement for the tractors they could no longer afford to fuel. Cuban scientists began investigating biological methods of pest control and soil fertility enhancement. The government sponsored widespread education in organic food production, and the Cuban people adopted a mostly vegetarian diet out of necessity. Salaries for agricultural workers were raised, in many cases to above the levels of urban office workers. Urban gardens were encouraged in parking lots and on public lands, and thousands of rooftop gardens appeared. Small food animals such as chickens and rabbits began to be raised on rooftops as well.
As a result of these efforts, Cuba was able to avoid what might otherwise have been a severe famine.
If the rest of the world does not plan for a reduction in fossil fuel use in agriculture, its post-peak-oil agricultural transition may be far less successful than was Cuba's. Already in poor countries, farmers who are attempting to apply industrial methods but cannot afford tractor fuel and petrochemical inputs are watching their crops fail. Soon farmers in wealthier nations will be having a similar experience.
Where food is still being produced, there will be the challenge of getting it to the stores. Britain had a taste of this problem in 2000; David Strahan relates in his brilliant book The Last Oil Shock how close Britain came to political chaos then as truckers went on strike because of high fuel costs. He writes: "Supermarket shelves were being stripped of staple foods in scenes of panic buying. Sainsbury, Asda, and Safeway reported that some branches were having to ration bread and milk."39 This was, of course, merely a brief interruption in the normal functioning of the British energy-food system. In the future we may be facing instead what my colleague James Howard Kunstler calls "the long emergency."40
How will Britain and the rest of the world cope? What will be needed to ensure a successful transition away from an oil-based food system, as opposed to a haphazard and perhaps catastrophic one?
Because ecological organic farming methods are often dramatically more labour- and knowledge-intensive than industrial agriculture, their adoption will require an economic transformation of societies. The transition to a non-fossil-fuel food system will take time. Nearly every aspect of the process by which we feed ourselves must be redesigned. And, given the likelihood that global oil peak will occur soon, this transition must occur at a forced pace, backed by the full resources of national governments.
Without cheap transportation fuels we will have to reduce the amount of food transportation that occurs, and make necessary transportation more efficient. This implies increased local food self-sufficiency. It also implies problems for large cities that have been built in arid regions capable of supporting only small populations from their regional resource base. In some cases, relocation of people on a large scale may be necessary.
We will need to grow more food in and around cities. Recently, Oakland California adopted a food policy that mandates by 2015 the growing within a fifty-mile radius of city center of 40 percent of the vegetables consumed in the city.41
Localization of food systems means moving producers and consumers of food closer together, but it also means relying on the local manufacture and regeneration of all of the elements of the production process - from seeds to tools and machinery. This again would appear to rule out agricultural bioengineering, which favours the centralized production of patented seed varieties, and discourages the free saving of seeds from year to year by farmers.
Clearly, we must also minimize indirect chemical inputs to agriculture - such as those introduced in packaging and processing.
We will need to re-introduce draft animals in agricultural production. Oxen may be preferable to horses in many instances, because the former can eat straw and stubble, while the latter would compete with humans for grains. We can only bring back working animals to the extent that we can free up land with which to produce food for them. One way to do that would be to reduce the number of farm animals grown for meat [in Cuba beef consumption was discouraged until the stock of oxen increased].
Governments must also provide incentives for people to return to an agricultural life. It would be a mistake to think of this simply in terms of the need for a larger agricultural work force. Successful traditional agriculture requires social networks and intergenerational sharing of skills and knowledge. We need not just more agricultural workers, but a rural culture that makes farming a rewarding way of life capable of attracting young people.
Farming requires knowledge and experience, and so we will need education for a new generation of farmers; but only some of this education can be generic - much of it must of necessity be locally appropriate.
It will be necessary as well to break up the corporate mega-farms that produce so much of today's cheap food. Industrial agriculture implies an economy of scale that will be utterly inappropriate and unworkable for post-industrial food systems. Thus land reform will be required in order to enable smallholders and farming co-ops to work their own plots.
In order for all of this to happen, governments must end subsidies to industrial agriculture and begin subsidizing post-industrial agricultural efforts. There are many ways this could be done. The present regime of subsidies is so harmful that merely stopping it in its tracks might be advantageous; but, given the fact that rapid adaptation is essential, offering subsidies for education, no-interest loans for land purchase, and technical support during the transition from chemical to organic production would be essential.
Finally, given carrying-capacity limits, food policy must include population policy. We must encourage smaller families by means of economic incentives and improve the economic and educational status of women in poorer countries.
All of this constitutes a gargantuan task, but the alternatives - doing nothing or attempting to solve our food-production problems simply by applying mere techno-fixes - will almost certainly lead to dire consequences. All of the worrisome trends mentioned earlier would intensify to the point that the human carrying capacity of Earth would be degraded significantly, and perhaps to a large degree permanently.42
So far we have addressed the responsibility of government in facilitating the needed transformation in agriculture. Consumers can help enormously by becoming more conscious of their food choices, seeking out locally produced organic foods and reducing meat consumption.
The organic movement, while it may view the crisis in industrial agriculture as an opportunity, also bears an enormous responsibility. In the example of Cuba just cited, the active lobbying of organic agronomists proved crucial. Without that guiding effort on the part of previously marginalized experts, the authorities would have had no way to respond. Now crisis is at hand for the world as a whole. The organic movement has most of the answers that will be needed; however, its message still isn't getting through. Three things will be necessary to change that.
The various strands of the organic movement must come together so that they can speak to national and international policy makers with a unified voice.
The leaders of this newly unified organic movement must produce a coherent plan for a global transition to a post-fossil-fuel food system. Organic farmers and their organizations have been promoting some of the needed policies for decades in a piecemeal fashion. Now, however, there is an acute need for a clearly formulated, comprehensive, alternative national and global food policy, and there is little time to communicate and implement it. It is up to the organic movement to proactively seek out policy makers and promote this coherent alternative, just as it is up to representatives of government at all levels to listen.
I have just called for unity in the organic movement, and to achieve this it will be necessary to address a recent split within the movement. What might be called traditional organic remains focused on small-scale, labour-intensive, local production for local consumption. In contrast to this, the more recently emerging corporate organic model merely removes petrochemicals from production, while maintaining nearly all the other characteristics of the modern industrial food system. This trend may be entirely understandable in terms of the economic pressures and incentives within the food industry as a whole. However, corporate organic has much less to offer in terms of solutions to the emerging crisis. Thus as the various strands of the organic movement come together, they should do so in light of the larger societal necessity. The discussion must move beyond merely gaining market share; it must focus on averting famine under crisis conditions.
To conclude, let me simply restate what is I hope clear by now: Given the fact that fossil fuels are limited in quantity and that we are already in view of the global oil production peak, we must turn to a food system that is less fuel-reliant, even if the process is problematic in many ways. Of course, the process will take time; it is a journey that will take place over decades. Nevertheless, it must begin soon, and it must begin with a comprehensive plan. The transition to a fossil-fuel-free food system does not constitute a distant utopian proposal. It is an unavoidable, immediate, and immense challenge that will call for unprecedented levels of creativity at all levels of society. A hundred years from now, everyone will be eating what we today would define as organic food, whether or not we act. But what we do now will determine how many will be eating, what state of health will be enjoyed by those future generations, and whether they will live in a ruined cinder of a world, or one that is in the process of being renewed and replenished.
1. See Fernand Braudel, The Structures of Everyday Life (New York: Harper & Row, 1982)
2. See Vaclav Smil, Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the Transformation of World Food Production (Boston: WIT Press, 2004)
3. David Pimentel, "Constraints on the Expansion of Global Food Supply," Kindell, Henry H. and Pimentel, David. Ambio Vol. 23 No. 3, May 1994. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. http://www.dieoff.com/page36htm
4. See also Roger D. Blanchard, The Future of Global Oil Production: Facts, Figures, Trend and Projections (Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland, 2005)
5. Longwell, "The future of the oil and gas industry: past approaches, new challenges," World Energy Vol. 5 #3, 2002 http://www.worldenergysource.com/articles/pdf/longwell_WE_v5n3.pdf
6. Energy Watch Group, "Crude Oil - The Supply Outlook," http://www.energywatchgroup.de/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Oilreport_10-2007.pdf
7. "Oil Supplies Face More Pressure," BBC online, July 9 2007 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6283992.stm
8. Energy Watch Group, "Coal: Resources and Future Production" (April, 2007). http://www.energywatchgroup.org/files/Coalreport.pdf
9. John Vidal, "Global Food Crisis Looms as Climate Change and Fuel Shortages Bite," The Guardian, Nov. 3, 2007 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/03/food.climatechange
10. Jacques Diouf quoted in John Vidal, op. cit.
13. Peter Apps, "Cost of Food Aid Soars As Global Need Rises, Reuters, October 16 http://africa.reuters.com/top/news/usnBAN648660.html
14. See Jack Santa Barbara, The False Promise of Biofuels (San Francisco: International Forum on Globalization, 2007)
15. Vidal, op. cit.
16. Lester Brown quoted in Vidal, op. cit.
17. "IMF Concerned by Impact of Biofuels of Food Prices," Industry Week online, October 18, 2007, http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=15197
18. Ziegler, quoted by George Monbiot http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/11/06/an-agricultural-crime-against-humanity/
19. Monbiot, op. cit.
20. Vidal, op. cit.
21. Vidal, op. cit.
22. Patrick Déry and Bart Anderson, "Peak Phosphorus," http://energybulletin.net/33164.html
24. "Agriculture Consuming World's Water," Geotimes online, June 2007 http://www.geotimes.org/june07/article.html?id=nn_agriculture.html
25. "Unsustainable Development 'Puts Humanity at Risk'," New Scientist online, October 17 2007, http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12834
26. "Between Hungry People and Climate Change, Soils Need Help," Environmental New Service, August 31, 2007, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2007/2007-08-31-03.asp
27. Celia W. Dugger, "World Bank Puts Agriculture at Center of Anti-Poverty Effort," New York Times, October 20, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com...
28. Stephen Leahy, "Dirt Isn't So Cheap After All," http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39083
29. Ibid.; http://www.worldwatercouncil.org
30. See, for example, William M. Muir, "Potential environmental risks and hazards of biotechnology," http://www.biotech-info.net/potential_risks.html
32. (vol 22, p 86) University of Michigan, July 10, 2007
33. "Organic Agriculture," FAO report, 1999, http://www.fao.org/unfao/bodies/COAG/COAG15/X0075E.htm
35. "Between Hungry People and Climate Change, Soils Need Help," Environmental New Service, August 31, 2007, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2007/2007-08-31-03.asp
36. FAO, op. cit.
37. F.H. King, Farmers of Forty Centuries: Organic Farming in China, Korea and Japan, (New York: Dover Publications, 1911, ed. 2004)
38. The story of how Cuba responded to its oil famine is described in the film, "The Power of Community," http://www.powerofcommunity.org
39. David Strahan, The Last Oil Shock (London: John Murray, 2007), p. 15
40. James Howard Kunstler, The Long Emergency (Nerw York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2005)
41. Matthew Green, "Oakland Looks toward Greener Pastures," Edible East Bay, Spring 2007, http://www.edibleeastbay.com/pages/articles/spring2007/pdfs/oakland.pdf
42. Peter Goodchild, "Agriculture In A Post-Oil Economy," 22 September, 2007
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Editorial Notes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted in full because of its importance. This is Museletter #188, also appearing at Richard Heinberg's website and at Global Public Media.
The Oil Depletion Analysis Center (ODAC) in the UK posted further information on this talk and its reception [in] their bulletin, as follows:
On the 22nd November, Richard Heinberg, Peak Oil educator extraordinaire, gave the Soil Association's annual Lady Eve Balfour Memorial Lecture, entitled What Will We Eat When The Oil Runs Out? A lecture outline, short summary of the event on YouTube, full transcript of the lecture and podcast, plus further information on the panel discussion that followed, are available from the Soil Association website.
An ODAC contact, Simon Wheeler, attended the lecture/panel discussion and took some notes on ODAC's behalf. Read Simon's thoughts.
David Strahan interviewed Richard Heinberg at the event. See Localise and go organic to avert post-peak famine - Heinberg (article plus podcast).
The lecture was reported by the UK's largest (by sales) broadsheet newspaper, The Telegraph. The article was in the 'Earth' section of the newspaper: Apocalyptic vision of a post-fossil fuel world. Such a gloomy title does not exactly inspire, as in 'must read', but it is still a pretty good article because it focuses on the positive, what can and must be done to avoid said apocalypse.
Jun 4, 2007
Let 'em eat vegan cake
Bakers find ways for diners to treat their sweet tooth and their arteries equally well
Article Last Updated: 05/23/2007 03:11:28 PM PDT
SEVEN DAYS A week, bakers at People's Donuts churn out blueberry, chocolate, vanilla cake, lemon poppy seed and other sugary sweet doughnuts without using any animal products.
But some days, the bakers go hog wild, if you will, making a maple doughnut with textured soy protein bacon bits on top for their most special customers.
"I feel like you shouldn't let the meatatarians have all the fun," says doughnut maker Rachael Devlin, wiping a dab of chocolate from her chin at Eclair Pastries on Berkeley's Telegraph Avenue, which is where the six-week-old People's Donuts does its baking.
From doughnuts to chocolate truffles to strawberry cheesecake, bakers are increasingly cooking up delectable vegan desserts and plenty of non-meat eaters and carnivores alike are gobbling them up.
Last year, Alicia Parnell opened Que SeRaw SeRaw, an organic vegan raw retail food store in Burlingame.
Nothing in the store, which offers prepackaged salads, soup, entrees, pizza and desserts, is cooked above 118 degrees. Still, her food doesn't skimp on flavor, she says.
"We have the yummiest (vegan) cheesecake on the planet," says Parnell.
In addition, they sell blueberry scones, chocolate truffles, pecan bliss cookies, cinnamon rolls with frosting and pies.
"I have one customer, who wants to buy a whole pie every day," she says. "We are only two people making food. Then he comes in and says he's buying it for his mother and his aunt."
Her desserts, she says, also aim to satisfy even the most serious chocoholic.
"We have a chocolate pudding that is absolutely out of this world," she says. "It handles the chocoholic's need for a fix."
The anti-Krispy Kreme
People's Donuts owner Josh Levine of Oakland spent a year studying doughnut-making and tasting doughnuts before perfecting his recipe, which he says contains no eggs or milk and is nearly all organic.
Claiming to be the first vegan doughnut operation in the state, he says even those skeptical of vegan food find the doughnuts tasty.
"I've had marriage proposals and exclamations of love," says Levine. "They are surprised because they think it's going to taste like bean sprouts and tofu."
Ryan Kellner, the owner of Mighty-O, an all-organic vegan doughnut shop in Seattle, understands the long-standing prejudice toward vegan food and is working to change it by making great-tasting doughnuts.
"There are some people out there who if you say, 'Try thisit's vegan,' they will say, 'No thanks I'm not vegan.'"
He once gave a batch of his vegan doughnuts to a group of construction workers who gobbled up every last crumb.
"Then they found out they were vegan doughnuts and then didn't want to eat them any more," he says. "I think it's really weird but it's part of human nature. Some people like to eat meat (and eggs and dairy) and they don't want to be told that their lifestyle is wrong."
But these days with people paying more attention to the evils of trans fats — thanks in part to the Food and Drug Administration's January 2006 requirement that it be listed on food labels — there is an increased yearning for delicious, healthful desserts that go beyond the hippie earthy crunchy date-oat bar sort of thing.
"Vegan baking is becoming more popular, and people are becoming more conscious of the fact that there is a lot more of it going on," says Kellner.
"The vegan movement has always been asking for it, but most of the stuff five or 10 years ago wasn't any good. But now, these people are growing up and they are willing to try different things," he says.
Beyond the table
A vegan (pronounced, VEE-gan) avoids all animal meat, chicken and fish as well as eggs, animal milks, honey and their derivatives.
But veganism also denotes "a philosophy and way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, nonhuman animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, nonhumans and the environment," according to one description in the "Vegan Voice," a magazine devoted to the lifestyle.
Isa Chandra Moskowitz knows quite a bit about cooking and eating vegan.
The author of "Vegan Cupcakes Take Over the World" and the"Vegan with a Vengeance," the 34-year-old New Yorker has been a vegan since she was 16.
She says vegan baking isn't more difficult than baking with eggs and milk, but there is a little more trial and error.
"You have to really learn how ingredients act together," she says. "I think a lot of people try and replace eight eggs with eight cups of apple sauce and that doesn't always work."
Moskowitz, who is working on a third cookbook, says she tried for a decade to make the perfect lemon bar.
"Every couple of months for the last 10 years I'd try and make them," she says.
Finally, it was agar agar, a vegan gelatin substitute made from seaweed, that helped her turn out the perfect lemon bar. Moskowitz keeps track of what people are saying about her vegan dessert recipes and the reviews are quite good.
"I haven't had any complaints. I look at people's food blogs and people say 'I can't believe it, it's the best cupcake I ever had,'" she says.
Charlotte Blackmer of Berkeley can relate. She runs a Web site and food blog called Love and Cooking, which offers her home recipes, experiences feeding the multitudes, restaurant reviews and other food-related musings.
Blackmer says while "it is perfectly possible to make a lovely fruit compote, or a crisp, or even fruit pie without use of animal products, sometimes the soul just cries out for ... chocolate cake."
For this, she got help from an "extremely non-hippie source," an acquaintance who is a convert to Orthodox Christianity hipped her to a vegan chocolate cake that is truly heaven sent, she says.
Because Orthodox Christians have strict rules about abstaining from particular foods in the seasons of Advent (before Christmas) and Lent (before Easter), as well as abstaining from certain foods on most Wednesdays and Fridays during the year, they find ways to eat dessert without cheating, according to Blackmer.
So, wrote Blackmer, "If you or a near one are vegan, or dairy-sensitive, or egg-sensitive, or trying to cut down on your cholesterol, this is just a darn tasty cake, and it couldn't be easier to put together."
And if that doesn't satisfy the sweet tooth, you can always grab a maple bar with those yummy soy protein bacon bits at People's Donuts in Berkeley. Your arteries will thank you.
Recipe courtesy of Charlotte Blackmer
2 cups (16 fl. oz.) very cold water
Shortening or margarine for greasing
3 cups all-purpose flour, plus some for dusting the pan
2 cups sugar
6 tablespoons cocoa
2 teaspoons baking soda
1 teaspoon salt
Dark chocolate chips (check label to make sure they're vegan, some brands have whey) or nuts (optional)
1 tablespoon white vinegar
2 teaspoons vanilla
3/4cup (6 fl. oz.) corn oil
Preheat oven to 350 degrees and put 2 cups of water into a container in the fridge. Grease (not butter!) and flour a 9-by-13-inch pan.
Mix dry ingredients together in a large bowl until well blended. If you want to add the optional dark chocolate chips or nuts, you can do so at this stage.
Mix wet ingredients together (I found my 4 cup Pyrex good for this and used a whisk). Pour wet ingredients into dry ingredients and mix together (again, my flat whisk was helpful).
Pour into the prepared pan and bake for 40-45 minutes, or until tested done.
For topping, you have several options. Josephine either dusts it with powdered sugar, or frosts with frosting-in-a-can that passes the ingredient test. If you are a better person than I am, you can whip up some frosting of your own as long as you use margarine or shortening, not butter. What I did was put some high-quality dark chocolate chips on the cake the minute it came out of the oven, and after they melted (about 5 minutes), spread them with my spatula to cover the cake.
Per serving (without topping; 1/2cup each chocolate chips and chopped walnuts added): 448 Calories; 20g Fat; 5g Protein; 65g Carbohydrate; 3g Dietary Fiber; 0mg Cholesterol; 391mg Sodium.
Per serving (without topping): 372 Calories; 14g Fat; 4g Protein; 59g Carbohydrate; 2g Dietary Fiber; 0mg Cholesterol; 390mg Sodium.
Reach Kristin Bender at
Dec 15, 2006
>From correspondents in London, www.news.com.au
Dec 15 - CHILDREN with high IQs are more likely to be vegetarians when they grow up, according to new research.
A British study of more them 8000 men and women aged 30 whose IQs had been measured when they were 10, showed that the higher the IQ, the
greater the odds of being a vegetarian.
"People who are more intelligent as children, who will obviously keep that intelligence when they are 30, were more likely to say they are vegetarians at that age than those that were less intelligent, " said Dr Catherine Gale, an epidemiologist at the University of Southampton in England.
She said the findings, which are published online by the British Medical Journal, were consistent with other studies showing people who are more intelligent tend to eat a healthier diet and exercise more.
"There is quite a lot of evidence linking vegetarianism to a lower risk of heart disease. People who are vegetarians tend to have lower blood pressure, lower cholesterol levels and they do have a lower risk of dying from coronary heart disease," Dr Gale said.
For each 15-point rise in IQ scores in the study, the likelihood of being a vegetarian rose by 38 per cent. Even after adjusting to factors such as social class and education, the link was still consistent.
More than 33 per cent of the men and women in the study described themselves as vegetarians but said they ate white meat and fish. Just over 4 per cent were strict vegetarians and 2.5 per cent were vegans, who eat no animal products at all, including eggs and dairy.
Jun 3, 2006
Eat more fruits, vegetables to avoid wrinkles
Berlin | April 18, 2006 1:15:09 AM IST
People who eat lots of fruit and vegetables are likely to have fewer wrinkles, says a new study.
People with a normal diet can make their skin look younger by including lots of tomatoes and red paprika in their meals, German magazine The Dermatologist said in its latest issue.
Free radicals - unstable oxygen molecules - are a major factor in premature skin aging and skin cancer. Antioxidants contained in the body stop free-radical damage.
However, the body cannot produce enough antioxidants on its own and has to make up for them with ingredients such as Vitamins A, C, D and E as well as beta-carotene.
Vegetables such as carrots, tomatoes, paprika and kale contain plenty of antioxidants, as does green tea.
A study conducted at the Berlin Charite hospital found that people with a high concentration of antioxidants in the skin look younger because they have fewer wrinkles, The Dermatologist said.
The study showed that vegetarians had more antioxidants in their bodies than non-vegetarians.
The magazine warned that an "overdose" of antioxidants through a large intake of food supplements could accelerate free radical damage. However, this was unlikely if supplements were omitted and fruit and vegetables were eaten instead.
May 31, 2006
||Tribute (for the living)|
||, United States|
Eat meat? Hit the street!
New Bedford, MA Standard Times
The Associated Press Trendy neighborhood developments in Bombay are
increasingly shutting out non-vegetarian house-hunters and renters.
BOMBAY, India � Never mind pets, smokers or loud music at 2 a.m.
House hunters in Bombay increasingly are being asked: "Do you eat
meat?" If yes, the deal is off.
As this city of 16 million becomes the cosmopolitan main nerve of a
booming Indian economy, real estate is increasingly intersecting
with cuisine. More middle-class Indians are moving in, more of them
are vegetarian, and the law is on their side.
"Some people are very strict. They won't sell to a nonvegetarian
even if he offers a higher price than a vegetarian," said real
estate broker Norbert Pinto.
Vegetarianism is a centuries-old custom among Hindus, Jains and
others in India. The government reckons India has some 220 million
vegetarians, more than anywhere else in the world.
"Veg or non-veg?" is heard constantly in restaurants, at dinner
parties and on airlines. And the question has long been an unwritten
part of the interrogation house hunters must submit to.
But it's becoming more open, and the effects more noticeable, all
the more so in Bombay, which attracts immigrants from Gujarat and
Rajasthan, strongly vegetarian states, as well as followers of the
In constitutionally secular India, there's no bar to forming a
housing society and making an apartment block exclusively Catholic
or Muslim, Hindu or Zoroastrian.
Vegetarians say they too need segregation.
"I live in a cosmopolitan society," said Jayantilal Jain, trustee of
a charity group. "But vegetarians should be given the right to admit
who they want."
Rejected home-seekers have mounted a slew of court challenges to the
power of housing societies to discriminate, but last year India's
highest tribunal ruled the practice legal.
"It's just not fair. It's a monopoly by vegetarians," said Kiran
Talwar, 49, a prosthetics engineer who has seen vegetarianism take
over restaurants and groceries all over his childhood neighborhood
on posh Nepeansea Road.
"If you step out to eat, there's nothing for miles because
everything around is veggie," he said.
Vikramaditya Ugra, a young Bombay banker in search of an apartment,
said vegetarian colonies were fine in neighboring Gujarat, a state
dominated by vegetarians. "That's in tune with local sensitivity,"
"But to impose this restriction is not right in a cosmopolitan city
Feb 22, 2006
||More than 1 day|
Feel better than before, eat raw!
By Paul Nison
“I eat bread. That’s raw because it is cold.” This might sound crazy but this is what I hear when I tell people they need to include more raw foods in their diet. After they realize that bread is cooked and just about everything else they eat is cooked and processed, many times they go into a state of denial saying, “I’m just fine the way I am, I don’t need to change my eating habits.” Well it’s just a matter of time before it catches up with them and they experience disease to some degree or another.
I have done a lot of research on the cause and the cure of disease (my book “The Cause and Cure of Inflammatory Bowel Disease” covers much of this info how to heal all diseases). I can tell you that the answer is much more simple than most people could ever imagine.
There is a popular saying, “you are what you eat.” I have to agree with it because if you eat low-quality food you will have low-quality
health. The opposite would be to eat high- quality foods for higher quality heath.
What are the highest quality foods to consume? The answer is simple. Any food that contains all of the qualities we need from food, Raw, Ripe, Fresh and Organic. This is all you have to remember when it comes to choosing your food.
Raw Food means food that has not been heated over 108 degrees. When food is heating over 108 degrees many of the nutrients are destroyed but all of the enzymes are destroyed. Enzymes are so important because they help our body digest the food efficiently. Without these enzymes that are destroyed by heat, our body has to work much harder using tremendous amounts of energy, along with many other possible health damage. I suggest as a back up if we do consume food that is heated over 108 degrees we take digestive enzymes supplementation, but there is nothing better than the real thing. I feel 75 to 80 percent of a person’s diet should consist of raw foods.
Most foods found on the market today are unripe. Food that is picked before it matures is lacking in the important nutrients the body needs to thrive. This is why I feel even many vegetarians are not healthy. When food is eaten at the stage it was meant to be eaten (tree ripened) we will get the fullest about of nutrients possible. To my knowledge the only food that can ripen off the tree the same way it would as if on the tree is a banana. Now many other fruits seem to ripen off the tree but they do not do so as well as they would if they were tree ripen. In that case they would ripen with much more nutrients and taste. Another issue is when we eat food that is not ripe, our body has to work much harder to digest the food. Working much harder to get much less is not ideal.
When food is eaten too soon it is unripe, but if we wait too long it is un-fresh. The longer we wait to eat the food (as long as it is ripe) the more nutrients are lost from the food. We even lose enzymes in the food when it is not ripe. It is estimated that 50 percent of the
nutrients are lost from the food after only four or five days. Eating the food as close to the time as it is picked (as long as it is picked ripe) will give us the highest quality food.
Many people believe that if they wash their food there is no problem eating un-organic food. They don’t understand the main issue with un-organic food is that they chemicals get into the soil making the soil de-mineralized. Food that is grown from un-organic soil will have poison toxins in it that can never be washed away. Also the food will be lacking in minerals that was lacking from the soil that it was grown in. Eating food that is not organic not only makes the food poor quality, but also the deadly chemicals in the toxins used to kill the bugs are hazardous to your health on all levels.
I am not suggesting that all your food must contain these four qualities, but at least 3 of the 4. If it contains none or just one of the
four, it is no good for you. Today most food consumed by people will not have any of these four qualities in them and this is one reason why The United States has more money than any other country in the world for medical study, procedures and products and research and still claims the title of being the leading country in the world when it comes to sickness an disease. There are many other factors to consider, but the poor diet of most Americans is an obvious one. So what do we do?
Remember raw, ripe, fresh and organic. Remember at least three of the four. If it has less, say no more!
Feb 11, 2006
Let Them Eat Crap
Article By Susan J. Douglas - Feb 06 2006 (82 reads)
The series reminded one that poverty has a map. Indeed, even if you did not read every word of "Bad Blood"--each story started on the front page and took up two full pages inside--eye-catching illustrations showed the dividing line between poverty and wealth (96th Street on the Upper East Side) and the fast food gauntlet on the main streets in Flushing, which pulls in recent Asian immigrants who pick up diabetes along with the burger and fries.
Begin on the sixth floor, third room from the end, swathed in fluorescence: a 60-year-old woman was having two toes sawed off." So opened the New York Times' four-part series in early January, "Bad Blood," about the Type 2 diabetes epidemic in New York City. Type 2 diabetes is caused by excess weight, lack of exercise and poor diet, and is directly related to poverty.
Diabetes is the leading cause of blindness and kidney failure in the country; it often leads to amputation. It's the sixth leading cause of death in the United States and costs us $132 billion a year. And it's preventable, save for the enormous financial interests involved in its preservation. "Bad Blood" brought together three American scandals--poverty, our morally bankrupt for-profit health care system and the practices of our nation's fast food joints.
Combined, they make up an illness-industrial complex, in which big players in the food industry, insurance industry and medical establishment profit wildly. But they need more raw materials to keep them going, more fodder for their assembly lines. Poor people of color are that fodder, and very few of the rest of America seems to care.
Remember the summer of 2002 when a lawyer filed suit against McDonald's and other fast food restaurants? His two teenage clients, one 5-foot-6 and 270 pounds, the other 4-feet-10 and 140 pounds, routinely ate fast food and were diabetic. He charged that McDonald's did not provide easy-to-understand nutritional information about its fast food, nor disclose that additives made its food less healthy than represented in its ads. The suit immediately became a laughingstock: how preposterous to hold McDonald's accountable for your own overeating! The National Restaurant Association, however, was far from amused.
The Times' main point is that Type 2 diabetes is an epidemic that promises to grow widely. But its consequences are seriously underappreciated because the disease's victims are disproportionately poor people of color. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention project that one in three children--one in three!--born five years ago will become diabetic sometime in their lives. But this will be unequally distributed. The Times showed that below 96th Street on the Upper East Side, with a median income of $75,000 and a poverty rate of 6.2 percent, only 1 percent of the population has diabetes. Up in Spanish Harlem, where the median income is $20,000 and the poverty rate 38.2 percent, 16 percent have diabetes.
There's just something about this that seems, well, like a business plan. Budget cuts have simultaneously forced schools to eliminate P.E. classes and make up for lost revenue by installing Coke and candy machines in the halls. The food industry spends $10 billion a year marketing foods to kids, and we're not talking carrots and celery. Clustered in poor neighborhoods, fast food joints continue to hawk 64 oz. sodas and items like Burger King's Enormous Omelet Sandwich (730 calories, 47 grams of fat). Once poor folk are fattened for the kill, the insurance companies step in. According to the Times, health care providers make a profit when they amputate a limb or provide a prosthetic, but lose money if they seek to prevent blindness or provide nutritional advice.
Because this sickening cycle is only the result of individual (not industrial) greed, in October the House of Representatives passed, by a 306-120 vote, the "Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act" (a.k.a., the "cheeseburger bill"), which would protect the food industry from obesity-related lawsuits. Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell's companion "Commonsense Consumption Act," awaits action in the Senate. Already 20 states have enacted their own versions of "commonsense consumption" laws. Guess who wrote them? Lobbyists for the food industry.
According to Melanie Warner, writing in the Times' business pages, the National Restaurant Association, with headquarters in Washington and 50 state organizations, has led the individual responsibility campaign, dispatching restaurant owners and food executives to the statehouses and Congress. In the last two congressional elections, the food and restaurant industry gave a total of $5.5 million to politicians in the 20 states that have passed laws shielding companies from obesity liability.
The illness-industrial complex is betting that they will get away with this. That's what the tobacco companies thought too.
Susan J. Douglas is a professor of communications at the University of Michigan and author of The Mommy Myth: The Idealization of Motherhood and How it Has Undermined Women.
Feb 11, 2006 10:20am
Feb 4, 2006
I eat no meat: Dissection infection
I may not eat meat, but apparently I have to witness rotting carcasses.
About three weeks ago, in front of science-C, I saw students from the marine mammals class dissecting a seal right outside the front door of the building. I thought it was a little weird, but I ignored it for the sake of science.
One week later, in the same spot, I discovered the seal again. But now it was fully dissected and rotting outside. The smell was just about as bad as the sight, and the flies were a swarmin’.
It was probably the most disgusting thing I had ever seen, and I certainly didn’t appreciate that it was in plain view of the public eye.
Milton Boyd, the chair of the biological sciences department said it is common for the department to receive animals that wash up on shore and are already dead, and that HSU has a permit that allows for their dissection.
If an animal is already dead, then feel free to dissect it, I do believe in the importance of science. But please, do it inside.
People have been kicking the dissection dust up for years, going back and forth about the constitutionality of forcing people to do it for education. I never even thought about the issue of forcing people to look at it until now.
Dissecting frogs in high school was never really a problem. They were already dead—what could I do? I thought anyone who refused to do it was weak. But the seal carcass I saw on campus shines new light on the issue.
A large portion of the vegan lifestle is about the protection of animal rights, hence the concerns about killing thousands of frogs, cats, and pig fetuses.
In California, a law passed in 1988 stated that any pupil who has a moral opposition to the dissecting, harming or destruction of animals has the right to notify his or her instructor of the objection.
If the teacher sees fit, he or she can provide the pupil with an alternative lesson, such as a computer program. The alternative assignment should require the same time and effort as the dissection, no more and no less, and the pupil should not be discriminated.
If a computer program can be just as effective as the real thing, then it should not be the alternative, but the method of choice.
Dissection is not the only issue when it comes to scientific research involving animals and animal rights. There’s also the abuse of living, breathing creatures, all for the sake of greener grass and the cosmetic liner that makes one’s eyes appear larger.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires that all new chemical products be tested. “Many of these tests are performed on animals, in which the unfortunate creatures are forced to ingest or inhale such products as weed-killers, oven cleaners, cosmetics and paint. For example, caustic chemicals may be forced into dogs’ eyes or smeared into the raw, shaved heads of rabbits,” according to the FDA Web site.
Unfortunately, the use of animals to learn more about ourselves may be in vain.
According to www.navs.org, “Animals and non-human animals do have much in common. All mammals have lungs, hearts and immune systems. So in the 1700s and 1800s, it made sense to think that we could learn something about lung disease, heart disease and diseases of the immune system from experimenting on non-human mammals.”
Upon closer examination, it was discovered that only humans suffer from AIDS, coronary artery disease, and a very small number of animals contract lung cancer from smoking.
So the next time you have to dissect a cat, pig, seal, frog or worm, or the next time you buy shampoo that rubbed was in the eyes of little bunnies, remember the pictures shown above.
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.
, cia more
|SHARES FROM PELAGUS'S NETWORK
New Petition! Speak out
Merger with Comcast! Let
your opinion be know
before your bill goes up
and your programming
DOJ and FCC to Not Allow
Merger of Time-Warner and
\\nI have recently posted
some BlogSpot radio
interviews and YouTube
videos, publicizing my
two new books,\\r\\n1)
Deepening Your Personal
Emotional Intimacy and
Through Creative S...
\\nCoretta Scott King:
“We have done what
we can to reveal the
truth, and we now urge
you as members of the
media, and we call upon
elected officials, and
other persons of
influence to do what they
can to share the
revelation of this case
to the ...
\\nWe declare that no
man nor nation nor race
have a greater right than
others to enjoy the
fruits of their work, as
the ecological sphere is
our common condition of
epidemic of sky-rocketing
medical costs has
afflicted our country and
grown to obscene
bills are bloated with
profiteering, fraud and
Much is wrong with t...
n\\r\\nMy two current
books have been published
and are available for
sale through Amazon,
Barnes and Noble, and the
Hammer. Reading these
books can be very helpful
\\nA stainless steel tank
the size of a basketball
court lies buried in the
sandy soil of
state, an aging remnant
of U.S. efforts to win
World War II. The tank
holds enough radioactive
waste to fill an
Peninsula is home to
d forests and many of our
iconic creatures. To keep
healthy, WEC and our
st and Olympic Forest