One of the best nature videos (in our opinion) on YouTube is that showing a year in the life of the River Torridge, sister to The Taw, in North Devon. This being set to one of Ralph Vaughan Williams’ compositions. The courses of the Torridge and Taw form much of North Devon’s “Tarka Trail” - well worth exploring - using the old market town of Barnstaple as your base. The trail is named after Henry Williamson’s creation - Tarka the Otter - which, as it happens, is just one of the creatures to be seen in the video.

Did you know that German owned, Npower, is attempting to turn the children of its customers into spies, all under the guise of saving the planet, which makes it all right? Well actually it doesn’t make it all right, not by a long chalk it doesn’t!

Npower ran an advertisement in the Sunday times on July 26th, and on August 2nd the Sunday Telegraph an article that was highly critical of Npower for taking such an improper approach (this article is reproduced below).

We too should be angry for Npower’s actions amount to little more than the attempted perversion of our children (Npower = Nazi-Power it seems). Recruiting children as climate Stazi, is simply resurrecting old Nazi methods for indoctrinating children and turning them into informers. It is an utterly abhorrent practice, and it should be condemned!

Equally abhorrent has been the response from the Advertising Standards Authority, which has refused to condemn the advertisements. That the body responsible for policing all advertising in the UK - to ensure that parental responsibility is not compromised - should renege on its own rules shows that we can expect no help from the authorities! But Npower is a commercial concern so why not deluge them with complaints, and, if you happen to be one of their customers - change supplier!

Npower Executives may be contacted via this link

Energy firm recruits children as ‘climate cops’

Last week’s Sunday Times carried a large advertisement for the German-owned energy company npower, inviting children to “save the planet this summer” by becoming “climate cops”. A picture showed a sleeping dad, with a notice on his head warning in a childish scrawl that he had been found guilty of “climate crime” by “falling asleep with the tv still on”.

For more “interactive games and fun downloads”, readers were invited to contact npower’s Climate Cops website. This explains in comic book format how children can spy on their parents, relatives and neighbours to catch them out in seven “climate crimes”, such as leaving the TV on standby, putting hot food in a fridge or freezer (as is recommended by hygiene experts) or failing to use low-energy light bulbs.

Children could record these offences in a “climate crime case file”, while teachers are offered a full “learning resource” pack for use in schools, including a PowerPoint presentation and posters for classroom walls.

When my colleague Richard North asked the Advertising Standards Authority how they squared this with their rules prohibiting “marketing communications” which “undermine parental authority”, they replied (as he records on his EU Referendum blog) that they had “considered you (sic) objections but do not feel it have (sic) breached our Codes on the basis you suggest”.

My own advice to children tempted to become “climate cops” is that they might begin by looking at npower’s own record as operators of 13 fossil fuel power stations.

Its coal-fired Aberthaw power station in Wales, for instance, emits more CO2 in two months than is notionally saved in a year by all the 2,000 wind turbines now disfiguring Britain’s countryside. If merely going to sleep in front of the TV is a “climate crime”, why haven’t the directors of npower put themselves behind bars long ago?

Sunday Telegraph

It is reported that over the last two years London’s beekeepers lost half their hives. Indeed, during last winter alone, it is estimated that almost a third of British hives lost their bees. According to the chairman of the London Beekeeepers Association: “If you give hives a thump, you get a little roar coming back, and I didn’t get any roars. Some had bees but the mysterious ones had virtually nothing. Everything had disappeared.” The last time bee losses were this serious, according to the record books, was before the First World War.

Land & People has previously reported on “Colony Collapse Disorder” (CCD), a so far unexplained phenomenon that has led to the loss of more than a third of US hives this year and a considerable number across Europe. Although a number of theories to explain this phenomenon are extant �“ the favoured appears to be that the radiation from mobile phone mast transmitters are disorientating bees to the extent they are unable to find their way back to their home hive.

The problem is larger than many appreciate and goes much further than the production of honey. According to DEFRA, bee pollination alone is worth around £200 million per annum to agriculture. So potentially serious is the issue that DEFRA commenced a public inquiry on improving the health of honeybees, which concludes at the end of this month. In addition the loss of so many bees will inevitably have an effect on Britain’ honey producers �“ an industry that normally produces around £30 million of honey per year.

In the US not only has the industry been ravaged by CCD for much longer than either here in Britain, or across the Channel in Europe, but the scale of the problem is far larger. There the US Department of Agriculture estimates that bee pollination adds around £8 billion to crop values. Consequently it should come as no surprise that US government scientists are engaged in an investigation into the problem. Amongst possible causes being investigated are pesticides, natural diseases, parasites, man-made factors (mobile phone radiation) or any combination of these!

Here in Britain the experts tell us that we have all the components of the US-style disorder in terms of disease. In addition, it is clear that the onus is on DEFRA to act because failure to resolve the problem will be reflected in lower crop yields. Bee pollination is estimated to be worth around £90 million to apple producers and around £20 million to both oilseed and raspberry growers.

The importance of the humble bee to agriculture is enormous - bees pollinate a third of everything that we eat - a shortage of bees means a shortage of food �“ the problem extends far beyond honey.

Yet despite the importance of this issue Labour’s DEFRA has only budgeted a paltry £200,000 on research �“ this is about what it costs to “run” a single one of their parasitic Westminster MPs. To put this figure into some sort of comparison, the beekeepers’ association says an extra £7.7 million is needed over five years to properly fund bee studies. As one expert commented: “In the sum of the whole of the agriculture business, it’s a drop in the ocean. There’s insufficient allocation for research, and bees are so fundamental to our environment.”

To make matters worse it is believed that funding of the bee health program is unlikely to change next year, though an additional £90,000 is being spent this year for the National Bee Unit to study the winter losses, DEFRA claims.

Land & People are agog at the Government’s apparent apathy in respect of this problem. Are ministers incapable of grasping the potential enormity of this issue we ask? Can’t they comprehend that failure to pollinate crops on a substantial scale not only threatens abysmal harvests but puts huge sections of the farming industry at risk? In a recent article on this Government’s attitude towards the farming industry we asked whether Labour’s mismanagement of farming was due to misfortune or design? We are still asking!

Splitting from the Grid???

In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar power from a marginal, boutique alternative into a mainstream energy source, researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar power: storing energy for use when the sun doesn’t shine.

Watch a  video presentation, by Daniel G. Nocera, the Henry Dreyfus Professor of Energy at MIT, and read the full article via this link:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

A great many farmers are up in arms over legislation being prepared by the EU Commission that seeks to slash the number of pesticides used in agriculture, to reduce what it sees as potential threats to human health in particular and to the environment in general. Now Land & People is all for the expansion of organic growing and the reduction, as far as is reasonably practical, of the use of pesticides, fungicides and herbicides in British agriculture.

However, although we accept that the EU Commission may be acting with good intentions, the fact is that this initiative is likely to make the situation even worse, whilst disadvantaging the British producer into the bargain. We’ll now explain why.

Firstly, a reduction in the use of sprays is almost certainly going to result in reduced crop yields per acre �“ this being particularly true as far as potato, brassica and cereal production is concerned. This, in turn, will reduce farm incomes �“ which is no light matter bearing in mind the number of smaller farms, in particular, that are barely breaking even these days. Some farms, but certainly not all, will be able to increase their acreage under cultivation to make up for some of the loss �“ even though this will, in itself, incur further costs in terms of extra fertiliser and diesel.

Secondly, with less productive harvests, the law of supply and demand is likely to kick in with a vengeance. The deficit created through reduced yields will create a vacuum in the market that will be filled with cheap imported produce �“ something further undermining the viability of our producers!

Thirdly, and here’s the rub, imported produce �“ unlike our British produce �“ will, most likely, have been grown with little or no restrictions on the use of chemical sprays. In other words, the public’s exposure to sprayed produce is likely to increase, rather than decrease. Not exactly what is intended we would suggest!

Lastly, the EU Commission’s proposals will be enforced right across the community we are told. But we all know what that means �“ we only have to look at the “enforcement” of fisheries legislation. Whereas a succession of British governments have vigorously policed the rules, the governments of other countries �“ Spain and Italy spring immediately to mind �“ cannot be said to have displayed the same enthusiasm. Now whereas we can guarantee that Brown’s Labour regime in Westminster will enforce every petty fobbing rule to the letter �“ can the same be said of the Slovak, Polish or Rumanian governments in respect of their producers? Of course not and once again the British producer will not only be shafted by unfair Third World competition but also by our supposed “partners” with the EU.

As an aside, Land & People believes the EU Commission’s approach to this issue to be fundamentally flawed. We believe they are applying the wrong yardstick in addressing this issue. Their yardstick is that of “hazard” �“ not that of “risk” - as we would advocate. To explain what we mean consider this:-

A cigarette is hazardous in that it contains a whole raft of carcinogenic and other harmful chemical compounds. However the risk is in the usage. All things being equal, the one cigarette per day man is at considerably less risk than the forty per day man! The hazard for each man is the same - but the risks are entirely different.

It is therefore our opinion that the reduction of chemical spray use in agriculture, which we believe is entirely desirable, should be undertaken in the light of studies that evaluate risk rather than hazard, and implemented in a staged way that neither disadvantages the British producer, nor denies him the time to adapt �“ whilst protecting the consumer from the “chemical-warfare” agricultural produce of less discerning lands.

Yes, let’s rid agriculture of as many chemicals as we reasonably can �“ but let’s not destroy the British producer in the process!

As matters stand, should the EU Commission implement this legislation then we are likely to see the British market flooded with cheaper Third World and Eastern European produce, over which there has been little or no control as far as the application of sprays are concerned.

Does that make any sense at all?

This report from the EU Referendum Blog lays out in stark detail the dangers that lie before us all.

=============================
EUREFERENDUM Blog 3.8.08

Energy: a choice of policies

It is interesting to see, at last, some of the MSM catching up with the implications of the growing energy crisis, not least The Daily Mail which had a robust leaders on the subject yesterday.

Rehearsing issues familiar to our readers, this paper declared: “One of the first duties of any government is to ensure that the lights stay on and the wheels keep turning.” It then added: “It is no exaggeration to say that energy is as important as the armed forces or the police. Without one, you can’t deploy the others.”

This was a welcome statement. As one of the few UK political blogs to be banging the drum about the coming energy shortage, we sometimes wonder whether, as a voice in the semi-wilderness, we are getting things out of perspective. The Daily Mail, in that context, offered some reassurance.

In fact, though, it did not go far enough. It is hardly possible to exaggerate the effects of a major power crisis on the policies and activities of this country.

For instance, much has been written about the housing crisis, and the increasing difficulty in obtaining mortgages. Not least of the problems is that mortgage companies have long ceased offering 100 percent (and higher) mortgages and are now requiring substantial deposits amounting to tens of thousands of pounds.
With our ability to provide sufficient energy to both domestic and industrial consumers teetering perilously close to disaster, it truly beggars belief that the governing party, and the ‘official opposition’, seem blind to the danger. Preferring instead to score political points off of each other.

For those who are trying to save such sums, the erosion of their incomes by higher energy bills can only have a deleterious effect which, over term, can only delay (or even prevent) the recovery of the housing market.

If this is just one instance, look to other policy areas which the Conservative Party holds dear. Education would be a good start, where one can ask what the effects of higher energy prices might have on already stretched school budgets. What happens to plans for improvements when increasing sums are absorbed by the need just to keep schools heated and lit?

That, though, does not even begin to factor in the broader implications. If, as is widely anticipated, we do start seeing serious shortfalls in capacity which lead to power cuts, education suffers in a more direct way as children are sent home �“ perhaps for prolonged periods as their schools are deprived of power.

Many other examples can be given of the profound impact of electricity shortages but it is as well to remember that, long before we experience universal power cuts, the utilities will already be taking steps to deal with the problem.

Amongst these will be a rolling programme of load shedding, cutting supplies to large industrial and commercial users, as a means of keeping the home lights burning. This, over term, will have a major economic impact as production suffers, wages are cut, profits slashed, tax payments evaporate and unemployment soars.

For good reason, therefore, The Mail calls for urgent action �“ but we know that in the dying days of a discredited and intellectually bankrupt government, this is not going to materialise. Having neglected energy policy for eleven years, this fag-end of a Labour regime is not suddenly going to pull itself together and produce a workable policy.

More ominously, for New Labour, there are selfish and highly partisan reasons why it should not deliver. Given that the overwhelming odds are that it will lose the next election, ceding to the Conservatives, the focus is on seeking to ensure that the first term of the new government is the only one, to which effect, the worse a mess it inherits, the better.

As did New Labour benefit from the economic policies put in place by the preceding Conservative administration, Labour strategists can see value in engineering a reverse situation, whereby the Tories are saddled with major problems, putting them on the back foot and forcing them onto the defensive. A major energy crisis would be a highly effective means of achieving this.

In the run up to the election, therefore, the Conservatives should be expecting their rivals to be seeding the political terrain with minefields and booby traps, all carefully designed to maximise the stresses on the new administration. Not least of these, of course, is Mr Brown’s windmill programme which industry insiders readily admit is unachievable �“ yet it is Mr Cameron who will be blamed for the failure.

With two years to run before Brown finally goes to the country, there is plenty of scope for more mischief, but that does not mean that the Conservatives can do nothing. The most obvious political antidote is to call out the government, making it plain that the fundamentals of its policy are flawed. The next thing that must be done is the production of a sound energy policy.

Here, there is an interesting political dynamic. Tory strategists currently are unwilling to roll out policies for fear that Labour will themselves adopt them. But there should be no such problem with energy. Such is the long lead time required to turn the policy round that anything of any importance that is now proposed will fall to the new administration to deliver.

However, therein lies the greater political problem. Although the Taxpayers Alliance asserts that the Conservative Party has “seems to have learned its lesson” from its over-enthusiastic embrace of green policies, there is actually no evidence as yet that this will bleed into energy policies.

More worrying is the fact that there is no evidence that the Tories have even woken up to the scale of the coming crisis or have even begun to formulate a sensible response. All we have to go on is a badly-phrased and weak statement - entirely lacking in detail - from shadow energy minister, Charles Hendry, which pledges only that he will strive “…to come up with the best policies for the UK and its future security.”

Even The Daily Telegraph seems to be losing patience with this laid-back approach, declaring in its own leader yesterday that, “The Conservatives, who have finally ditched their naive view of nuclear power as ‘a last resort’, should start publicly championing new nuclear generation, both for its green credentials and as the only way to stop the lights going out.”

The trouble is that it is not as simple as that. The Mail itself notes that in 2006 this Labour government turned it back on British expertise in the nuclear field by selling Westinghouse, our one major nuclear engineering firm, to the Japanese for a knockdown £2.8billion. This puts us in the situation of having to rely on foreign expertise and is one of the reasons why the EDF deal was so important. Before even the deal collapsed, we were drinking in the last chance saloon and “time” has now been called.

What few people seem to realise is that the nuclear industry is undergoing a resurgence in terms of orders. Plans are already in hand, world-wide, to build as many as 50 new reactors by 2020. But, after decade of neglect, there is no longer the industrial capacity to meet demand. As the Energy Policy Blog points out, only a handful of companies are capable of manufacturing the highly specialised components of reactors and pressurised vessels.

As orders pile up, the waiting list for deliveries is getting longer and, with a growing number of US utilities lining up to build nuclear power plants, experts reckon completion times would stretch from 2015 to 2020. And that assumes no major regulatory or licensing hurdles.

Taking a realistic view of our current predicament, new nuclear plants are not, as The Telegraph avers, “the only way to stop the lights going out.” In the short to medium-term they are no answer at all. There is simply not enough time to bring the capacity on stream.

However, relying on gas for the “quick fix” is the route to disaster. Although natural gas prices might have currently stabilised �“ owing to a recent slackening of demand - in the longer term demand is expected to expand substantially, driving up prices to unsustainable levels. For increasing numbers, electricity and heating might become an unaffordable luxury, driving hundreds of thousands more into poverty and wrecking the economy as the balance of payments deficit soars.

Any Conservative government must, therefore, look to a solution in the short to medium term which lies outside either new-build nuclear or gas plants. Nor are renewables a solution, as recently emphasised by E. on’s Paul Golby. For relief, we must look elsewhere.

Golby, in fact, suggests a mixture of nuclear, renewables and coal, but the reason new plant is so urgently needed is because we are shortly to lose a third of our generating capacity through the combined effects of the EU’s Large Combustion Plants Directive and the retirement of our ageing nuclear plants.

The short-term answer, therefore, is obvious. The plants which are to be closed by the EU must remain open, at least until replacements are assured. And, if that means confronting the EU, so be it. If Mr Cameron wishes to prove his eurosceptic credentials, there is no better issue over which to drawn the line.

Of course, there may be scope for renegotiating the timescale, as other EU member states are in the same mess with their energy policies, but utilities need notice if they are to delay the wind-down of the plants scheduled for closure, otherwise the wind-down may be too far gone to arrest.

Secondly, the industry must be encouraged, by whatever means necessary, to invest in a major life extension programme for the existing nuclear plants �“ which are due for closure by 2015. This again needs to be signalled well in advance as the earlier the decision is taken, the easier it will be to spread the not insubstantial costs.

Thirdly, reliance on imported coal must be reduced �“ if not eliminated. Demand for coal world-wide is increasing, leading to a substantial hike in prices, which means that such reliance will incur a substantial cost penalty. As of last year, the UK consumed 62.7 million tons of coal, of which 52.4 million tons was used for electricity generation.

Yet, while known UK reserves of coal are sufficient to last 200 years or more at current rates of consumption, the British coal industry actually produced 17 million tons last year (with 2.9 million tons lifted from stock) and imported 43.3 million tons. Of this, 22 million tons came from Russia and 12 million tons from South Africa. Supplies were also obtained from Colombia, Australia, Indonesia and the United States while 852,000 tons were imported from Poland, 46,000 tons from Spain and 41,000 tons from Germany.

That signals a fourth element to a rational energy policy. Clearly, there must be a significant policy shift towards support for indigenous coal production, followed by a switch from gas-fuelled plants back to burning coal for electricity generation.

To pursue these four solutions, however, it is essential that the regulatory framework and the matrix of financial penalties and incentives must be drastically revised - the fifth leg of a new policy. As it stands, through the EU’s emission trading scheme (ETS), the climate levy and the renewables obligation certificate (ROC) scheme (as well as the Large Combustion Plants Directive), the use of coal and nuclear energy is penalised, while renewables are actively encouraged with huge financial incentives.

Pulling out of the ETS, ending the ROCs and the climate change levy, redirecting that income into funding generation capacity and developing indigenous would, by 2013, liberate over £5 billion a year without adding to energy costs.

That, in effect, dictates (or should dictate) the direction of future energy policy. Currently blighted by the obsession with climate change, both energy security and supply have taken the back seat. What the Conservatives need to do, therefore, is redress the balance, putting security and supply first.

Furthermore, a highly desirable outcome would be to put a new government directly in conflict with the EU’s climate change programme, not least because it would necessarily mean that the 20 percent renewables target would have been abandoned. That would be another test of Mr Cameron’s euroscepticism �“ to say nothing of evidence of a more “pragmatic” approach to green issues.

Of course, this would provoke the global warmist fraternity and the rabid eco-warriors into a frenzy. But, given the choice between expensive and wholly irrelevant measures aimed at addressing global warming �“ especially following a few bad winters �“ and the assurance of continuous electricity supplies, the odds are that the large majority of British voters would opt for the latter.

The alternative for Mr Cameron would be the prospect, in the not too distant future, of standing at the despatch box explaining to the nation why the lights have gone out and why it is that there is nothing he or his government can do about it. In electoral and practical terms, the choice is a no-brainer.
——————————-

As any cereal farmer will tell you, the wheat harvest is underway �“ subject to the weather. The good news for Britain’s 30,000 or so grain producers is that the harvest is likely to be the most abundant since 2000. The Home Grown Cereals Authority, which monitors such matters, reports that the grain harvest should yield some 16.5 million tonnes. This compares with an average of around 14 million tonnes in recent years, and a low point last year when torrential rains cut the crop to 13.2 million tonnes.

This year, of course, the EU’s set-aside scheme ended, enabling farmers to plant tens of thousands of more acres across the country. That, together with a substantial increase in world grain prices should see British grain producers making a substantial profit this year �“ something that proves that there is a future in farming providing the circumstances are right. Now, no serious politician would claim to be able to control the weather, but the dropping of set-aside, something that can be controlled, has clearly been beneficial to the farmer in terms of increasing production. And before the misinformed begin whining on about how “farmers are coining it this year”, it should be remembered that most grain growers just about broke even last year and didn’t do too well the year before that either!

However, should this year’s grain harvest turn out to be as good as many are predicting, and that is subject to reasonable weather between now and the middle of the month, then the cereal yield across Britain could be up by an impressive 13% over last year �“ with wheat production up by 14% over the same period! Whereas two or three years ago wheat was selling at around £70 per tonne �“ it is currently selling at nearly double that. However, it must be remembered that prices are determined by the quality of the grain �“ an extended period of rain could even now reduce the quality and the price per tonne, rendering it only fit for sale as animal feed.

Many farmers plan to reinvest the profits from this year’s harvest into farm infrastructure and machinery �“ something many need to do as the cash has not been there for that purpose for some years now. As one farmer put it: “This is the year to bank profits against the future, restructure debt or reinvest in machinery and infrastructure.”

However there is one dark cloud looming on the horizon. Many grain producers will do well this year because they bought their inputs for the 2007 harvest, such as fertiliser and diesel for tractors, at last year’s prices �“ the cost of both having now rocketed skywards. They will go into next year without these advantages and be largely dependent on Mother Nature as to whether they will make a profit, break even or even suffer a loss!

But while many grain farmers are likely to be celebrating later this month when the harvest is safely in, the same cannot be said of Britain’s livestock farmers. This is largely because the sharp increase in the wheat price that has so benefited the growers, is now acting against the consumers in terms of animal feed prices. Although cereal farms are expected to see profits boosted by around 40% per cent, the average pig farmer, for instance, is expected to make a loss of more than £4,000, while poultry farmers are expected to see profits fall by a massive 90%.

The British National Party is the only political party in Britain that recognises the strategic importance of farming. It should never be forgotten that twice during the last century that this country was nearly brought to its knees by enemy blockade. The British farmer, together with the mariners of the Merchant Marine and Royal Navy saw us through. The role of the British farming industry is to feed the nation - it must be given every support in achieving and maintaining this responsibility. We alone, amongst the political parties, recognise the importance of the British farming industry to the nation and consequently we are not prepared to see it reduced or destroyed either by unfair foreign competition, unfettered free trade, Government intransigence or by any other factor; which is why the farming industry, particularly that part of it comprising the family-owned farm, will find no better friend in politics than this party.

There can be no doubt that few things are more essential to our everyday lives than food.

Unfortunately not enough people are asking themselves whether they can trust the food they eat. The politicians and food industry spokesmen tell us that the chemicals, growth hormones, additives and antibiotics the food industry insists on adulterating our food with is both “essential” and “good for us”! In addition, those who campaign for wholesome food and especially against GM products, are ridiculed as being “misinformed” or “backward looking”!

The British National Party believes the road ahead is for a return to unadulterated organic food, food we can trust. In particular we want a GM-free Britain and a return to proven organic production methods as far as is practically posible. During the last decade the quantity of organic food produced in Europe has gone up five fold, so clearly there is a demand for real food in this country of ours. Unfortunately the Government has done little to encourage British producers to expand organic production �“ this despite our country having one of the largest markets for organic produce in the Western World. It is a sad fact that less than half of the organic food we eat is actually homegrown. The British National Party will promote real food over the processed and adulterated variety, and encourage food producers to meet the resulting growing demand for real food, at an affordable price to the consumer.

Furthermore, British Nationalists advocate proper and prominent labelling on food packaging. We believe the consumer has a right to know what they are being sold, so that they are better equipped to decide for themselves whether they want to buy it.

In addition, as part of our drive for a return to real food, British Nationalists advocate a major expansion in the provision of the traditional allotment �“ this being a facility that has served both families and communities well for many decades.

British Nationalists also believe that the British public, by and large, care - as we do - about the treatment of animals. We believe that farm animals have a right not to suffer, and our stand against intensive factory production lines promotes respect and compassion in farming. Furthermore, British Nationalists, unlike the so-called “Green” Party, are opposed to the most prolific form of animal cruelty practised in Britain today �“ that of the cruel and barbaric slow-death ritual slaughter of millions of our farm animals every year - for no other reason than to appease the theological dogma of certain religious groups.

The British National Party believes in local family owned shops selling the wholesome produce of local family owned farms and allotments, at affordable prices, to local people.

Hence our stance that as far as is possible food should be grown locally, for sale in local shops and markets, to local people. We see little value in chemically grown produce that has been transported thousands of polluting miles to reach the consumer - it’s time to rediscover real food and to refocus our farming industry into fulfilling that need.

A few days ago respected environmental campaigner and organic grower, Robert Baehr, shared some of his views with us, on the use of additives in our food. Since then a number of readers have commented upon one such additive - a “sweetener” widely marketed under the name of Aspartame.

For the benefit of our readership, we draw your attention to an article that begins:

“Today we have “Nutra-Sweet”, which is widely used in a plethora of consumables, despite a demonstrated neurological reaction in some people. In February 1996, it was decided to also use the product name “Benevia”. It is estimated that as many as 20,000,000 people cannot metabolize phenylalimine, and this inability is genetically inherited by children. The inability to metabolize phenylalinine can lead to mental retardation in children. This means a risk of retardation for millions of children. A multi-billion dollar enterprise, this substance is said to be “refined” from “natural” substances. Like other “refined” substances, it represents a health threat to the general public. No long term studies have been performed to evaluate the physiological effects of this substance, yet the public is lead to believe it is absolutely safe. Technically, the chemical is called aspartame, and it was once on a Pentagon list of biowarfare chemicals submitted to Congress. [1] Aspartame is in over 4,000 products worldwide and is consumed by over 200 million people in the United States alone. What follows is a skeletal examination of the chronology related to aspartame. A more detailed chronology is given later in this chapter based on information provided to us by the Aspartame Consumer Safety Network.

Aspartame is produced by G.D. Searle Company, founded in 1888 and located in Skokie, Illinois. Searle is now owned by others. It is about 200 times sweeter than the refined sugar that it is meant to replace, and it is known to erode intelligence and affect short-term memory. It is essentially a chemical weapon designed to impact populations en masse. It is an rDNA derivative made from two amino acids, L-phenylalanine, L-aspartic acid and methanol. Originally discovered during a search for an ulcer drug in 1966, it was “approved” by the FDA in 1974 as a “food additive”.

Approval was followed by a retraction based on demonstrated public concern over the fact that the substance produced brain tumors in rats. According to the 1974 FDA task force set up to examine aspartame and G.D.Searle, “we have uncovered serious deficiencies in Searles operations and practices, which undermine the basis for reliance on Searle’s integrity in conducting high quality animal research to accurately determine the toxic potential of its products.” The task force report concluded with the recommendation that G.D. Searle should face a Grand Jury “to identify more particularly the nature of the violations, and to identify all those responsible.” [2]

The remainder of this article may be found here .

A further point of interest within the article is mention of the American bio-tech giant Monsanto �“ a company that came to notoriety through its manufacturing of a “safe” dioxine herbicide know as “Agent Orange” �“ used as a tree defoliant by the US military in Vietnam and subsequently responsible for genetic defects and cancer amongst hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, pareticularly newborn babes. More recently Monsanto has been seen promoting its GM products in both Britain and Europe �“ products it, of course, claims to be “safe”!

In researching a suitable image to accompany this story we have come across several too appalling to publish on a site catering for family viewing �“ please take our word for it that the image above, alleged to show a five-year old victim of “Agent Orange”, is mild in comparison!