Who will speak out for you?

The quality of thought behind comments made on the Wisbech Discussion Forum hit a new low yesterday.

Food Quality

Does food quality matter to you? What do we mean when we say that children have 'enough to eat'? If they are eating industrially produced food can we be sure that everything nature intended is within the food on the plate?

I first realised how nutritionally barren many modern foodstuffs were while undertaking an audit in Newmarket around 40 years ago and I chanced upon a book written by Lawrence D. Hills. I can remember taking the book back to my hotel and staying up much too late reading. Lawrence D. Hills was the founder of the Henry Doubleday organic research institute and his work influenced the direction my life took. I decided then to become self-sufficient, to buy some agricultural land and take control.

The single most memorable, and at the time startling fact was that blackcurrants bred for maximum yield, ripening period and toughness for transport, had very few of the vitamins and minerals found in the traditional varieties.  Those berries are what we might call commercial or industrial fruits and they are all that will be available to buy in shops whether fresh or processed.

I’ve read much more since then, attended agricultural college, many courses and seminars on plant breeding, crop and soil management, and animal husbandry. My path eventually led me to discover Permaculture, a way of living, a ‘system’ devised by Tasmanians Bill Mollison and David Holmgren. Later Joel Salatin of PolyfaceFarm, and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall of RiverCottage  also offered many valuable lessons, and provided reassurance that living the ‘Good Life’ was not just something to be laughed at  

This morning BBC Radio 4’s Farming Today  caught up with Lawrence D.Hills idea. 

Could it be possible that the many new health and behavioural problems we are experiencing today arise due to the quality of our food reducing?

Sustainable Education or a Cynical Support for the Market?

Using the planet’s resources to create items that are inevitably destined for recycling or landfill - should we support this?

A worldwide initiative to boost the consumer behaviour of children has launched. This is an attempt to stem the perceived drift away from dependency on manufactured and processed goods that is developing in young people. This is causing controversy. 

The UN has acknowledged the actions of the young are an important factor in how society faces up to the challenges our planet faces.

“Young people are key actors in raising awareness, running educational programmes, promoting sustainable lifestyles,  conserving nature, supporting renewable energy, adopting environmentally-friendly practices and implementing adaptation and mitigation projects. [UNFCCC]

Youth constitute the majority of the population in many countries and have an increasingly strong social and environmental awareness, which has the power to transform our societies towards a low-carbon and climate resilient future. [United Nations Joint Framework Initiative on Children, Youth and Climate Change, 2010, http://bit.ly/1FBQsfy]”

Market makers are worried that the youngest members of society might be significantly influenced by their peers and siblings.  

We could be witnessing the emergence of a post-consumerism society. A society where the natural world gains our respect and the fragility of eco-systems are recognised. This will dramatically change our relationship with the economy. The economy has been placed ahead of society and the environment for many decades.

Some parents have recognised the mixed message from the retail giants - who claim to be caring for the planet by recycling a plastic wrapper while extruding plastic trinkets to boost their sales and capture the young as their future consumers.

Retailers swipe back by claiming that the plastics they are producing are educational, can be recycled and that sustainability is a top priority for them.

What do you think?

Can it ever be justified to use finite resources for the production of plastic toys to educate children to shop in this manner?

Will every parent recycle responsibly?

What is Anti-social Behaviour ?

The posts on the Wisbech Discussion Forum amaze me at times. Such a rich source of research material for a social scientist, but it does depress me that there is so much racism, “... we brought people here...” “... people were allowed in...” and similar phrases are regularly used to imply that anti social activities in the town can be attributed to foreigners. Our councillors will be discussing anti social behaviour and it is to be hoped that they will begin by clearly defining what is considered to be anti social behaviour.

Have you ever "dropped your bundle"?

Comments this morning about what is the best way to lift the spirit and improve the mental health of a person with depression reminded me of a report I read in 2011 when I was writing a book to commemorate the Karridale Bushfires of 1961.

Assessing Risk

How do we assess risk in our everyday lives?

Dogs can die if left in a hot car!

I know that’s true, but we cannot extrapolate from that one true statement that all dogs left in cars are at risk and their owners irresponsible. Neither can we stretch that one true statement to support the claim that if ever an owner leaves their dog in a car they are irresponsible and placing the dog in harm’s way. But that is just what some well meaning people are doing by continually presenting the message that dogs are dying in cars throughout the UK everyday.

Those people who are making the dying dog claims are actually creating a hostile environment for any dog owner wishing to keep their dog close as a companion throughout the day. I’ve travelled with my dogs and never had a dog suffer from heat stress, but I have certainly had to leave them in my car occasionally.

The RSPCA is a professional organisation and it does do a lot of good, but as a professional organisation it also needs to promote the message that there are many problems involving animals within our community. No animal welfare problems would undermine the need for the organisation. It is in the interest of the RSPCA to promote the message that irresponsible owners abound.

Babies can die from the MMR vaccine!

This statement is also true.

Parents held their dead babies just a short time after the vaccination. The reaction to this news item was muted. It is not in the interests of governments and the pharmaceutical companies to promote the idea that the MMR vaccine is not safe.

This was probably just a bad batch of vaccine, but would a responsible parent present their baby for vaccination now? After the report of babies dying and before the results of any inquiry, knowing that the vaccine could kill would a responsible parent weigh up the chances of immediate death and still go ahead?

This MMR vaccination is much riskier than taking your dog on a car journey, because on the car journey you know your dog, your car, the environment etc. If there was an adverse reaction you could apply first aid and your dog recover. Not so with the vaccination. With the MMR vaccine you know very little and you can do nothing if there is a bad reaction. Your doctor might reassure you, but how much information about the particular batch will your doctor know?

If the “one dog dying is too many” comment is sufficient justification for promoting a hostile reaction towards anyone seen leaving their dog in a car, even when the dog is perfectly happy and content then should there be a similar “two children dying is too many” reaction to the MMR deaths? Should we be hostile to those who are so careless as to present their innocent children for vaccination?

Single people who are lonely and socially isolated are encouraged towards companion animals. Single people living alone are likely to die alone, and their pet isn’t going to notify anyone. But that pet might well suffer from dehydration and starvation, or in desperation it might eat the dead carer. 

Is there a risk to companion animals that has not been highlighted by the animal welfare agencies? Where is the campaign to ensure that only people living in multiple occupancy households or with strong social networks are allowed to own a pet?

It is not in the interests of animal welfare agencies to call for a ban on pet ownership by socially isolated individuals because those people are highly likely to be accepting re-homed animals, and bequests to the agencies come from just such isolated people.

It is not in the interests of society to ban single people from pet ownership because the evidence indicates the mental health benefits. But too strident a campaign about dogs dying in cars could have a terrible effect on many responsible owners. We must all recognise risks, but when we over dramatise and label everyone who does not conform to our standard of behaviour, our particular assessment of risk as irresponsible we are just wrong.

Children, dogs, elderly relatives I’ve left them all in my car at different times. None have come to any harm. And I know I’m not alone in facing situations where I have to assess risk and use my judgement. The dogs die every day campaigners are attempting to strip me the right to use my own judgement, in their drive to promote their single message.

When a community support officer saw Laurence Fox’s son in a car he called the actor a ‘disgusting and appalling human being’.

Read Fox's explanation and judge for yourself, as I hope you will do whenever daily risks need assessment.

Putting messages out is fine , but becoming vigilantes who post photographs of people in an attempt to brand them irresponsible dog owners is not. Each of us must risk assess our own lives and we must do it responsibly, using all the evidence available and a healthy dose of commonsense. 

To see and not to speak...

"To see and not to speak would be the great betrayal," these were Enoch Powell’s words, and surely we must agree that a genuine opinion sincerely held should be heard, however much we disagree with that opinion. Fifty years on from his Rivers of Blood speech the BBC have chosen to offer the public their particular analysis of Powell’s words and they feel he should be damned as a racist.

Maybe there is another view, a kinder take on Powell, could the BBC analysis be a little biased?