The week before last we spoke briefly about
changing public attitudes in the US to 'Big Food' - what might
more commonly be called 'junk food'. The US governments IRS
(Internal Revenue Service) recent decision to enable tax deductions
to be made by individuals on monies spend by them in trying
to fight personal weight/obesity problems indicates that the
'fight against fat' may now become the next major fight in
the US health arena. 'Big Food' is not so influential in most
areas of Europe as it is in the US, but this forthcoming struggle
may spread to Europe in the same way as the changing attitude
to tobacco did in the 1990s.
But what are the alternatives available
in our 'modern' world to this 'junk food'? Most anthropologists
who have worked with isolated, small-scale, traditional societies
that are still based in their traditional territories (i.e.,
not pushed aside into inhospitable, drought-stricken, poor
land by encroaching 'civilization') would probably note, if
pushed, that their diets were possibly healthier than many
peoples living in, say, Europe or the US. We all know that
our parents - and doctors - have been telling us for years
that we should all eat more greens, more leafy vegetables
and more fresh food. Will we all be healthier if we do that?
Well, we should, but in fact such may not necessarily be the
case: it all depends where we get them. Periodic reports surface
that unless one purchases organically raised vegetables maybe
we are getting more than we bargained for, and then these
reports are quickly forgotten. They should not be. Almost
all vegetables purchased in modern shops, unless they are
specifically stated to be grown organically, have been raised
with the assistance of artificial fertilizers and sprays.
We all know that we should wash such vegetables to get rid
of possible spray residues - and most of us should know that
some residues are rather difficult to get rid of. But for
some of these crops, no amount of washing may get rid of certain
possible unwanted 'additives', as the latter may be in the
plant itself.
The last few months have seen a rather shocking
airing of certain rather scandalous aspects of agriculture
in the US and Australia and leads one to think that the practices
may not be restricted to these two nations (am I putting this
carefully enough?). Plants take their nutrients from the soil
(and air and surface and rainwater): what if the soil they
grow in is not good enough? Our modern system has an answer
for that: nourish the soil with fertilizer and you will get
better crops. That is fine if the fertilizer is good, normal
traditional manure ('pure shit'), etc, but what if there is
something a little bit 'off' with these extra nutrients that
are given? Well (and rumours have been circulating about this
kind of stuff for decades), it seems that the latter may be
the case in some very modern parts of the world. One can actually
say, if you will excuse me, that 'the shit is finally hitting
the fan'. Look at this quote that begins the review (published
in the April 2002 issue of 'The Ecologist') of author Duff
Wilson's excellent recent book "Fateful Harvest: the
True Story of a Small Town, a Global Industry and a Toxic
Secret" (Harper Collins 2001, ISBN 0060193697):
"One might imagine that disguising
highly toxic industrial waste as fertilizer and selling it
to unsuspecting farmers would be a serious criminal offence,
but in the US it has instead been a rather profitable industry.
As a result, millions of Americans have been consuming food
adulterated with a cocktail of cancer-causing substances for
a generation, while big business has pushed up profit levels
by avoiding landfill charges".
Here I am not necessarily talking about
the bags of properly-produced fertilizer that one can get
from accredited garden shops, but about certain types of 'fertilizer'
produced on a vast scale and used also on a vast scale in
certain areas of the US and - as we shall see - in Australia
as well. The point is that some of it is not fertilizer at
all, but industrial waste. This 'extraordinary tale of corporate
greed' was begun by Patty Martin, elected mayor of a small
farming town in the northwest US in 1993. She began an investigation
of unexplained crop failures and strange land deals in the
area, but came under fire from 'big business'. This produced
exactly the opposite effect hoped for by the latter: she turned
her information over to investigative journalist Duff Wilson,
whose subsequent research and series of blistering articles
in 'The Seattle Times' brought the massive scandal to public
attention. Certain industrial refineries face a serious waste
product disposal problem: thousands of tons of industrial
waste that needs to be deposited in landfills away from the
public. This disposal costs money, and landfill costs in the
US have risen 10-fold in the last decade. However - and as
the public in Australia are only beginning to realize - there
may be certain loopholes in the law, and it seems that some
companies have been only too quick to exploit them. Wilson
(in the US) discovered how some big industries avoided landfill
charges by 'changing' 120 million pounds of industrial waste
into fertilizer each year, not by modifying the waste but,
it seems, just by arranging to have it 're-classified' and,
sometimes, even going so far as to pay certain fertilizer
companies to use their waste.
Doesn't it make you wonder why, for example,
cancer rates in the 'modern' world never really seem to decrease
(leaving aside the 'spin' publicity that may say the contrary)
in spite of the vast sums spent in cancer research? This is
just an example, and I am not necessarily making any connection
here, just trying to point out that if governments want healthy
people it is important to ensure that their food is grown
in a healthy way. And it does look as if, in the rush for
'more food at cheaper prices', certain segments of the population
may actually be getting 'fresh food that packs a little extra
punch'.
It may have been Wilson's book that led
journalists of Australia's prestigious 'Sydney Morning Herald'
to begin investigating similar occurrences in Australia, resulting
in the publication of a series of shocking revelations last
month. In the early 1990s, the Western Australian Agricultural
Department began a series of experiments that would 'stop
unwanted phosphorus from entering waterways' by asking farmers
to use a reddish, earthy, substance on their soils - and at
a cost to the farmers of only 50 cents a tonne. Interestingly
enough, the project was co-funded by the (Western Australian)
Alcoa aluminium refinery, and the reddish substance was actually
industrial waste from that refinery. Although the waste had
a certain amount of fertilizing potential, it also contained
amounts of potentially dangerous chemicals. I should point
out here that it was not sprinkled in small amounts on a few
garden plants, but amounts varying from 20 to 200 tons per
hectare were used. By 1994 some local farmers were said to
have noted an increase in cattle illnesses and other phenomena.
Upon examination, the 'reddish substance' (at 20 tons/hectare)
was found to typically contain 30 kilos of radioactive thorium,
6 kilos of chromium, two kilos of barium and one kilo of uranium
(plus 24 kilos of fluoride, more than half a kilo each of
arsenic, copper, zinc and cobalt plus smaller amounts of lead,
cadmium and beryllium). Some of these substances are natural
in soils - but maybe not in this combination nor in these
quantities. The farmers were beginning to get worried, and
examined water run-off from these areas, finding elevated
levels of mercury, selenium, copper and lead in water running
off these fields. This was easily explained away by the western
Australian Agricultural Department who told the farmers that
someone had probably dumped a car battery nearby (!). More
and more farmers began to complain, but even the Environmental
Protection Agency seemed to support the project and in 1999
even wanted to organize the spread of another 360,000 tons
of this bauxite waste across the Swan coastal plains. A strange
thing then happened: the Alcoa Company said it would not release
any more of the waste 'unless it got indemnity from any environmental
damage'. Well, life is strange, and the Western Australian
State Government granted Alcoa this indemnity in September
1999. Alcoa were actually saving themselves a lot of money
by not having to put this material in landfills elsewhere,
but playing with words can do wonders: an Alcoa spokesman
said at this stage, "It costs us money to make this material
available, but we do that because we have been convinced by
the science
we think that due diligence has been done
to make sure this is a safe product to use". The spokesman
did not, however, mention that in the opinion of certain people
'many of the independent studies used to rationalize the experiment
were paid for by Alcoa'.
Never a dull day, eh? So do we really know
what our food contains? Well, if you are a traditional Ibicenco
peasant growing all your own food, you do. But if you are
just an ordinary person living in an ordinary town in an ordinary
country in the 'modern' world, you don't (unless you buy organic),
even if you think you do.
Enough cheerful thoughts for the week.
Kirk W Huffman
| |