Jeff Lowenfels and Wayne Lewis. Portland: Timber Press, 2006. 196 pages.

If you are a gardener who isn’t afraid of some food for thought, read Teaming with Microbes: A Gardener’s Guide to the Soil Food Web.

It has an interesting premise, and does a nice job of supporting it: To reduce the amount of work and resources that you have to add and remove from the system, make better use of naturally occurring processes.

In a natural setting such as a forest or jungle, plants can thrive without any human intervention. There is a web of dependencies and products that allow resources to be acquired, used, and then made available again in some form to something further down the line. Plants need fertilizer, and if you follow the chain of events, they eventually become fertilizer with help from other parts of the web.

Conventional farming and gardening methods, on the other hand, attempt to restrict this web to the bare minimum required to produce the product that we want (fruits, vegetables, feed, etc.).

Now as any indoor gardener can tell you, the further you get away from a plant’s natural environment, the more responsible you become for supplying the needs that were being filled by other members of the web. For example, if you take a plant away from the sun, you become responsible for supplying light. If you remove the natural sources of nutrients, you become responsible for supplying the plants with nutrients, and so on.

In order to help explain what these naturally occurring factors are, the first part of the book describes the web from dirt and bacteria up to animal life. For material that contains a lot of Latin words, it is very straightforward and easy to understand. Much more the way textbooks should be written, instead of how they are. I have a feeling that I will be using it as a reference many times as I follow my own gardening path.

Once the Soil Food Web has been described, and the reader encouraged to take a more holistic, synergistic view of their garden, the second part of the book explains some ways to apply this knowledge. Instead of trying to force your garden to perform, you nurture and nudge it in the direction you want using compost, mulch, compost teas and so on. Like training an animal to perform tricks, you encourage your garden to do what you want, and discourage it from doing what you don’t.

To help readers distill the knowledge in the book down to a more manageable level for quick reference, there is a list of “The Soil Food Web Gardening Rules” which are nineteen statements that are the essence of some of the most important concepts in what the book has to say. It also has my only complaint about in the book: I would have liked a reference from the list of rules, to the relevant sections in the book.

It is the best book on garden interdependencies that I have read. Even though the topics discussed have given me a lot to think about, and the possible ramifications will have me referring back to it on a regular basis, the writing is so straightforward and smooth, that it has an almost “quick read” property to it. I finished it in two evenings.

If you want to consider yourself a “well read” gardener, put this on your list.

Peace, love and puka shells,

Grubbycup

It’s the world’s tallest grass, the fastest growing woody plant in the world, and possibly the answer to our consumer prayers.

While bamboo has been used by human beings all around the world for thousands of years, the plant’s potential as a substitute for slower-growing wood species in a vast number of modern commercial uses has only recently been recognized. As a result, more attention is being paid to the development of applications and commercial markets.

Bamboo is the fastest growing canopy for the re-greening of degraded lands and releases 35% more oxygen than equivalent timber stands. Bamboo sequesters carbon at a rate of C=50% dry weight (approximately the same percentage of carbon as a conifer forest).

Bamboos include over 1,000 species of woody, perennial grasses. The grasses are relatively recent additions to the earth’s flora, having evolved only 30 to 40 million years ago: long after the demise of the dinosaurs. Bamboo is the most diverse group of plants in the grass family, and the most primitive sub-family. It is distinguished by a woody “culm” (stem), complex branching, a robust rhizome system, and infrequent flowering. Bamboo is capable of growing up to 24 inches (60 cm) or more per day, depending on soil and climate conditions. Unlike trees, all bamboo is able to grow to its full height and size in a single growing season of three to four months. It perpetuates itself through its rhizome system rather than seed, and therefore doesn’t need to be replanted if it’s sustainably harvested. Different bamboo varieties can grow in extremely diverse conditions, from South East Asia to Canada.

Silica powder, called “Tabashir,” can be found inside of the culms (stems).

Bamboo is widely used for housing construction and other traditional purposes, including scaffolding, furniture, bridging, fencing, musical instruments, paper, food for humans and livestock, and cooking fuel. Pound for pound, laminated bamboo has been found to be stiffer than soft steel; it is also harder surfaced than either fiberglass or red oak. From roots to tip, you can make soap, medicines, cosmetics, furniture, bricks, clothing, floor tiles, wall panels, beer and beverages, vegetables — even surf boards — from bamboo. Bamboo can be flattened into boards, molded into 3-D forms, spun into fabric, pressed into veneers, slivered and interlaced into mats, and much more. In terms of exports, bamboo’s potential is primarily in the areas of furniture and handicrafts, whose global market grows at an average of US$8 billion annually.

In November 2009, Dell announced it is shipping its Dell Inspiron Mini 10 and 10v netbooks in packaging made from bamboo. Image courtesy of Dell Inc.

Thomas Edison is said to have used a carbonized bamboo filament in his experiments in developing the light bulb. Alexander Graham Bell used bamboo for his first phonograph needle.

Safe for consumers and workers?

India is the world’s largest producer of bamboo, but most bamboo used for flooring comes from China and Vietnam. Indonesia, Japan and Costa Rica also export bamboo for flooring. Given the rampant lack of guidelines for fair labor practices on farms and in factories, Fair Trade certification standards are desperately needed for bamboo: as yet, none exist. Also, many bamboo floors exported from China contain high levels of urea formaldehyde that do not meet safety standards in other countries.

Environmentally sustainable?
Overseas production and processing means international shipping … not quite the carbon-footprint many eco-shoppers are looking for. Species of bamboo can be grown (and are being grown) in North America: time will tell if local production will be able to meet the demand.

Another environmental issue is the large areas of natural forests being cleared to grow the crop for export. Clear-cutting leads to erosion, while the heavy use of insecticides and chemical fertilizers to increase yields are also increasing soil loss and toxicity. Ironically, proper management of bamboo groves can actually help prevent soil erosion, given bamboo’s rhizome system.

With these concerns in mind, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Canada, an international certification and labeling system, now has basic certification standards for bamboo products. FSC certification verifies that the bamboo has been harvested in a sustainable and responsible manner. The “FSC Pure” label means these designated bamboo products are made from 100 percent FSC material from an FSC-certified forest and have been sold and processed by an FSC chain-of-custody-certified company.

Residents of a small Philippine community constructed these 90% bamboo taxis, which are powered by coconut biofuel.

As a result of bamboo’s popularity, many flooring distributors in North America have established more stringent guidelines for the bamboo products they sell. Some of these guidelines require bamboo flooring to have water-based finishes and to be manufactured with formaldehyde-free processing. The International Standard Organization (ISO) has developed three standards for bamboo as a construction material.

If you want to buy bamboo products, look for applicable certifications. You can also ask for the bamboo’s country of origin, and whether the bamboo was harvested from a plantation, which would suggest more stringent harvesting practices.

Bamboo Facts

• Yields an annual harvest for fifty years or more before replanting.
• Photosynthesizes sunlight into plant energy year-round.
• Profitably processed for cellulosic ethanol and bio-diesel.
• Full vertical stature in 60 days or less.
• High quality and optimum potential strength in five years
• Less mature culms can be used for biomass, paper pulp, weaving, or anywhere that compressive strength or stiffness is not needed.
• Ecoservices include ability to bioremediate.
• Selectively culmed on an annual basis.
• High yields and low input requirements equal a very favorable carbon footprint.

A Multi-Purpose Plant

• Symbiotic edible fungi can be cultured in a bamboo grove.
• New shoots of bamboo are edible and nutritious.
• Foliage is a very palatable high-protein feed (up to 22%) for livestock.
• The cut culms are a good source of pulp for high-quality papermaking. One species (Phyllostachys rubromarginata) can out-yield loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) 6 to 1.
• Bio-polymers (the basis of most plastic) can be processed from bamboo.
• The volatile organic compounds (VOCs) can be recovered for energy production before pulping for paper making.

So, is bamboo the greatest thing since duct tape? Tell us what you think –post your comments below.

Javan Kerby Bernakevitch, a permaculture designer and teacher-in-training, introduces us to the principles and practice of permanent (agri)culture.

“Permaculture is revolution disguised as organic gardening.”
- Graham Bell, from Permaculture – A Beginner’s Guide

Permaculture is not organic gardening, and I am not a gardener. What I am is a permaculture practitioner who uses organic gardening, and many other tools, to design systems that work to water, feed, warm, house, and provide community, not to mention: make a garden.

So if permaculture isn’t just gardening, then what is it?

Permaculture is not the rain that falls, nor the roof that collects it or the catchment systems that stores it. Permaculture design is the relationship between these things. Permaculture is the match maker, creating passionate love affairs between rain and plants, humans and animals, and ultimately achieving systems that produce enough natural resources to provide for their own maintenance and reproduction.

Rainwater collection.

Imagine a ball that drops, hitting a lever that turns a wheel pulling on a string attached to a light bulb. Each step creates the necessary conditions for consequent steps which eventually will turn on the light bulb. Similar to well set-up dominoes. We can learn the skills to design whole systems that are focused on goals and fixing problems at the source, instead of focusing on the symptoms.

A backyard graywater filtration system that takes the sink, shower and washing machine water from the house, passes the water through a strainer, and then filters it through this man-made wetland bedded in 4 bathtubs that irrigates the gardens directly. Those irrigated beds produce 10-20% more than the non-graywatered beds.

Graywater filter.

With the light bulb glowing over your head you might have realized that practicing permaculture is not all that difficult. In fact, you probably are practicing it already and don’t realize it. Why? Because the knowledge contained under the umbrella of permaculture is not new; it combines the ancient and traditional knowledge of growing food with the modern science of ecology and new technology. Work in permaculture is self-evaluating: either it works or it doesn’t. The beauty of this movement is that, if you can learn from your errors, you can learn to design systems that work. You don’t have to wait for a committee to stamp your certificate or a teacher to baptize your understanding through tests.

“If you’re a scientist, you could liken it to a miraculous wardrobe in which you can hang garments of any science or any art and find they’re always harmonious with, and in relation to, that which is already hanging there.”
- Bill Mollison, the godfather of permaculture

Permaculture is a way of looking at the systems that sustain us, and designing them to have built-in endurance and sustainability to gain the highest output from the lowest input. It is not just the organic garden: the garden is just a piece of the bigger picture. A picture that includes the local climate, site topography, water access and drainage, capacity of the land and its users, where income is produced to finance the whole process and a host of other items. It is looking at the pieces of life and designing systems that produce the basic necessities needed to sustain and provide joy while creating rich, wealthy lives.

“Wealth is a deep understanding of the natural world.”
– Inuit definition

“I think it’s pointless asking questions like ‘Will humanity survive?’ It’s purely up to people – if they want to, they can, if they don’t want to, they won’t.”
- Bill Mollison

Bill Mollison, a disgruntled and highly motivated biologist, culminated a true “aha” moment with student David Holmgren in 1978 when they set out the seminal work Permaculture One. Coined as a combination of the words permanent and agriculture, and then permanent and culture, permaculture from its textual origins is about creating a world were we can live indefinitely. In this work, Mollison and Holmgren articulated their thoughts on sustainable living through a positive action movement in which anyone could be involved. The publication helped to create the first texts for the personal educational keystone of the movement: the Permaculture Design Certificate (PDC). Any keeners out there will be able to find PDC courses being offered in online and hands-on formats.

“If people want some guidance, I say, just look at what people really do. Don’t listen to them that much. And choose your friends from people who you like what they do – even though you mightn’t like what they say.”
- Bill Mollison

Contrary to the parental adage “do what I say, not what I do,” Mollison urges those interested to watch and see what is really happening. In a way, that’s how permaculture started. Working in wildlife relocation, Mollison realized that a forest needs no watering, weeding, fertilizing or other “outside care.” The forest is self-perpetuating. Mimicking the ecological principles he observed in the forest, he conceptualized that he could “make a system” that could produce food for human consumption. In essence, a food forest. This self-described “revelation” was understanding that there are beneficial interactions between living and non-living components. As people, we can assemble those components together to create beneficial connections and yields.

When Mollison asked an elderly Greek woman in a vineyard why she planted roses among her grapes, she replied: “Because the rose is the doctor of the grapes. If you don’t plant roses, the grapes get ill.” Accustomed to science, this answer did not sit well with Mollison. He began to research and found that the rose produces a certain root chemical that the grape root uptakes, which in turn repels the white fly (a pest for grapes). The story is the same from both Mollison and the woman’s perspectives: the grapes grow in community with the roses. However, the understanding behind the story changed. This story is where permaculture can be understood: in nature, organisms work in relation with one another. And using our commonsense we can observe these interactions, work out the commonsense or scientific understanding of what is happening, and reassemble the principle behind the interaction to create systems that feed, clothe, house, warm, and provide us with community.

Now in its fourth decade, the permaculture movement has spread like wildfire, creating a global grassroots community. Global in scope and adoption, permaculture has been able to specialize to meet specific needs. As permaculture is not an ideology, but rather an idea, it can change and adapt to any situation. In Haiti, permaculture practitioners were on the ground shortly after the earthquake, providing safe drinking water and human sanitation with a fraction of the budget of other aid organizations with twice the results. These efforts have grown from solid ethical building blocks that help guide the intentions of practitioners. These ethics, in order of priority and importance, are: Earth Care, People Care and Fair Share.

Earth Care

“We are sufficient to do everything possible to heal this Earth. We don’t have to suppose we need oil, or governments, or anything. We can do it.”
- Bill Mollison

“The Earth is a living, breathing entity. Without ongoing care and nurturing there will be consequences too big to ignore.”
- David Holmgren

Humanity has withdrawn so much of the natural capital from the earth’s savings account that we are no longer living off the surplus interest; we are now eating into the capital itself. We’re living on the savings, and they’re running low: it’s a lot like college without the getting-more-educated bit. From the north to south pole, to the tip of Mt. Everest and the bottom of the ocean, our environment is degraded and degrading at an alarming rate (imagine 1,000,000 fire alarms going off in a closed phone booth and you’re close to how serious the situation is). Synthesized chemicals at toxic levels can be found in every environment, in newborn children, and even in pollen (121 herbicides, fungicides and insecticides at last count); these are the very building blocks that support life.

Think of it this way: if you were hospitalized and depending on a medical life-support system, would you jiggle the plug, poke holes in the feeding tubes or pour toxic waste in the IV bag? Not unless you’re Keith Richards or a cockroach, and even then I think they’d both think twice about it … at least the cockroach would.

Earth Care is the top priority. Earth Care is our top priority. As a curmudgeonly 63 year old farmer from Manitoba advised, after I asked what I should grow on a certain piece of land…

Me: “What should we grow here-”

Him (cutting me off): “Soil.”

Me (frustrated but respecting my elder): “Right, I understand that, but in this micro-climate, what would be good to propagate-”

Him (cutting me off again): “Soil.”

Me (realizing there might be something he’s trying to tell me): “Okay, so you’re saying I should grow…”

Him (finitely stating): “Soil.”

At present, our greatest threat to humanity is not climate change (though that affects soil loss), nor pollution (this does affect soil loss), nor deforestation (now, that really affects soil loss). Our greatest threat is … soil loss. Without healthy ecosystems, soil is destroyed. Without soil, there is no food and, without food, the chairs around our global table become vacant. And it gets rather lonely sitting by oneself.

People Care

“I cannot save the world alone. It will take at least three of us.”
- Bill Mollison

Me, myself and I. Okay, and you too. And you can join, and … well heck, let’s invite everyone to the party. After ensuring that our life-support system is tended to, we turn to each other realizing that if the entire human species is on a planet with finite resources then we in turn all affect and effect each other. Like it or not, we are all in this together. In a closed system, the actions of one are felt by many, detrimental or beneficial alike. In permaculture, and life, everyone has something of value to bring to the party.

In a scarce economy, resilient employees embody the same strategy that ecology demonstrates: an organism that places itself in the most service to the whole, survives. We can see how helping friends and family survive supports our personal survival, and we may evolve a matured ethic that sees all humankind as friends and family and thus life itself as our ally. People care then turns into species care and we too have the “aha” moment that Sister Sledge had: “We are family.”

Fair Share

Remember kindergarten? No, not the dirt eating (which thankfully we don’t have to resort to … yet), but the idea of sharing. Well, sharing is back in style, sharing is the new khaki. With a new twist, fair share is also about abundance. Surplus is created either through an extraordinary amount of effort, which turns into a deficit of time and energy, or by limiting consumption. By conserving resources and setting limits to consumption, we can set our best course for survival to include others while creating the conditions to further the two ethics above.

The Prime Directive of Permaculture

“The only ethical decision is to take responsibility for our own existence and that of our children.”
- from The Permaculture Handbook, by Bill Mollison

Under the prime directive of permaculture, the three ethics (Earth Care, People Care and Fair Share) guide us to devise methods of applying them to our gardens, land, economies and nature. We can see permaculture as “the mechanism of mature ethical behavior, or how to act to sustain the earth” and our existence on it.

Well, if this hasn’t blown your mind yet then strap in for round two … how to go about applying and practicing intentional permaculture. From the prime directive and the ethics we spiral outwards to principles, strategies and, finally, techniques. These three are the holy trinity of permaculture in action.

Principles

Principles are beneficial as there are no penalties for error, only learning from errors, thereby leading to new ideas and methods. Now, here’s where the idea of permaculture being open-source really gets going: at a recent permaculture teachers’ training session, the facilitator (a long-time permaculture practitioner and teacher) stated that she knew of over 372 principles related to the movement. 372? Yup, 372. And by the time you start practicing permaculture, I’m sure you’ll have come up with a few more, or remember one that your grandma used to use. My Ukrainian Baba used to bellow from the top of the stairs when my brother and I were rough-housing: “Smarten up or I’ll throw you out, one by each!” The humor (or maybe it’s the genius) of this maxim lies in the translation to English: those parts that do not work with the overriding ecological principles at play (like my Baba’s patience, or the ability of the earth to absorb the pollution we are producing) are “thrown out, one by each.”

As you move further down this rabbit hole you’ll find many principles. However, I found permaculture best sampled like a good buffet, in sizable portions. David Holmgren, the other author to the first book of permaculture, continued down his own path and has produced some excellent work, including 12 concise principles that are easy to remember and to implement. Some of my personal favorites of his are:

Integrate Rather Than Segregate

The three sisters. Photo credit: Abri Beluga.

This principle has always wowed me by providing concrete examples of how to integrate plants together in communities or guilds that provide for the needs of other plants. The traditional example in North America is the “three sisters,” or maize (corn), beans and squash. Benefiting from each other, the maize provides the structure for the beans to climb (no poles needed). The beans fix nitrogen for the soil and the other plants, while the squash vines spread along the ground, blocking the sunlight that weeds need. The squash leaves are also a “living mulch,” creating a microclimate that retains moisture while the prickly hairs on the vines help deter pests. This guild integrates while utilizing the “waste” of the other plants, thereby touching on another great Holmgren principle: Produce No Waste (meaning that everything can have a use, even if we call it “waste”).

The Mollisonian Permaculture Principles that stand out for me are:

Work With Nature, Rather Than Against It

The revolutionary Masanobu Fukuoka (you’ll thank yourself if you read his The One Straw Revolution) once remarked, “If we throw nature out the window, she comes back in the door with a pitchfork.” When insecticides are used, the predatory insects (insectivores or cannibals, as I like to call them) are wiped out with the pests, ensuring that if an explosion of pests proliferate next year there will be no predators to keep their populations in check. Consequently, more insecticides are sprayed, tipping the scale even more. All pests are never killed and the survivors’ resistance is bred into a new generation, riding nature’s pitchfork aimed right at our food crops.

Visible through this window in the south side of a cob building is a frost peach growing on Vancouver Island. Peaches are not typically grown on Vancouver Island, but this tree is thriving because of the heat absorbed by the structure and the resulting microclimate.

The Problem is the Solution

Everything works both ways. It is only our perspective that judges a thing to be beneficial or not. If the south side of the greenhouse is constantly facing the sun, construct that side out of glass or plastic (salvaged, if possible) and, as the north side never receives sun, let’s construct that side out of a substance that has thermal mass (think of it like a thermal battery: it can up-take heat and return the heat to the surrounding area) like rock, cob (a traditional building material made up of clay, sand and straw), or something else that absorbs solar heat.

A greenhouse with south-facing glass and a north cob wall to retain heat.

Moving swiftly along strategies, like the ones below, are just like a handy number two Robertson screw driver or your Felco pruners: a tool to aid you on your permaculture journey.

When designing any site, be it a garden, a house, or even a driveway, here are the first three things to consider, in order:
1. Water
2. Access
3. Structure

1) Water – No matter where you travel or what you do, water is where the chemistry of life occurs. It’s also where some of your biggest headaches or joys can come from. First, consider where your water source is. Is it close to land that has a lot of sun in all seasons? What’s the land like around the water source? Where does it recharge from (underground, a stream that comes in from your neighbors’ property, precipitation)? Next, where does the water go? Does it drain on the land? Is that drainage seasonal or consistent year-round? If water is life, understanding the nature of your water on-site can save thousands of hours and just as many aspirin or cups of willow tea.

2) Access – As people, we design systems to water, feed, warm, house and provide us with community. If we design those systems first and then go to design access, we may find that the 6′-wide bed is too big for us to garden from the side. Considering how much a system will have to be “bumped” up against informs our decisions on how and where to construct that system. For example, chickens (the official permaculture mascot) need daily feeding (input) and collection of eggs (output). As keepers of this system, additional time and strain is endured if the chicken coop is placed far away from the house. Thus, if a system is “bumped” up against constantly, then placing that system closer to where we are increases the yields (outputs) while decreasing the work (inputs). This also applies to pathways, driveways, and other forms of getting to and away from systems.

3) Structures – Now that you know the water is draining on the north side of the hill and the best vehicle access is from the south, siting your structure can be made by an informed decision. In North America 40% of all energy consumed is by building and maintaining structures. With such huge amounts of resources inputted into your structure (house, greenhouse, tool shed), it’s important to site your structure where water is accessible and not threatening, and access is easy and not labor intensive.

“Permaculture is the end of the lawn virus, symptomatic of consumer culture.”
“You could say it’s a rational man’s approach to not sh*tting in his bed.”
- Bill Mollison

Or perhaps the definition is: “it’s sustainability, distilled, served straight up.” Or maybe it is just understanding that silver bullet solutions are best left to werewolves, proving that silver bullets are as fictitious as their intended fantasy targets. Catch-all solutions like pesticides and magic pills always have unintended side effects: it’s best to address the problem at its source.

As Geoff Lawton (the architect behind the Youtube video “Greening the Desert” — worth the time to watch) says, “All life’s problems can be solved in the garden.” Maybe permaculture is all about organic gardening … however, you’d do well to discard the definitions and just go out there and continue to garden, add in a sprinkle of permaculture, and be fruitful and mulch apply.

Javan Kerby Bernakevitch is an environmental educator, professional communicator, facilitator and editor. An O.U.R. Ecovillage resident on the West Coast of British Columbia, Canada, Javan continues to expand his knowledge and passion for sustainability through permaculture as a designer and teacher-in-training.

Join the discussion on how to incorporate permaculture principles into the indoor garden: post your comments and questions below!

Aspartame is consumed by over 200 million people around the world. Also known as NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, Canderel, Benevia, and E951, the chemical sweetener is found in more than 6,000 products, including carbonated soft drinks, dessert mixes, puddings, frozen desserts, yogurt, low calorie beer, vitamins and sugar-free cough drops. James S. Turner, Esq., a consumer rights lawyer and aspartame educator for over 30 years, tells us the story behind this popular ingredient, and why so many consumers are choosing to avoid it.

The Man Who Changed Our Food

Arthur Hayes Jr., who led the Food and Drug Administration when it approved aspartame in 1981 (NutraSweet) and 1983 (Equal), died February 11, 2010 in Danbury, Connecticut.

According to the February 15 issue of the New York Times, Dr. Hayes granted approval for the use of the sugar substitute aspartame in dry foods and as a tabletop sweetener in 1981. “Research had found,” the Times said, “that aspartame was associated with high rates of cancers in rats that had been given large doses, starting at what would be the equivalent of four to five 20-ounce bottles of diet soda a day for a 150-pound person.”

The Times also said that “research done after Dr. Hayes’s time as commissioner indicated that aspartame can sometimes cause incapacitating headaches and even seizures.” Today, aspartame, which is marketed as NutraSweet (when used as a food additive) and Equal (the tabletop version), is now also used in over 5,000 products like soft drinks, breakfast cereals, pudding mixes and chewing gum.

Here we see a thumbnail sketch of aspartame’s story: a sweet-tasting chemical, in spite of having caused high rates of cancers in rats before approval, and subsequently causing incapacitating headaches and even seizures, receives an FDA go-ahead to be consumed by hundreds of millions of human beings. Clever marketing, creating the soothing names “NutraSweet” and “Equal,” spur sales of the chemical into the billions of dollars.

An even darker story lies behind these few troubling facts.

The First Approval: 1974

In 1965, G.D. Searle & Company chemist James M. Schlatter, working on an anti-ulcer drug, accidentally discovered that aspartame tasted sweet. As did the discoverers of saccharin and cyclamate before him, he licked his finger and for the first time a human tasted what would revolutionize the sweetener market. Searle launched an effort to market their wonder additive, finally succeeding in 1981.

The story leading up to that 1981 approval and the story following it make clear why prudent consumers avoid products containing aspartame. This sweetener consists of the natural amino acids L-aspartic acid and L-phenylalanine, as well as methyl alcohol. It creates byproducts such as free amino acids, methanol and formaldehyde. In certain markets, aspartame is manufactured using a genetically modified variation of E. coli.

Two hundred times sweeter than sugar with almost no calories, aspartame is popular in certain diets. However, in addition to many safety problems, it tastes different than sugar, breaks down in heat, fails in baking, degrades shortening shelf life and loses flavor in some products, leaving an odd aftertaste for some and non-flavor or watery aftertaste for others. Still, smooth marketing turned it into a giant money maker.

In October 1980 an FDA Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) found that aspartame caused an unacceptable level of brain tumors in animal testing and ruled that it should not be added to food. This ruling capped 15 years of regulatory deception by the FDA and Searle (acquired by Monsanto in 1985). Two decades of maneuvering, manipulating and dissembling by FDA, Searle and Monsanto followed the PBOI ruling.

Early tests of aspartame showed it produced microscopic holes and tumors in the brains of experimental mice, epileptic seizures in monkeys, and was converted by animals into dangerous substances, including formaldehyde. In 1974, however, in spite of the information in its files, the FDA approved aspartame as a dry-foods additive. The approval to market was short lived.

Blocking Aspartame/NutraSweet Approval for Seven Years

I, along with Dr. John Olney MD, a prominent brain researcher from Washington University in St. Louis, filed petitions with the FDA seeking a public hearing on the evidence. For the first and only time in its history, the FDA made public the data supporting its food-additive decision. Here was the evidence of monkey seizures, mouse brain cancers, eye damage, and very sloppy laboratory procedures at Searle.

Dr. Olney had already shown that one aspartic acid feeding caused microscopic holes in rat brains. Phenylalanine, aspartame’s second amino acid component, was known to lead to mental retardation, brain damage, and seizures in some susceptible children suffering from Phenylketonuria (PKU). Methanol, aspartame’s third ingredient, is highly toxic to humans and, in large amounts, is know to cause blindness.

Faced with this array of possible health dangers, the FDA granted the hearing requests in lieu of withdrawing its aspartame approval. The agency convinced Searle to refrain from marketing the sweetener until after completion of the hearing process. It then proposed that a Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) review the matter. Backing and filling by the agency kept the PBOI from convening until January of 1980.

In July of 1975, while the FDA set up the PBOI, an FDA inspector conducting a routine review of Searle’s testing facilities found many deviations from proper procedures. Animals died and came back to life, aspartame feed got mixed with unsweetened feed, and results seemed fudged. This report spurred Congress to pass laboratory regulations and the FDA commissioner to empanel a Special Task Force to review Searle’s labs.

In December of 1975 the Task force reported serious problems with Searle’s research on a wide range of products, including aspartame. It found 11 pivotal aspartame studies conducted in a manner so flawed as to raise doubts about aspartame safety and create the possibility of serious criminal liability for Searle. Based on this report, the FDA stayed (suspended) aspartame’s approval, keeping the sweetener off the market.

Reviewing the Data

To review the questionable data, the FDA contracted, over serious internal objection, with a group of university pathologists (paid by Searle) to review reporting of the results of most of the studies, set up a task force to review the validity of three studies, and asked the U.S. Attorney for Chicago to seek a grand jury review of the monkey seizure study. Searle managed to thwart each of these efforts.

The pathologists paid by Searle only reviewed the failure to properly report data, while not reviewing the design or conduct of the pivotal studies. They found no serious reporting problems. The FDA task force found Searle’s key tumor safety study unreliable, but this was ignored. The U.S. attorney let the statute of limitations run out, then (along with two aides) proceeded to join Searle’s law firm.

While these committees met, the FDA organized the PBOI. Searle, petitioners Olney and myself, and the FDA Bureau of Foods each nominated three members for the board and the FDA commissioner selected one member from each list. Three world-class scientists made up the board, took evidence, and drafted and signed an unanimous report blocking the further marketing of aspartame.

The board, which convened in January of 1980, rejected the Olney/Turner request that the commissioner’s task force information contained in the Bureau of Drugs be included in its deliberations. Still, in October 1980, looking at only the evidence in Bureau of Foods files, the board blocked aspartame marketing until the tumor studies could be explained. The board said: “approval of aspartame for use in foods should be withheld at least until the question concerning its possible oncogenic (cancer) potential has been resolved by further experiments. The Board has not been presented with proof of reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive under its intended conditions of use.” Unless the commissioner overruled the board, the matter was closed.

The New Commissioner Intervenes: Politics Overrules the Board

In November 1980, one month after the aspartame PBOI report, the country elected Ronald Reagan President. Donald Rumsfeld (a former congressman from Skokie, Searle’s home town, White House chief of staff, secretary of defense and, since January 1977, Searle’s president) joined Reagan’s transition team. Rumsfeld began a full court press against the board decision, orchestrating aspartame’s approval from inside the administration.

In January 1981 Rumsfeld told a sales meeting (as one attendee reported) that he would call in his chips and get aspartame approved by the end of the year. On January 25th, the day the new president took office, the previous FDA commissioner’s authority was suspended. Three months later the commissioner’s job went to Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, who had done drug research on army recruits while Rumsfeld was defense secretary.

Transition records give no reason for the choice of Hayes, a professor with a defense department connection and no particular background in food and drug regulation. His Pentagon proximity to Rumsfeld seemed the primary explanation. In July, Hayes, defying FDA advisors, approved aspartame for dry foods: his first major decision. In November 1983 the FDA approved aspartame for soft drinks: the last decision on Hayes’s watch.

Also in November 1983, under fire for accepting corporate gifts, with the threat of an abuse of recruits charge from the Army inspector general looming, Hayes left the agency and went to Searle’s public relations firm as senior medical advisor. Later, Searle lawyer Robert Shapiro named aspartame “NutraSweet.” Monsanto purchased Searle. Rumsfeld received a $12 million bonus. Shapiro became Monsanto president.

Shortly after the FDA’s July 1983 soft-drink approval, Searle began test-marketing aspartame drinks, and complaints of dizziness, blurred vision, headaches, and seizures began arriving at the FDA. The complaints were more serious than the agency had ever received on any food additive. At the same time, scientists began looking more closely at this manufactured chemical sweetener.

The Record of Damage Piles Up

In 1985, the FDA asked the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to review the first 650 complaints (there are now over 10,000). The CDC found that the symptoms in approximately 25% of the complainants had stopped and then restarted, corresponding with their having stopped and then restarted aspartame consumption, either purposely or by accident. This finding suggests serious problems for some members of the population.

The FDA discounted the CDC’s report. The day that the FDA released the CDC report, Pepsi (with an advanced copy of the confidential CDC report) announced its switch to aspartame with a worldwide media blitz, drowning out the CDC reports of aspartame harm. The Pepsi announcement and aggressive marketing (millions of gumballs, a red and white swirl, tough contracts) made NutraSweet known in every home. Still the damage reports rolled in.

Data released in 1995 showed that human brain tumors in the general population, like those in the animal studies, had risen 10% and previously benign tumors turned virulent. Searle and the FDA’s deputy commissioner said the data posed no problem. Two years later this same FDA official became vice president of clinical research for Searle.

Current Cancer Science

In the early 21st century the European Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences “B. Ramazzini” in Bologna, Italy presented new animal data suggesting that aspartame was a generalized carcinogen, at the very least involving haemopoietic and lymphoid organs and tissues. At the highest dose level tested in the Ramazzini study, 25% of female rats bore lymphomas-leukemias compared with 8.7% in the controls.

The foundation said: “Because of the globalization of the industrialized diet and the ever-increasing use of artificial sweeteners among billions of people in both industrialized and developing countries, the European Ramazzini Foundation considers its work on sweeteners to be of the highest priority for the protection of public health, in particular the health of children and pregnant women who are among the most vulnerable populations.”

“In light of this goal,” it continued, “and given the inadequacy of most of the previous carcinogenicity studies on artificial sweeteners, we have planned and are conducting additional research, not only on aspartame, but also on other widely diffused artificial sweeteners and blends used in thousands of foods, beverages and pharmaceutical products.”

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the FDA in the U.S., the European Food Safety Authority’s Panel on Food Additives, Flavorings, Processing Aids and Materials (EFSA), and of course the NutraSweet Company all dismiss the new findings. Their most important claim is that human epidemiological studies do not show any difference in cancer rates between consumers and non-consumers of aspartame.

Increasing Demand

The Freedonia Group, a Cleveland-based research firm, reports that U.S. demand for alternative sweeteners in the past decade increased about 4 percent per year to $1.1 billion in 2009. Demand is projected to grow 3.4 percent annually through 2013.

Avoiding Aspartame/NutraSweet Makes Sense

Given the NIH conclusion, the danger warning of the experimental data was underlined by examination of studies done from 1985 to 1995. During that time researchers did about 400 aspartame studies, divided almost evenly between those that gave assurances and those that raised safety questions. Most instructively, Searle paid for 100% of those studies that found no problem. All studies paid for by non-industry sources raised questions.

NIH epidemiological studies are not laboratory studies. Populations are not individual people. The jury is still out on aspartame safety for various susceptible individuals. There is a pattern of potential harm in animal studies and human complaints that raise a red flag. Symptoms come and go as individuals use and stop using aspartame. If NutraSweet is harming people, it is doing so whether scientists know it or not.

Given this record, it is little wonder that many health-conscious people believe that avoiding NutraSweet improves their quality of life. If and when a scientific consensus concludes that aspartame puts some, if not all, of its consumers at risk, it will be much too late. The damage will have been done. The point is to eat safely now. There is no reason to risk the aspartame dangers complained about by so many individuals.

Read the Label

In the U.S. and Canada, foods and beverages that contain aspartame must include “contains phenylalanine” on the label. Be aware that products that contain MSG (monosodium glutamate) also bear a relationship to aspartic acid in aspartame. In the case of medications, look at both the active and inactive ingredients.

The Many Faces of Aspartame

Aspartame is also known as NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, Canderel, Benevia, and E951.

Leading aspartame manufacturer Ajinomoto announced in November 2009 that it would be rebranding its artificial sweetener as “AminoSweet” in Europe, the CIS, the Middle East and Africa. Ajinomoto has also developed a vanilla-flavored version of aspartame, called “advantame.” Ajinomoto USA states that: “It is our expectation to obtain the U.S. approval [for the use of advantame in food from the FDA] within two years.” Ajinomoto USA also “intend[s] to apply for [approval in] Australia/New Zealand and Europe.”

Aspartame Alternatives

Alternatives to chemical or artificial sweeteners such as aspartame include: honey, maple syrup, turbinado sugar, fruit, fruit juice concentrates, and various forms of stevia (an herb).

Aspartame and Monsanto

NutraSweet made up an important part of the Monsanto Empire between 1985 and 2000. Here is a road map of how its ownership evolved:

The NutraSweet Company makes and sells NutraSweet, their trademarked brand name for the artificial sweetener aspartame, and Neotame.

Robert B. Shapiro, who worked as an attorney for the Illinois-based G.D. Searle & Company from 1979, became CEO and Chairman of its NutraSweet subsidiary in 1982 where he remained until 1990. Monsanto bought Searle in 1985. When Searle was acquired by Monsanto, Shapiro moved up the management chain in the latter, becoming Vice President in 1990, President in 1993 and CEO in 1995. He remained CEO of Monsanto until 2000. Shapiro oversaw a period of industrial expansion and consumer regulatory approval for the genetically-engineered foodstuff corporation. In 2000 Monsanto merged with the Swedish pharmaceutical company Pharmacia, and Shapiro became chair of this entity until he stepped down in February 2001. In March 2000, Monsanto sold NutraSweet to the private equity firm J.W. Childs.

Staying with Rosebud Hydroponics Growers Magazine for a moment, we read the feature entitled “Getting Maximum Yield Using Hydroponics Urban Garden Fertigation” with particular interest. We can concur that a whole plethora of “modern technology can provide you with maximum yield in your urban garden.” But what does this really mean to urban gardeners? After all, you need a whole lot of growing skill too – fundamentally, a knowledge and understanding of how plants work. We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again. No expensive tub of ‘bloom booster’ is going to make up for a crappy growing environment or a lack of hydroponic growing skills – even if this means that you spend less on the grandly priced plant potions of the day. We don’t mind giving you this advice, of course, because we don’t have a hydroponic nutrient company of our own! We’d like you to consider Urban Garden Magazine as your number one source for independent hydroponic and indoor growing advice.

The best hydroponic growing advice we can give you is this: get your growing environment right, observe your plants closely and feed them quality base nutrients, and you will enjoy great success. Get to this point first, and then, and only then, take a look at the vast array of supplements and additives available. After all, these products really are the icing on the cake. In short, it’s best to start honing your cake making skills eh?

Finally, we should reserve some thanks for Google. Not only is it great for finding out more about baking cakes, if it were not for this popular search engine, we might not have ever stumbled across the helpful article in Rosebud Hydroponics Magazine. Thank goodness somebody is looking out for hydroponic growers and indoor cultivators! Otherwise where would we be when it came to finding information about indoor cultivation? Hmmmm … ’nuff said methinks!

Chuckling all the way,

Everest

If you haven’t been following along, you might want to take a look at Day 1. Day 51 Mahpoi Chiquita Dwarf Oninoco Dwarf Cavendish So far so good, all five still going.

The Super Dwarf Cavendish appears healthy, but is noticeably shorter than the others. At an estimated finishing height of 3ft-91cm tall, this may not be an indication of anything wrong.

We will check back with them later. This is going to take a while. Super Dwarf Cavendish Peace, love and puka shells,

Grubbycup ]]> http://urbangardenmagazine.com/2010/03/growing-bananas-day-51/feed/ 1 http://urbangardenmagazine.com/2010/03/usda-considers-impacts-of-genetically-engineered-gmo-alfalfa/ http://urbangardenmagazine.com/2010/03/usda-considers-impacts-of-genetically-engineered-gmo-alfalfa/#comments Tue, 02 Mar 2010 18:25:19 +0000 Everest http://urbangardenmagazine.com/?p=2604 Source: The Center for Food Safety

In 2006, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) sued the Department of Agriculture (USDA) for its illegal approval of Monsanto’s genetically engineered (GE / GMO) Roundup Ready alfalfa.  The federal courts sided with CFS and banned GE alfalfa until the USDA fully analyzed the impacts of the plant on the environment, farmers, and the public in a rigorous analysis known as an environmental impact statement (or EIS). USDA released its draft EIS on December 14, 2009.  A 60-day comment period is now open until February 16, 2010. This is the first time the USDA has done this type of analysis for any GE crop.  Therefore, the final decision will have broad implications for all GE crops.

CFS has begun analyzing the EIS and it is clear that the USDA has not taken the concerns of non-GE alfalfa farmers, organic dairies, or consumers seriously.  USDA’s preliminary determination is to once again deregulate GE alfalfa without any limitations or protections for farmers or the environment. Instead USDA has completely dismissed the fact that contamination will threaten export and domestic markets and organic meat and dairy products.  And, incredibly, USDA is claiming that there is no evidence that consumers care about such GE contamination of organic!

USDA also claims that consumers will not reject GE contamination of organic alfalfa if the contamination is unintentional or if the transgenic material is not transmitted to the end milk or meat product, despite the fact that more than 75% of consumers believe that they are purchasing products without GE ingredients when they buy organic.

USDA claims that Monsanto’s seed contracts require measures sufficient to prevent genetic contamination, and that there is no evidence to the contrary. But in the lawsuit requiring this document, the Court found that contamination had already occurred in the fields of several Western states with these same business-as-usual practices in place!

USDA predicts that the approval of GE alfalfa would damage family farms and organic markets, yet doesn’t even consider any limitations or protections against this scenario.  Small, family farmers are the backbone and future of American agriculture and must be protected. Organic agriculture provides many benefits to society: healthy foods for consumers, economic opportunities for family farmers and urban and rural communities, and a farming system that improves the quality of the environment. However, the continued vitality of this sector is imperiled by the complete absence of measures to protect organic production systems from GE contamination and subsequent environmental, consumer, and economic losses.

Tell USDA That You DO Care About GE Contamination of Organic Crops and Food: Click Here!

IBM Creates High-Efficiency Solar Cell Made from Entirely Earth-Abundant Materials

IBM recently announced it has built a solar cell—composed entirely of earth-abundant elements—that sets a new world record for efficiency and holds potential for enabling solar cell technology to produce more energy at a lower cost. Comprising copper (Cu), tin (Sn), zinc (Zn), sulfur (S), and selenium (Se), the cell’s power conversion demonstrates an efficiency of 9.6 percent—40 percent higher than the value previously attained for this set of materials.

“In a given hour, more energy from sunlight strikes the earth than the entire planet consumes in a year, but solar cells currently contribute less than 0.1 percent of electricity supply—primarily as a result of cost,” said Dr. David Mitzi, who leads the team at IBM Research that developed the solar cell. “The quest to develop a solar technology that can compare on a cost per watt basis with the conventional electricity generation, and also offer the ability to deploy at the terawatt level, has become a major challenge that our research is moving us closer to overcoming.”

The IBM researchers describe their achievement of the thin-film photovoltaic technology in a paper just published in Advanced Materials in February, highlighting the solar cell’s potential to accomplish the goal of producing low-cost energy that can be used widely and commercially.

The solar cell development also sets itself apart from its predecessors as it was created using a combination of solution and nanoparticle-based approaches, rather than popular but expensive vacuum-based technique. The production change is expected to enable much lower fabrication cost, as it is consistent with high-throughput deposition techniques printing, dip and spray coating and slit casting.

While previous commercial efforts to employ thin film solar cell modules have produced 9 to 11 percent efficiency levels, they have primarily focused on only two costly compounds—copper indium gallium selenide or cadmium telluride— and as such, have been either too costly to produce or contain elements that could ultimately limit production capacity. Attempts to create affordable, earth abundant solar cells from related compounds have not exceeded 6.7 percent, compared to IBM’s new 9.6 efficiency rating.

Over the past several years, IBM researchers have pioneered several breakthroughs related to creating inexpensive, efficient solar cells. IBM does not plan to manufacture solar technologies, but instead will license intellectual property resulting from its solar cell related research.

Source: IBM 2010

It’s no dazzling feat of originality, when sitting in my comfortable chair in my comfortable liberal democracy, to say that freedom of speech is a basic human right. The next statement may also be taken as trite, unoriginal and perhaps a little heavy on the fromage: it’s not just our right, but also our responsibility, to react critically with the world and share our findings in order to stimulate varied conversation and debate. And I should say that writing this doesn’t mean that I think freedom of speech is a beautiful concept that scatters goodwill everywhere. Not at all. With freedom of speech, we all have to take the rough with the smooth. That’s the deal we make if we want our ideas to be heard. By way of example, I’m allowed to express my opinion that, say, Rush Limbaugh is a dangerous, sweaty man who spreads hateful muck every which way from his tawdry little radio show. But then I can’t complain if good old Rush reads that and then calls me a skinny piece of happy-clappy liberal trash whose hippy ideals will destroy the planet, and he says all that live on air (the latter being a rough approximation of a Rushism, I apologize if it reads as a flat caricature). That’s the nature of the beast: it can be ugly.

The above introductory paragraph is by no means an incitement for everybody to run over to their next-door neighbor’s house and read a hastily composed litany of every little thing they do to rub sensitive skin up the wrong way. A world with free speech can still be a world with politeness and compassion (above all else politeness and compassion and humanity). Another example involving Rush L: it’s his politics and his twisted propaganda that I will speak up against (e.g. that whole Michael J Fox thing), but if I met him at a dinner party, it would be impolite to call him ‘Fatty.’ That’s not freedom of speech. That’s just being, well, a dick.

It’s also impolite to use the word ‘dick,’ and I apologize unreservedly for that. The kind of censorship that I think is bad does not really include bleeping of swear words, or pixelating a pair of exposed breasts (again it’s a politeness thing more than a sinister breed of censorship). It’s the censorship of ideas that really challenges the whole freedom of expression thing, and if that idea is undermined by censorship that can only be a bad thing.

In simple terms, this sort of censorship is a way for governing bodies to be generally unchallenged in their day-to-day policy-making. In even simpler terms, it’s a way for dickish rulers to keep being dickish rulers while preventing anyone from truly finding out how dickish they are being. Think about the medieval bible that was only in Latin, so as to prevent the Anglo-Saxon population of England from really learning about Christianity and to promote the preacher to a position of power.

Censorship of obscenity rarely takes into consideration the whole of a text, but merely seeks to ban any text that was perceived as being obscene in part (hence the whole Ulysses denigration thing, it’s by no means obscene all the way through, if at all). By this ruling, other books that deserve a good old banning include the bible, Shakespeare and the unabridged English dictionary (taken from Sherman again – it really is a very astute article, written in a time when this sort of censorship was rife).I understand that it can get quite muddy when talking about obscenity in books, and really each reader must judge a book by themselves to see if it breaches their own personal moral structure (of course freedom of speech would allow this consideration to take place).

It may be easier to use the example of statues. In 1901 there was a raging controversy in America over whether nude statues should be exhibited to the public. The statues under scrutiny were ancient, from Pompeii and Greece, not some tawdry waxworks of Pamela Anderson posed in kidney-revealing pornographic positions. The ‘Militant Moralists’ wanted them banned from exhibition, regardless of their beauty, because they could inspire lewd thoughts in the young. This sort of moralizing doesn’t account for taste – a nipple is a nipple and thus a hideous spectacle in these terms.

In taking away the choice for adults to view items like this (including the books of Joyce or Ginsberg or Nabokov or any of the other censored individuals), it implies that human beings are a savage race that only regard goodness and an ethical existence as important because a government or a church guides us to this point of view. Are these institutions the thin line holding the human race back from fornicating and murdering ourselves into oblivion? Or is it the worst kind of hogwash?

It is our responsibility as human beings to be inquisitive, levelheaded individuals and search out the greater truths of this world, ideas that go beyond race, religion or politics. It’s time to become truly progressive as a species and embrace free thought in all its forms. “Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too,” as Voltaire once said. Censorship is the enemy of this progress. So too are the people that let it happen.

We interrupt this website to give you an important LOVE ALERT.

Abnormal levels of friendliness and compassion have been detected in and around the great city of London, UK. Urban Garden Magazine asks all readers to be especially vigilant if they observe any jovial strangers. Report any smiles or eye-contact from anyone you don’t know well … immediately.

KNOW BEFORE YOU GO

Two men, who go by the names of Charlie Veitch and Danny Shine, are known to be especially dangerous. We advise all readers planning on visiting London to familiarize themselves with this website: www.youtube.com/cveitch

If you see either of the men featured in these films, do not approach them. (They have been known to hug strangers indiscriminately.) Call the SMILE STOPPERS hotline immediately!

DO NOT under ANY circumstances visit www.cveitch.org and accidentally donate these lunatics any of your hard earned money. This will only encourage them.