“Honey has always been considered an entirely pure product for the purposes of food labelling laws. But Europe’s highest court has now decreed that pollen is an ingredient of honey rather than an intrinsic, natural component.”

writes the Telegraph

watch?v=qeGtaSWzFRA for more honey.

It just so happens that I’m quite allergic. Not as severe as some younger friends, as the hassle tends to diminish with age, but still enough to remain careful. The so called allergy family (all allergies belong to groups, for example sea food, which I have no problems with) is nuts. Along with this comes mould – also penicillin in it’s original form – almonds and certain fruits and berries. And pets. The only thing really lethal is normally nuts. A younger friend never enters a Thai restaurant or leave her home without cortisone in her pocket. I’ve outgrown pet allergy, and can try different kinds of food, but I will never in my life test one singe nut again. It’s really not worth it.

Sometimes, however, I get the feeling that the worst threat, at least to my mental well-being, is not the sneezing during springtime, but busy body government. When chocolate bars simply had to list ingredients – and you also could find some safe brands – it was easy to pick something suitable. Since some years back, manufacturers are required to point out that virtually every product “may contain traces of nuts”. My younger friend naturally does not even look at candy, but for me, it would be nice to be able to make an informed choice. “May contain” means that the product is manufactured in an environment where other products, containing nuts, have been produced.

And now they are out to hit on the honey. The European Court that is, eager to put another burden on a struggling line of business.

“ Industry experts warned that the “ludicrous” ruling could drive smaller British honey suppliers and beekeepers out of business.”

As long as we can, let’s put honey in our evening cuppa, or rum. The latter based on sugar by the way.

Yesterday, I watched that widely acclaimed movie by Nora Ephron about Julia Childs and her later follower. Marvelous. And somehow, all about butter.

I seldom use butter, as I prefere olive oil, but for certain dishes it’s the best option. All sorts of fish, for example.

How interesting then that there is a current butter crisis in the stores. The cows to blame? Some people have actually suggested that.

But then there is this peculiar thing called the Butter Mountain in the EU. Simply put, a surplus (according to the politicians), calling for regulations within the CAP system, and – surprise – you suddenly have a shortage.

Let’s see what comes next. In Venezuela, one of the largest coffee been producers in the world, there is currently a coffee shortage.

In all cases of shortages, my Professor once told me, look for the price mechanism. And if a politician has meddled with it.

Sure, I can live without butter (after all there are substitutes), maybe even coffee, but there are worse situations out there, where regulations, or simply playing around with the market, cause real starvation.

Maybe we should just skip this project

That it was fairly good for preventing colds I knew, but now apparently garlic is the way to prevent global warming.

Reports euractiv:

Hope the cows will like it. Personally, I a fan, especially when I’m eating cows, but I don’t want it in my milk.

And the report does not mention the smell. And not any other potential side effects. What about the bugs? At least on humans, garlic is believed to be a repellant. Will this in turn affect the bird life? Guess a new bunch of money would be welcome, before the entire idea is picked up by the Comission, for a garlic cow directive.

Guess the five millions were well spent so far. At least the garlic growers and distributors will think so.

Green campaigners routinely attack fruits and vegetables grown and protected using efficient modern methods.  No evidence exists that “organic” foods offer any nutritional benefits over foods produced by modern farming.  There were certainly no health benefits for the victims of this tragic outbreak.

To learn more about The Truth About Organic Foods, CFACT recommends Alex Avery’s book by that title.  CFACT Europe produced a translation of Mr. Avery’s book not too long ago available direct from the publisher  bestellung@tvrgroup.de

June 6 UPDATE: The death toll has risen and now organic sprouts from northern Germany are suspect.  No matter how you slice it the organic food bubble is leaking badly.  Once organic food safety is reestablished it is time to put them in their proper place.  “Organic” foods (as if there could be inorganic foods) require more labor and resources to produce and distribute and have no nutritional advantages.  They are an expensive consumer preference (like artisan cheese with less certain flavor advantages), but not a luxury that should interfere with the plentiful bounty modern efficient farming creates.  Developed countries today enjoy plentiful, affordable food for all for the first time ever.  A few constructive public policy tweaks and a neighborly helping hand is all it will take to permit the developing world to bring in just as fine a harvest.

June 6 UPDATE 2: Maybe not sprouts after all.

June 10 UPDATE: Organic sprouts again — 30 dead.

More on the outbreak:

Sprouts:  AP

Deutsche Welle

Yahoo News

Expatica Spain

 There are real environmental problems. Not necessarily those threats lazy journalists and politicians demand you to solve, but more often caused by the government.

One of the most blatant examples is found in the oceans, in particular those areas controlled by the EU. Millions of Euro are wasted in the incomprehensible CAP, with devastating effects on the Baltic sea as one – hopefully – unintended consequence. The EU fishery policy – equally impossible to get a grip on – costs billions and has led about 90 percent of the EU waters to suffer from the imminent risk of out-fishing, by ways of subsidies and peculiar regulatory frameworks.

I have written on this subject before, and will continue to do so, but these particular examples of governmental abuse to nature and humanity were once again pointed out to me by two colleagues (no link unfortunately, but honor as due), Maria Wetterstrand and Mattias Svensson. An interesting detail is that though the latter is a libertarian, the former is spokesperson for the Greens.

It’s a terryfying list, but let me add some more. Government, or partly government energy companies using government force to expropriate private property for exploitation. Or spending tax money to make a mess in the developing world in misguided, sometimes corrupt efforts.

At the same time, entrepreneurs are forced to fill in useless forms to send to the even more useless Eurostat, and the rest of us recycle.

In the never ending debate on what really triggered WWI, an interesting observation is that August 1914 was one of the warmest months in Europe, during the last century. With no AC, politicians simply went bananas.

Naturally, the underlying factors were multiple; trigger happy, sometimes very old, politicians and officers, negligence to the risks involved in a full scale war with the still new military technology, old alliances, you name it. But the observation is still interesting, and probably correct at least for some of the major players.

In a recent issue of Science, the authors try to take a climate approach to the fall of the Roman Empire, arguing that the Germanic tribes finally invading Rome, were driven south by severe draughts caused by climate change.

Again, there’s probably some sense to this. At the same time, empires tend to fall for multiple, often combined reasons, such as corruption, uncontrollable expansion or just plain discontent, or incompetence among the rulers.

For some reason, the authors in Science find it necessay to point out that today’s warming is unprecendented. Really? As far as I know, the history of the world has always been rather turbulent, both concerning politics and science. And climate.

Applying an alarmist perspective to the Roman Empire gets complicated indeed, given that you really believe that climate can’t vary without human intervention. Did the northern tribes eat too much meat, or did the vicious Romans bomb them with CO2? Was this extraordinary technology of warfare then hidden until 1914,  later to be exposed by the IPCC, or has it been the well kept secret of a mysterious society, the Knights of Climate Control, based on a non-discovered island and devoted to fight civilization wherever it should appear.

The activists now say that by opposing nuclear power they encouraged the use of polluting coal-fired power stations, while by protesting against GM crops they prevented developing countries from benefiting from a technology that could have helped feed the hungry.

READ MORE FROM DAILY TELEGRAPH

After being approved by the national governments in the EU, Thrombin has now found it’s way into the parliament, by way of the environmental committee, which – not surprisingly – found a majority for proposing a ban.

Thrombin is also, more popularly, known as “Meat Glue”, creating connotations that set off a lot of alarm clocks. As a matter of fact, it is a perfectly natural product; a coagulation protein which together with the fibrous protein fibrin can be developed into an enzyme, that can be used for sticking together different pieces of meat.

In other words, a ban would be highly symbolical. The Thrombin doesn’t show and doesn’ t taste, and above all, is not dangerous. The glued steaks however, are often built with meat that otherwise would have been thrown away. Something to contemplate for those who argue that eating steak contributes to climate change.

A general misunderstanding is that this process is misleading the consumer. Of course it would be, if most consumers were not aware of what they consume. On top, there areother regulations concerning the display of information, something which is probably unnecessary, as the market pressure on the producers is so strong anyhow.

But, maybe some days, some people just want a cheaper piece of meat to fry up, instead of carefully selecting among the delicacies. People have different preferences, and these also tend to change from time to time.

I’m not a big beefeater myself, but a favourite restaurant in Brussels is a small Serbian place, run by a family of butchers who buy a fresh animal every morning and then adjust the menu during the course of the day. Sometimes I enjoy paying a premium at the few European restaurants that offer Argentinian steak. It’s often worth it. Some people only want locally produced food, others only meat from their home countries. Some only go to the local butcher, whom they know, others visit supermarkets.

Why politicians, and in particular EU parliamentarians should have anything to do with this is a mystery. Or maybe it’s not. Politicians want to act, and especially appear responsible. The meat eaters foot the bill.

On March 21, incidentally my birthday, a friend from Iceland called me and said she had organized some fireworks for me. What a pity she could not set off the second eruption one week ago. With all airline traffic closed down in most of  Europe, as today, the Climate conference in Bonn would have been more eventful. Or less.

But I don’t blame her. Or anyone else. I also have a solid alibi myself.

To my knowledge, honestly, no alarmist has yet tried to pin volcano eruptions on human activity. Nothing surprises me these days, so in case someone would try that over the next few days, it’s interesting to look at the statistics. It’s not Armageddon – non man made - either. Reliable, reported data on eruptions has developed mainly over the past century (though, naturally, there are plenty of earlier accounts). This compiled data shows no significant changes from then to now (though, also naturally, the cycles between eruptions are rather long). Except for the decrease in the early 40′s. I presume you can draw your own conclusions from that. But it also makes you think about the validity of different climate data. The infamous hockey stick, now not accepted by hardly any scientists for example, takes of upwards around 1990. A lot of things happened, including to observation stations, in huge parts of the world those years.

Human action – and design – can, however be valuable. The eruption might go on for days or even years, but so far there are no casualties on Iceland. According to friends there, the worst problem is that the evacuation from the area is getting disrupted by, particularly domestic, tourists, wanting to see it for real.

In 1783, another volcano erupted on Iceland. This led to bad harvests in large parts of Europe, and is generally believed to have been a major source behind the famine and subsequent turmoil in France in 1789. The world, and Iceland in particular, is just trying to recover from a major financial crisis. So far no one – in this part of the world – is talking about a revolution. Once again, draw your own conclusions!

I might get my asthma back, and I can’t fly for a while, but hey! There is a civil society out there, in case of emergency. People are now taking cab rides across half of Europe. You certainly could not do that before the car was invented, the taxi market privatized and the border controls were taken away.

On top, if the eruption continues, the average temperature will drop. Maybe as much as two degrees Celsius, It’s just a theory, but if I were the IPCC, I would at least take a little break.

It seems obvious then to assume that risk is the opposite of safety. But it isn’t: as inaction also entails risks, we need instead to properly assess the benefits of risk-taking, such as accepting new technologies, medicines or – yes even – accepting that a global government will not avert all risks.

The key in this respect is opportunity costs. By definition we cannot know fully know the results of our actions beforehand. Consider GMO crops: these are largely shunned and condemned in Europe, despite their documented benefits and the absence of any adverse event since they were first put into practice some 20 years ago.

As brilliantly expressed by the director of EuropaBio, it is not GMO products that should bear special labels, but rather the much praised “bio”products; the former have been extensively tested, especially for allergies; the latter have not. It would be reasonable then to have these marked “Warning: does not contain GMO ingredients”.

Monsanto is a prime target in this respect. It has produced numerous seeds capable of resisting insects, droughts, water-poor soils and related problems. Yet the company is constantly attacked – no good deed goes unpunished – for market domination and for defending its patents.

A simple question to the green lobby: how do you propose to feed the world’s starving people once you have eliminated GM crops, fossil fuels and economic development? Nobody can eat CO2 offsets (except perhaps Al Gore).

Photos: freedigitalphotos