In England in 1948 the then Labour Government set up what is now called The Welfare State, which means that the State looks after its citizens from cradle to grave.   Or rather this was the plan, but it is not how it has worked it.   Now it has been suggested that the USA goes the same way and many do not like it and neither, it seems do many in England, with one of our Euro MP’s saying why he does not like the Health Service as it presently exists. But like everything else there are good and bad points to it.   One of the bad ones is that the English one has more or less fallen into the hands of the drug companies.   What they do is study Nature and see if they can find something that they can take, extract part of it, and manufacture a drug(s) from it and then charge the earth on the basis, that they had to do a lot of work to bring it to the market. But what is not told the general public is that they have found something that they cannot do this with and have suppressed it because they cannot make money from it.

One of the good things about our Health Service is that it is free at point of need.   You fall down, as I have done, are taken to hospital, and operated on.   No one asks if you have the insurance necessary to pay for it.    I am really pleased about this when someone from the USA mentions this as being part of my outgoings.

This has been on our News for the last few days.  Another items was the fact that 5 people benefitted from organ transplants.   Someone had agreed to donate their organs after they died.  Their liver was removed, divided in 2, one part was given to a 6 month old baby the other to someone with a diseased liver, which was removed and given to a man with cancer in his liver in what is called a Piggyback Transplant.   The other organs were given to 3 other people.

One of the things that people grumble about as far as our Health Service is concerned is the waiting lists where people need to have an operation to correct something that is malfunctioning, such as a hip that needs replacing, but is not life threatening.   There is also what is called “The Postcode Lottery”, with people from one part of the country get treatment while in another do not.

From this it can be seen that there are both good and bad points to the U K’s National Health Service.   My advice to both those who want to set up a similar system in the USA and those who oppose it is not to concentrate on one aspect be it good or bad and ignore the others, but study it and see how the good parts can be improved and the bad ones dealt with.

In the last post Professor Regan was mention together with the fact that she recently had a series of programs on the BBC. One of the things it was said she insisted on was that the findings should be published in a recognised scientific publication. In another magazine I subscribe to had an article which raised questions as to what she meant by that.

Those who want us to, as they say, be scientific, also want us to believe that scientists are objective with no bias, and they only want to find out what is correct. This is not the case. No one, even scientists, are completely objective, we all have a way of looking at the world, which is governed by our core beliefs, which are never tested, and in many cases cannot be.

The above mentioned publication mentioned Stephen Gould, who in 1982 in How Science Changes with the Political Climate. U.S. News & World Report said:

“People need to realize that scientists are human beings like everyone else and that their pronouncements may arise from their social prejudices, as any of our pronouncements might. The public should avoid being snowed by the scientist’s line: “Don’t think about this for yourself, because it’s all too complicated.”"

And in Natural History Issue 103 he said:

“Our [scientists] ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ’scientific method; with individual scientis as logical and interchangeable robots, is a serlf-serving mythology.”

The magazine is from the U.S. and reason it was published was because President Obama is promoting what is being called “consensus science”. This doesn’t mean that scientific experiments have to be conducted and each time they are those conducting them get the same results. What it means is that when enough scientists agree about anything it become the new orthodoxy, in other words it becomes a religion and those who do not belong to it are marginalised. There is another danger Professor John Christy said on 13th November 2007 on the BBC News:

“The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the “informational cascade”) is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group because we, by definition, must be the “ones who know”….. You dare not not be thought of as “one who does not know”….. This leads, in my opinion, to an overstatement of confidence in the published findings and to a ready acceptance of the views of anointed authorities.”

History provides many examples of lone individuals who take on The Establishment and are persecuted by those in authority for daring to do so. And in most cases they have proved to be right and those who opposed them wrong.

One aspect of this was looked at in the last post and much of what is said in other posts are based on programs broadcast by TV companies in the UK. Channel Four, one of our commercial TV companies are the pioneers in bringing what is happening to our food to the notice of the British public. The presenters of these programs are well known for the organic credentials. But now the BBC has decided to get in on the act. There series of programs Grow Your Own Drugs was mentioned in the last post.

Another series aired by the BBC is Professor Regan’s in which she sees if there is any scientific evidence that backs up claims made by manufacturers for the products. The ones that she and others, on her behalf, conducted were extremely rigorous, but tests that should have been conducted and questions asked were not. One of the programs looked at the food children chose such as breakfast cereals. The test conducted was whether breakfast had an effect on their concentration, etc with the findings being that it had, but it didn’t matter what it consisted of. Also tested was how much sugar and salt they contained with the findings being there were acceptable levels of both. But no mention was made of the chemicals such as colorings, flavour enhancers, extended shelf life, etc, which should have been conducted.

In another program we were told that certain people had enough of certain vitamins and minerals in their diet because they were eating food we were told contained them. But this couldn’t have been known because there was no way the soil they were grown in, etc was tested to see if it contained them. And no tested were carried out to see if there was anything in the foods that inhibited the absorbtion of them, either in the foods themselves or the bodies of those eating them.

There are things all of take for granted and do not really question unless we are challenged to do so. We are continually being told that something is scientific and something else is not and that science can provide all the answers and those who call themselves scientists frequently think this way. Science is the Greek word for knowledge and you can only have knowledge of what actually exists now. Science certainly cannot explain why something is moral and something else is not, nor can it explain why we think somethings are beautiful and others are ugly.     Next time you hear someone say that science can answer all questions and is the basis of all reality and applies it to something that is outside any scientific experiment because it happened in the past don’t accept it.

It has been demonstrated previously that once something, be it natural remedies, organic food etc, the supermarkets, chemists, etc jump on the bandwagon and start selling what they claim is the same as those who pioneered it sell, but scientific experiments show is not. Then The Media start looking at it and raise what they see as the difficulties and finally the drug companies oppose it.

This morning my local radio looked at Natural Remedies. I turned the radio on just as it was finishing. What I caught was that the drug companies opposed it because there was no money to be made from natural remedies because they couldn’t be patented. And James Wong said much the same thing in his series on BBC 2 entitled Grow Your Own Drugs. He said he was an ethno botanist and that the remedies he was telling us about had not been scientifically tested and improvement if and when it occurred may be a placebo effect. More on this in a later post.

An earlier broadcast on my local radio mentioned the campaign, headed by Jamie Oliver, to improve the food offered in our schools. They said that children frequently rejected it and the answer was to give them what they wanted.

The Soil Association in an article “School food revolution” in their latest edition of Living Earth, admit there is a problem, but offer a different solution. They article mentions David Madison, the headteacher at St Peter’s Primary School in Nottingham. This, they say was the old school of Jeanetter Orrey, who was “the dinner lady who inspired the original campaign.” David Madison says:

“What we learnt is that to be truly effective, our school meals service needed to extend itself into food education. In this way we not only feed children well now, but try to ensure that they develop the understanding to make informed and healthy choices throughout their lives.”

The campaign has been given the title Food for Life Partnership (FFLP) and they also quoted what Prince Charles said when he presented the awards for good culture:

“The over reliance on packaged, processed food is not just damagin our own health, but damaging our bio-diversity, our soil through agro-chemicals and our water-table through pesticides.” He also said: “How else can we possibly expect children to care about the food they eat unless they understand how it is grown? If they don’t know that milk comes from a cow and carrots from the soil, how can they make judgments on what is good or bad for them.? It is about rescuing today’s over-industrialised children: about instilling in them a life-long appreciation of food and the way it is produced; and reconnecting them with Nature so that they may have a better understanding of why it is so precious to the health and wellbeing of each and every one of us.”

The article also says: “To tackle these challenges, the Soil Association formed a partnership with three other charities to kick-start the transformation of England’s food culture – from the roots up. And it’s not just about school meals anymore.” Jeanette Orrey said: “It’s about practical food education like learning to cook, growing food and visiting farms.” They say that the schools working with FFLP showed that the children will stop turning it down altogether, or eat only eat it at school, but will make it a lifestyle choice. They say that the take up has increased by 16% since joining FFLP.

Above the fact that Prince Charles presented the awards was mentioned and they tell us that St Peter’s Primary School in Shropshire was awarded the title: “School of the Year” in 2008. The reason for this was because they involed “parents and members of the local community in its project.” In a feature about them we are told:

“A complete transformation has taken place.” Before they had “no growing area, limited cooking opportunities and no farm links.” These are thress of the things they have to achieve to reach Bronze Level, other is: “ensuring 75% of the dishes are freshly prepared.” St Peter’s reached the Silver Level. Parents are involved and have been creating and looking after a school garden. “The local greengrocer and butcher work closely with the school, local senior citizens are invited to join the children for lunch now and then.” They have had ‘farmers markets’ and their “cooking resources have been made available for cooking lessons with parents and members of the community.”

They have also reached out to other schools, who have in turn joined the Partnership.

To reach the Gold standard a school has to “serve at least 750% freshly prepared, 50% local and 30% organic food, teach every pupil to cook and grow food for themselves, and involve them in the life of a local farm.”

There are problems with funding there are not enough children eating school meals and it is only when there is that “caterers can afford to invest in better quality ingredients.” Their solution is to call for the government top up what parents pay by 50P.

In summing up under “Food for Life Partnership at a glance” they say:

“500 schools and caterers signed up to achieving bronze mark or higher in FFLP’s first 6 months.”

“No schools have yet been awarded gold, as this defines a truly gold standard for a school’s food culture, and

requires huge changes for the school and the caterers. Like so much that is worthwhile, this takes time to
achieve.”

“180 diverse flagship schools and communities across England are being fast tracked to gold with extra hands-on support from the Food for Life Partnership.”

“The ambition is to have 3,600 schools enrolled with the Food for Life Partnership and be committed to achieving a bronze mark or higher through the award scheme.”

“150,000 people will have benefitted from the work in schools and communities, helping them to understand where food comes from and take care of the food they eat.”

We have been called a Nation of Animal Lover, but many people differentiate between animals such as dogs and cats, which they consider to be pets and animals reared for food.

As was remarked in earlier posts many people say that they cannot afford organic food.   But many of those who say this do their shopping at one of the big supermarkets, where organic food certainly is dearer.

But if they were able to get it from Farmers’ Markets, as I do, they would find that it was no dearer than than conventional food from the supermarket.  But many people do care about how their food is grown and are prepared to do something about it.

This was proved last summer by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall who 10 years ago had moved South and set up in the business of rearing his food organically, cooking it and selling it and in the process persuaded his local town to support him in his campaign to improve the lot of chickens, which is said to be Britain’s favourite meat.

This was broadcast on one of our TV Channels and as result of seeing how they were reared people reacted and supermarkets nationwide sold out of free-range chicken.    The outcome was that the poultry industry rushed to cope with the demand.

This lead to an initiative where less birds where put into sheds and they were able to run around, fly, peck at things provided for them.   They also do not have to stand in their own droppings.   Many of our supermarkets are now only selling birds reared in this way.   But not Britain’s biggest retailer, Tesco.   Hugh tried to persuade them to talk to him and kept on being refused.  So he decided to adopt a different approach.

What he did was buy a share in Tesco’s so he could attend their AGM.   This was how the series aired last year ended.   But on Monday 26 January we were told what happened afterwards.  He found out that he needed a certain number of people to back him before he could present the petition.

After being turned down by the business people he turned to such organisations as Compassion in Farming, etc.   They did back him and he was able to present the petition to Tesco’s Head Office.

Their answer was to email him telling him to pay the postage or they would not mail their shareholders.   They wanted him to drop.  No way, he said, and set up a web site explaining the position.   He was able to raise the whole amount.   But this was still not enough for Tesco’s.   They then moved the goal posts and said that he had to get 75% of the shareholders to agree.

He attended and spoke to the shareholders.   Many thought that he would not have too much support, but had to admit they were surprised at the level of support he attracted.   10% of those who were there supported him and another 9% abstained, which meant in effect that they supported him, making it nearly 20%, i.e. 1 in 5.

In the programme on the 26th January Hugh revisits Hayley, a single mother who had continued to buy cheap mass-produced chicken.  But Hugh persuade her to visit a farm where both methods were used.  After doing so she  decided  to buy the ethically reared bird, much to the approval of Hugh.

The only way to do this is by adopting healthy eating habits, and not pursuing crash diets hoping to loose unwanted pounds in a few days.

Many of these fad diets, such as the notorious and outright silly Cabbage Soup Diet, will undermine your health, cause physical discomfort (abdominal discomfort and flatulence (gas) ) and lead to the yo-yo effect of gaining weight soon after losing it. In other words the risks aren’t worth the rewards.

Quick-weight-loss diets generally put far too much emphasis on one particular food or type of food. They violate the first principle of good nutrition which is to eat a balanced diet which should include different types of foods. If you are able to stay on such a diet for more than a few weeks, you may develop nutritional deficiencies, because no one type of food has all the nutrients a human being needs for good health. The Cabbage Soup Diet is an example. This so-called fat-burning soup is eaten mostly with fruits and vegetables. The diet supposedly helps heart patients lose 10–17 pounds in seven days before surgery. Even if the weight loss claim were true, all the damage due to a lack of many essential nutrients would far outweigh (pun intended) the benefits of losing the weight. There are no magic beans, or magic cabbages, or miracle foods when it comes to weight loss and good nutrition. That’s why you should eat moderate amounts from all the food groups rather than cutting out everything but a cabbage and water.

There may be no magic or miracle foods, but there are certain foods which contain more nutrients than others and it is wise to include them in your diet.

Among these are:

Beans (legumes),
Berries (especially blueberries),
Oranges,
Broccoli,
Pumpkin,
Spinach,
Tomatoes,
Nuts (especially walnuts),
Salmon.
Turkey,
Whole grains and oats
Yogurt
Green tea
Soy

You will note that it includes: Vegtables, Fruits, Proteins, Fats and Carbohydrates.

All crazy diets such as the cabbage one also violate another important principle of good nutrition which is that eating should be enjoyable. These diets are so monotonous and boring that it’s almost impossible to stay on them for long periods.

Imagine eating cabbage soup, nothing but cabbage soup, for even a few days much less for a whole week. By Wednesday you’d dread meal time, and by Friday you’d never again want to hear about a cabbage much less eat the soup. If you make it to Sunday you might die of a heart attack before you ever again tasted real food.

In Diet you were told that diet is what we habitually eat and not confined to weight loss. It is not just those who are trying to lose weight that follow unhealthy diets. Many modern diets based on prepackaged convenience foods which lack many vitamins and minerals, which can affect our mental capacities as well, and cause irritability, confusion, and the feeling of ‘being in a fog’ all the time.

Superfoods can be the basis of a sound, healthy, nutritious solution to curing many of these ailments and more.

Fad diets are bad in many other ways. Many don’t encourage physical activity, for example, walking 30 minutes most or alldays of the week. Physical activity helps maintain weight loss, while physical inactivity is a major risk factor for heart disease and stroke. When you hear a diet that mentions “no need for exercise” run for the hills, or at least run on a treadmill.

Quick weight loss sounds great. It is possible. Just don’t fall for tricks or gimmicks that might end up ruining your health.

Do You Weigh What You Should?

If you answered yes to Question 2 then it is more likely you are over then under weight. We are continually being told that more and more people are overweight and that we must do something about it.

But “dieting” is not the answer, what is needed is a change of lifestyle and eating pattern. There are many reasons people are overweight, but the most important are lack of exercise and the actual food we eat.

If you eat soft food which doesn’t require chewing you are likely to eat more of it. If it requires chewing you are likely to eat less of it because you are feed up with it and it is cold.

In addition because you have chewed it your body will know that you have eaten and trigger a mechanism making you feel fullup. So train your body to co-operative with your weight loss programme.

To many people organic only means to be grown in a certain way, but it is much more than that.

Due to the popularity of organic foods the supermarkets have got in on the act, but what they are doing goes agains the whole ethos of the organic movement.

To start with they do not, in the main, source their products from this country, let alone near them, but have them flown, in some cases, half way around the world.

In addition they reject a lot of what is grown and then discard it. So don’t buy from supermarkets, but find your nearest Farmer’s Market, etc.

So you are getting concerned about that the food you are eating may be harmful to you and your family? If you are it is with good reason. You read news reports about GM (genetically modified) foods, hear about

health scares about eating beef, chemicals on food affecting people’s health and the intelligence of children, it’s no wonder that you like many are looking to organic foods as an option.

WHAT IS ORGANIC FARMING?

Organic farming produces plant and animal foods without the excessive use of chemicals. It focuses on using fertile soil along with a variety of crops to maintain healthy growing conditions which produce a food
with more nutrients and less chemicals than typical commercial foods.

Organic farming prohibits the growing of GM foods, a controversial issue among commercial growers.

Animals reared on organic farms are treated properly with room to behave like animals and are fed healthy food sources not laden with drugs and other chemicals.

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF ORGANIC FOODS?

One of the common benefits proclaimed about organic foods is that they taste better – but there are many other benefits to incorporating organic foods into your diet. Besides the physical benefits to you there are environmental benefits and benefits to the animals and people who live and work on the farms.

HEALTH BENEFITS

Organic foods prevent people from ingesting regular amounts of pesticides and insecticides commonly found in commercial products.

Animals are not routinely given antibiotics and other medication which enters the food supply to humans. Some research suggests that this excessive use of chemicals in food can be linked to increased health problems and interferes with the healthy development of children.

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

Organic food also protects the planet. Organic farming ensures that bio-diversity remains available in the foods we eat and the wildlife that live on the farms. Fruits and vegetables are naturally available in 100’s of varieties. Commercial growing limits the variety of each food available by mass producing only a handful. Many species of birds, insects and other animals are affected by the chemicals and farming conditions used in growing commercial foods.

Organic farms grow a mix of crops and promote a balanced ecosystem including insects that protect crops from pests and worms and other micro-organisms which fertilize the soil.

HUMAN AND ANIMAL BENEFITS

Organic farming is considered ’sustainable’ farming. The workers and the animals are not as exposed to dangerous toxins or working and living conditions. This enables people to continue growing healthy foods for the rest of society without reliance on huge machinery and chemicals.

The animals raised on organic farms are not subject to the terrible living conditions imposed on commercially reared animals who often live in exceedingly small spaces without the freedom to move or interact.

These unhealthy conditions lead to a spreading of illness which is combated with regular doses of antibiotics.

On organic farms the animals’ needs are given priority. Healthy food, clean living conditions and freedom to behave like animals means healthier animals. When animals are sick they are cared for individually according to their actual needs.

Organic, sustainable farming protects humans, animals and the environment. Increasing the demand for organic products will encourage this form of farming and ensure that the food supply available to our children is a healthy one.

Many people complain about the cost of organic food, one way around this is to grow you own. This is not as difficult as it might at first appear. You may have noticed a link to it on the right. Click on it and get ready to enjoy your own organic, fresh vegetables.

This is the claim made by those who support these methods with them accusing those of do not agree with them of being unpatriotic, not caring that people are starving, etc. But do these claims stand up to scrutiny? If they do not then we all have problems, particularly if they have convinced the government that they are the answer.

Philip Conford writing in the latest edition of ‘Living Earth’, the Soil Associations magazine says:

“In pursuit of profits, agricultural and biotech industries have a vested interest in discrediting the organic movement, whose methods render their products unnecessary.” And their followers can be relied on to follow in their footsteps. They do this by, in the name of rationalism, accusing them of having “faith in “muck and mystery” and” being “hopelessly primitive”. What they are saying is Old is Bad and New is Good, and Change always = Progress. But this is not true as can be demonstrated by the that much of what has been tried recently has proved to be really detrimental to people and nature.

The Organic Movement were accused during the war of being unpatriotic for not believing that “bagged fertilizer could prevent Britain from starving.” Now they are being accused of being “indifferent to those who await the bountiful blessings of GM crops.” The question has to be asked do they give the benefits claimed for them? Another article in the magazine provides the answer. They say that a new 3 year authoritative study carried out at the “University of Kansas shows that GM crops are producing lower yield than their non-GM counterparts, undermining claims that a switch to the controversial technology will solve the growing world food crisis.”

The study showed that GM crops produced up to 9% less crops than non-GM. But it improved when “extra manganese was added, leading to the suggestions that genetic modification hindered the crop’s take-up of the essential element from the soil.” Which means that those who eat GM foods are not going to get it either. Plants only contain what is in the soil they are grown in and what they take up from it. If something is done, or happens to them to stop them taking a specific element then they will not contain it.

Philip Conford asks: “What lessons can we learn?” The answer is that “The organic movement survived the propaganda onslaught, attracted new adherents and eventually flourished. With the optimistic glow of technological agriculture having dimmed, the organic movement must again display its founders’ tenacity in advocating a sustainable alternative.”

Here it has been demonstrated that the claims of the Technological Industry does not stand up to scrutiny and that the opposite is true to what they claim. But what about the other side? Are they drawbacks that most people know nothing about? There are and they will be the subject of another post. You are asked to note that the Organic Movement just present the facts, providing the source they used to obtain them and leaving us to make up our own mind.

A lot of people, indeed, most, believe that organic food is better for you and for the planet than conventional food, but this doesn’t usually equate to action, i.e. this is what they buy, particularly if it is more expensive and money is short.

Monty Don, in an interview in The Guardian says that the Soil Association is regarded as being “for wealthy, middle-class people indulging in their penchant for peasant food”. He says that intends to slay this view, partly by helping to steer the association towards adopting a more inclusive, advisory persona, as well as nurturing a “for the people” public image.

He adds that a revival of the “dig for victory” ethos offers, many environmental, health and economic benefits, not least at a time when sales of organic food have, as reported in the Guardian yesterday, fallen by a fifth since February due to the collective tightening of belts. “We need to use our horticultural skills – which are second to none in the world – to grow food,” he says. “It’s really important to get people aware of just how tenuous our food supply really is.”

He says: “We don’t value food in Britain, so therefore the cheaper it is the better it is. We all eat far too much, we all pay far too little for our food. We have environmental problems, we have health problems, we have food transport problems.

“All one can do in the face of [criticism] is to say, ‘You are entitled to your view, but these are things that need to be addressed’. The enemy or opponent we are taking on …” Just as Don is reaching the zenith of his battle cry, he is interrupted by shrieks from the kitchen. A grass snake has slithered under the counter and triggered mild panic, not least in the family’s golden retriever puppy. Don coolly takes a pair of kitchen tongs, gently pincers the snake by its head, and carries it back out into the garden. Crisis over.

He picks up the thread: “By far the most dynamic age group growing food is the 28- to 38-year-olds, which is historically not a gardening age group. I think that most people are aware that it takes so much oil and water to produce what they’re eating. But the problem is inherent within the solution, in so much as you don’t want to tell people what to do. But you do want to encourage, enthuse and inform them.”

So will this lead him to host a campaigning television series, perhaps in the mould of Channel 4’s much-discussed week of programmes in January about the chicken industry fronted by Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall?

“Yes, it’s on the cards. Due to being ill, I put a stop to all work and officially I haven’t committed myself to anything. But the danger is that by being on television you become part of the institution. I like the idea of fifth columnists and subversion. You don’t stand on a podium with a loud-hailer telling people what to do, which the British absolutely hate. You’ve got to somehow get under the skin of the system and make lots and lots of small changes.”

Don sees himself helping to nurture networks of community gardeners who exchange seeds, labour, tools and time in order to grow food – in part inspired by al-Qaida. “This terrifying, disastrous evil has actually usurped and upset the whole system. It makes you ask: what were they doing right? Well, they just bypassed, they stepped aside, they’re just not there. You need to join together, not delegate … to a government body.”

Don’s huge distrust of politicians is much evident. “My experience of working with government has not been fruitful, I have to say. I’m not aligned to any party, although, like many people, I feel very disillusioned by the current government, but don’t feel very hopeful over any alternative. Power is not the right bit of kit to do this job. It’s about going after the hearts and minds. Yes, there will always be: ‘Why should this wealthy TV wanker tell me what to do?’ and it’s not a bad question. Why should I? But I think you’ve just got to allow people to reject what you say.”

One proposal Don suggests to help the Soil Association reach a wider audience is to reconsider the use of the term “organic”. “It’s an albatross. Organic is loaded with a sense of rightness, with a set of rules. I would much rather someone bought food that was local and sustainable but not organic than bought organic food that had to be shipped across the world. We’ve got to move away from making people feel lesser because they’re not [eating] organic. There is no doubt about it, ’sustainable’ is a better expression for the same sorts of ideas than ‘organic’.”

Don sits upright, apparently in the mood to slay further sacred cows. So what about GM food, previously an over-my-dead-body issue for the Soil Association? “It’s there to be debated,” he says. “You can’t just say it’s bad because it’s bad. Plant breeding has been going on for millennia and it’s a gradual process. At the moment I feel not nearly enough research is being done on the effects of GM and I have no faith at all in the goodwill of the producers and their motives. [But] my overall feeling is that I would not discount anything.”

So is this new, blood-pumping, campaigning role really going to offer him the stress-free life his doctors no doubt recommend? He says he will take it slowly at first, but that he already feels buoyed and renewed by the thought of challenge ahead: “I do feel optimistic. But I also feel that I’m 53, both my parents died in their sixties, and you’ve got to leave this world in a better place that you find it…. and not just give in.”

He is only saying what others, from all different walks of life, beliefs, etc are saying. It can be said that Belonging, be it part of a family, a group with shared interests, concerns, etc is “Programmed into our Genes” and we function best when we are. We want to know people, and to know that they do not view us as a source of money but are genuinely there to help.