Dangers Of Chlorinated Water, May 22, 1998

Gazette Note: This article is from the outstanding online environmental newsletter, Rachel’s Environmental Newsletter. You can  read back issues at http:www.rachel.org

 

 

There were just over 4 million live births in the U.S. in 1992 (4,065,000, to be exact), according to the STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES 1997.[1] In addition to these live births, there were 30,000 fetal deaths in 1992, the most recent year for which we have data.[2] A fetal death is one that occurs after at least 20 weeks of gestation in the womb but prior to birth. In actuality, there were very likely more than 30,000 fetal deaths in 1992. The STATISTICAL ABSTRACT (table 124) says, “There is substantial evidence that not all fetal deaths for which reporting is required are reported.” In any case, life expectancy at birth in the U.S. in 1992 was 75.8 years,[3] so fetal deaths that year resulted in the loss of at least 30,000 x 75.8 = 2.27 million person-years of life. In addition, of course, many of these 30,000 fetal deaths precipitated a personal crisis for the parents.
In addition to fetal deaths, there are spontaneous abortions — pregnancies that terminate spontaneously before the end of the 20th week of gestation. These are far more common than fetal deaths, though the exact number is not known. Various studies estimate that spontaneous abortions occur in somewhere between 6.5% and 21% of all pregnancies.[4] Thus in 1992, there may have been at least 265,000 to 855,000 spontaneous abortions in the U.S.

Together, spontaneous abortions and fetal deaths are termed “miscarriages.”

Recent studies indicate that some miscarriages –as well as some serious birth defects –may be caused by the chlorine added to drinking water as a disinfectant.

In the U.S., chlorine is added to public drinking water supplies as a public health measure to kill harmful bacteria in the water. The added chlorine reacts with naturally-occurring organic matter in the raw water (chiefly humic and fulvic acids), creating a host of chlorinated chemicals as by-products. Health agencies, including the federal EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] simply ignore most of these by- products and know almost nothing about them. Instead, they focus on four by-products, allowing these four to act as surrogates for all the others. The four that EPA pays attention to are chloroform, bromoform, bromodichloromethane, and chlorodibromomethane. Together, these four are called “trihalomethanes” or THMs. According to federal drinking water regulations, if a public water supply serving over 10,000 people contains more than 100 parts per billion (ppb) of total trihalomethanes, the water is unacceptable. However, since there are usually no other available sources of drinking water, EPA is usually not in a position to do anything except urge the water supplier to try to clean up its act.

A study by the California Department of Health published in March, 1998, tracked the drinking water consumption and the pregnancy outcomes of 5144 pregnant women in a prepaid health plan during the period 1989- 1991.[5] This was a prospective study –the drinking water consumption of the women was ascertained as soon as their pregnancy was registered in the study’s database. Later, the outcome of their pregnancy was compared with the amount of water they drank and the total amount of trihalomethanes they received by drinking water (information received from the water companies). The study found that 16% of women drinking 5 or more glasses of water per day containing more than 75 ppb THMs had miscarriages, whereas only 9.5% of women drinking less water, or water lower in THMs, had miscarriages. Thus among women with high exposure to THMs in drinking water, the likelihood of spontaneous abortion was 1.8 times as great as it was among women with low exposure. Furthermore, spontaneous abortion occurred, on average, a week earlier among women with high exposure (10.2 vs. 11.2 weeks of gestation). The strength of this study was its prospective nature; it did not rely on women to remember how much water they drank in the past.

To see if their results represented a real effect, the researchers compared women who filtered their water, or who let the water stand before drinking it, with women who drank it straight from the tap. (THMs are volatile and will slowly leave water that is allowed to stand.) The results were consistent with THMs causing spontaneous abortion.

In January of this year, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry published a case-control study showing that serious birth defects –spina bifida, or neural tube defects –are associated with total trihalomethanes ingested in drinking water.[6] Neural tube defects are serious birth defects in which the spinal cord is not properly enclosed by bone.

This statewide study in New Jersey found a doubled risk of neural tube defects among those with the highest exposures to THMs in drinking water. This study pointed out that exposure to THMs can also occur through the contamination of indoor air. Flushing toilets, showering, and washing dishes and clothes, can inject THMs into household air, exposing residents.

A previous study of 75 New Jersey towns by Frank Bove had examined 80,938 live births and 594 fetal deaths that occurred during the period

Model 77. “The World’s Greatest $77 Water Filter.”

1985-1988. This study examined public water company records and compared pregnancy outcomes to the amounts of THMs delivered to the home in drinking water. It did not examine the amount of water ingested. The study found no relationship to fetal deaths, but the likelihood of neural tube defects was tripled by exposure to THMs at levels exceeding 80 parts per billion.

This study provoked a letter to the editor of the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY,[8] in which the authors suggested a biological mechanism by which trihalomethanes might cause neural tube defects. Neural tube defects are known to be associated with vitamin B12 deficiency and the letter pointed to studies showing that vitamin B12 use by the body can be disrupted by chloroform, one of the four main trihalomethanes in chlorinated drinking water.

An even earlier case-control study reported on pregnancy outcomes among women who delivered babies at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston during the years 1977-1980. Indicators of water quality were taken from public water supply companies. No data were available on the amount of water ingested. The water quality indicators were compared among 1039 cases of babies born with birth defects, 77 stillbirths, and 55 neonatal deaths (babies that died within a week of birth) vs. 1177 controls. Stillbirths were 2.6 times as common among women exposed to chlorinated surface water, compared to controls whose water was disinfected with chloramine instead of chlorine.[9]

More recently, a study of drinking water and pregnancy outcomes in central North Carolina reported a 2.8-fold increased likelihood of miscarriage among women in the highest exposure group for trihalomethanes in drinking water.[10]

Very recently, a second study from the California Department of Health has shown that, in one area of California, women who drank cold tap water had nearly a five-fold increased risk of miscarriage, compared to women who drank mostly bottled water very low in trihalomethanes.[11] Bottled water is often disinfected by a process called ozonation instead of chlorination. Bubbling ozone through water kills bacteria effectively, avoids the distinctive taste and odor of chlorine in the treated water, and produces no dangerous trihalomethanes. Many people buy bottled water simply to avoid the taste of chlorine.

U.S. EPA is currently setting new standards for trihalomethanes in drinking water. The new regulations would apply to all water companies, not just those serving 10,000 people or more, and they would limit total THMs to 80 ppb, down from the present 100 ppb.[12] Still, since several studies link trihalomethanes at 75 ppb or even less to increased miscarriages, EPA’s new standard seems dubious even before it has been established.

American water suppliers seem stuck on chlorination as the best way to disinfect drinking water. However, many European cities, and some Canadian cities, such as Ottawa, have long ago turned away from chlorination in favor of ozonation to disinfect their water. In recent years, a few smaller American cities have begun to use ozonation: Emporia, Kansas and Littleton, Massachusetts, for example. The Santa Clara Valley Water District in California has announced that it is switching to ozonation over the next 5 to 8 years, as has the city of Las Vegas, Nevada.

Still the vast majority of water supplies in the U.S. remain chlorinated. And water quality experts remain in the dark about trihalomethane levels in water delivered to customers. Kellyn S. Betts, writing in ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY quotes the EPA official in charge of the new THM regulations saying no one knows how many U.S. water systems deliver water with THMs exceeding 75 ppb.[12] Betts says the American Waterworks Association confirmed for her the absence of data on THM levels in U.S. drinking water systems. The current reporting system only keeps track of water systems that exceed 100 ppb as an annual average.

Erik Olson, a water quality expert with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an environmental group in New York City, points out that THM levels in water supplies typically increase by as much as a factor of 1.5 to 2 during the summer months. And he says short-term exposures may be very important in producing some of the pregnancy outcomes reviewed here –spontaneous abortions, fetal deaths, and serious birth defects. “We may be totally overlooking the risk of short- term exposure,” Olson said.[12]

–Peter Montague (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)


Water–Are You Drinking Enough?

by Hardly Waite, Gazette Senior Editor

Here are some facts from a brief article in The Compleat Mother, one of our favorite magazines (#64, Winter, 2001).

  • In 37% of Americans, the thirst mechanism is so weak that it is often mistaken for hunger.
  • 75% of Americans are chronically dehydrated.  (It is likely that this applies as well to half the world’s population.)
  • Even mild dehydration slows down one’s metabolism as much as 3%.

    A Shower Filter Can Bring Joy to Your Life.

    Please click the picture for details.

    You’ll Sing Better!

  • In a University of Washington study, a single glass of water shut down midnight hunger pangs for almost 100% of the dieters.
  • The #1 trigger of daytime fatigue is lack of water.
  • Research indicates that eight to ten glasses of water per day could significantly ease back and joint pain for up to 80% of sufferers.
  • A mere 2% drop in body water can trigger fuzzy short-term memory, trouble with basic math, and difficulty focusing on the computer screen or on a printed page.
  • Drinking five glasses of water per day decreases the risk of colon cancer by 45%,  the risk of breast cancer by 75%, and the risk of bladder cancer by 50%.

Another authority says: “Water is also the best medicine, both inside and outside the body. The finest prevention for malaise (after an evening of excess consumption!) is a pint of water before bed.”

So, drink up!

 

Dr. Batman Thumbs His Nose at “Bad Cholesterol”

 

By Hardly Waite, Pure Water Gazette Senior News Analyst

 

 If all the primary ingredients are available for its normal functions, the human body does not engage in making things that are bad for its survival.–Dr. Fereydoon Batmanghelidj, M.D. 

If there’s one thing medical science is incapable of, the late Dr. Robert Mendelsohn used to say, it is admitting that it doesn’t know something. That’s why every human ailment, real or imagined, very quickly gets a cause assigned to it.  Causes can change quickly and be replaced by more plausible and more profitable ones, but no disease goes long without its corresponding culpable germ or human foible to explain it. Lyme Disease, I am told, had 17 successive causes before a really good one was settled upon.  

Once a guilty microbe or lifestyle flaw gets assigned to a disease and thoroughly rooted into the public mind, there’s no way to change it. That’s because there quickly develops a powerful loop of self-interest that takes in the insurance industry, drug sellers, medical practitioners, university researchers, professional fundraisers, and even the victims and the would-be victims of the condition. Examples are  numerous. Polio and “AIDS” are the most obvious.   With “AIDS” we have an ill-defined disease caused by a fabricated virus and blown into a media-driven epidemic that has spawned a robust industry.  “AIDS, Inc.,” as researcher Jon Rappoport calls it. 

For a number of years one of the most sacred and seldom-challenged nuggets of medical dogma has been the idea that human heart ailments result from “bad cholesterol” and that heart disease can be kept in check by measuring this evil substance and controlling it through drugs. Although we vegetarians like to take comfort in the thought that it’s eating fatty flesh that causes human hearts and arteries to gum up and fail, I’ve never totally believed the cholesterol story. While there may be a correlation between cholesterol readings and the likelihood of having a heart attack, treating the cholesterol itself as if it were a disease is probably just one more example of the old medical strategy of shooting the messenger. Again, examples are numerous.  

Medical mythology, which is fond of depicting the human body as a war zone, makes good use of the metaphorical battle between the good and evil forces within us. On one hand, we have “good” cholesterol that is there to help us, but on the other is “bad cholesterol” that is as evil as the Demon Himself. This catchy concept grabs the public attention and is easily communicated to patients.  It gives the doctor something to treat with drugs, and lowering the amount of bad cholesterol while raising the good becomes the objective of treatment. 

 

This concept has not been without its detractors.  Back in the late 1960s, for example, Dr. Joseph Price put forth a very plausible alternative to the cholesterol theory in his interesting little book called Coronaries/Cholesterol/Chlorine.  Dr. Price argued convincingly that heart disease was virtually unknown before the 20th century, although high-cholesterol food consumption certainly wasn’t. What was new in the 20th century, he pointed out, and what seems to parallel exactly the onset of heart problems as a major disease, is the practice of disinfecting public water supplies with chlorine. 

To prove his theory, Dr. Price did an experiment with chickens and seemed to prove that chickens who eat a diet containing oleo and lots of chlorine quickly develop heart problems, while chickens eating oleo without the chlorine don’t. Price himself cautioned that no conclusion should be generalized to humans from animal research.  But the theory and some of the evidence he presents are strong. Although an EPA scientist replicated some of his research and basically endorsed his findings, Price was totally ignored by the medical community.

A more recent alternative to the cholesterol theory has been presented by Dr. Fereydoon Batmanghelidj, author of the popular and thought-provoking Your Body’s Many Cries for Water.While serving time as a political prisoner in an Iranian jail,  Dr. Batmanghelidj made some initial discoveries which led him to hold strong beliefs about the critical importance of water consumption.  He later applied his findings to heart disease as well a wide number of degenerative diseases, pains, and ailments–asthma and arthritis, for example. 

Regarding heart disease, Dr. Batmanghelidj takes the medical profession to task for ignoring the vital roles of cholesterol in the body, and he points out some obvious flaws in the cholesterol theory. “The pharmaceutical industry,” he says, “has capitalized on the slogan of ‘bad cholesterol’ and has produced toxic-to-the-body chemicals that minimally lower the level of cholesterol in the body and in the process cause liver damage to thousands of people, some who die as a result of using the medication.” 

Here’s how Dr. Batmanghelidj explains the cholesterol question: 

In truth, the so-called ‘bad’ cholesterol is actually far more beneficial than is appreciated. The reason for its rise in the body is because of complications caused by chronic unintentional dehydration and insufficient urine production. Dehydration produces concentrated, acidic blood that becomes even more dehydrated during its passage through the lungs before reaching the heart–because of evaporation of water in the lungs during breathing. The membranes of the blood vessels of the heart and main arteries going up to the brain become vulnerable to the shearing pressure produced by the thicker, acidic blood. This shearing force of toxic blood causes abrasions and minute tears in the lining of the arteries that can peel off and cause embolisms of the brain, kidneys and other organs. To prevent the damaged blood vessel walls from peeling, low-density (so-called ‘bad’) cholesterol coats and covers up the abrasions and protects the underlying tissue like a waterproof bandage until the tissue heals.

Dr. Batmanghelidj says, therefore, that low-density cholesterol actually performs a life saving function by compensating for the effects of dehydration.  He continues: 

Cholesterol is an element from which many of our hormones are made. Vitamin D is made by the body from cholesterol in our skin that is exposed to sunlight. Cholesterol is used in the insulating membranes that cover our nerve systems. There is no such a thing as bad cholesterol. If all the primary ingredients are available for its normal functions, the human body does not engage in making things that are bad for its survival. Until now we did not know water was a vital nutrient that the body needed at all times–and in sufficient quantity. Water itself–not caffeinated beverages that further dehydrate–is a better cholesterol-lowering medication than any chemical on the market. It is absolutely safe and is not harmful to the body like the dangerous medications now used.

As you can guess, Dr. Batman’s treatment for heart disease has about as much chance for immediate acceptance by the medical establishment as the idea that “AIDS” isn’t a communicable disease caused by a virus. Imagine the headline: 

PHARMACEUTICALS STOCKS PLUMMET AND CLINICS CLOSE WITH NEW AMA TREATMENT PLAN–“DRINK MORE WATER”   

The AMA notwithstanding, you should take a long look at Dr. Batmanghelidj’s website, where you’ll find some pretty amazing information about the importance of drinking adequate amounts of water. It’s at http://www.watercure.com/.   

And don’t forget Dr. Price’s advice about chlorine.  Actually the two go together, because people naturally drink much more water when it doesn’t have chlorine in it.  That’s a fact I’ve been observing in practice for a long time, so I was glad to find it described nicely by a genuine Kahuna.   Here’s how Lono Kahuna Kapua A’O describes the chlorine/water relationship in his book,Don’t Drink the Water (Without Reading this Book): 

Doctors and patients alike have a hard time understanding the problem of dehydration because the patient doesn’t feel thirsty. But it’s erroneous to assume that anyone who is dehydrated feels thirsty. That’s because thirst is a biological response subject to the influence of conditioning.  Humans instinctively dislike the taste of the chlorinated chemical beverage that passes for water in most places.  As a result, they learn to avoid drinking it, substituting flavored diuretic beverages like coffee, tea, soda and beer.  This causes even more water loss! Gradually, people who do this learn to turn off their thirst response and recognize thirst only when it is severe. That’s why those who drink water only when they feel thirsty are usually dehydrated! 

The Gazette urges you to find a source of pure, delicious, unchlorinated water and  drink copiously and  immoderately. 

 

The Press: Intellectual Prostitutes

by Hardly Waite

Responding to a toast to the “free press,” near the end of his career, John Swinton, former Chief of Staff of the New York Times, told an assembly of newsmen at the New York Press Club:

There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job.

If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell the country for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press. We are the tools and vassals of the rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.

When recently I heard a National “Public” Radio commentator deny that any content-limiting pressure whatever was imposed upon NPR personnel, I said: “Ha, Ha, Ha.”

 

Birdwatchers Must Be Protected from Chainsaw Huggers

By Tiger Tom 

I, Tiger Tom, wish to bring to your attention an imminent and serious economic threat.  It endangers the multi-billion dollar  birdwatching industry.  You may not know that birdwatching in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico generates $25 billion per year in hard cash and it employs over 60,000 people.  In economic clout,  it’s right up there with some of our major industries.  According to the New York Times, “bird watchers now spend more than  $25 billion a year on feed, binoculars, travel forays and high-tech innovations like winterized birdbaths and television ‘nest cams’ to track their plumed favorites from home or watch penguins caper live on the Internet.” There now is even a pro-birdwatching brand of coffee,  Under Cover Coffee, which is harvested without the stripping of bird habitats that usually goes with coffee farming.

Birdwatching, or birding as its enthusiasts call it,  is the fastest growing outdoor activity in America. According to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,  the unobtrusive world of bird watchers and feeders now includes about one-fifth of the American population, more than 50 million people.  Birdwatchers outnumber hunters and fisherpeople combined. 

The great thing about birdwatching is that it exerts an overall positive rather than a negative impact on our world.  One writer calls it “a non-consumptive use of renewable resources.”  Its very existence, in fact, depends upon the protection of wetlands and wilderness.  Birdwatching thrives on conservation and its growth depends upon the preservation of biodiversity. It is very unique in that it thrives on conservation while almost everything else we do seems to depend upon destruction. 

I, Tiger Tom, say that the birding industry is far too important for the world economy for us to stand idly by and allow it to be endangered by irresponsible loggers, developers and other predators who are rapidly destroying the habitat of birds and in the process the economic well-being of this important industry.  I say that these chainsaw- and bulldozer-hugging vandals must be kept in check.  They are a menace to the thriving and essential birding industry.

A Shower Filter Can Bring Joy to Your Life.

Please click the picture for details.

You’ll Sing Better!

What is needed, of course, is a strong birdwatching lobby that comes out in force every time the chainsawers start looking at an old-growth forest with lustful eyes. Why is there no richly funded, hardball-playing National Birdwatching Industry Association to elicit public write-in/call-in campaigns when bird watching  jobs are threatened by clear-cutting and strip-mining special interests?  I, Tiger Tom, suggest that it is because birdwatchers are far too nice for their own good. While they are out quietly spying on robins or writing down finch or warbler observations,  the loggers are out there telling crude treehugger jokes,  goosing each other, and cutting. Always cutting. 

I, Tiger Tom, say that birdwatching is a vital part of the American economy and it needs protection from the bulldozer lovers.  To learn more about birdwatching, visit the Audubon Society website at http://www.americanbirding.org  Also see the American Birding Association website at http://www.americanbirding.org .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


More B. Bea Sharper from the Archives of the Pure Water Gazette

Gazette Numerical Wizard B. B. Sharper Ferrets Out the Facts that Harper’s Misses

Average time it takes blood to complete a complete circulatory cycle among vertebrates: 10 to 30 seconds.

Average time for a complete circulatory cycle among many insects: 30 minutes.

111,111,111 x 111,111,111 = 12,345,678,987,654,321

The longest recorded flight of a chicken : 13 seconds.

Distance that the cruise liner Queen Elizabeth II moves for each gallon of diesel that it burns: 6 inches.

Number of persons in two billion who will live to be 116 or older: 1.

Number of cows required to make enough leather for a year’s supply of NFL footballs: 3,000.

Percentage of people who use personals ads for dating that are already married: 35.

Percentage of total weight of the world’s humans as compared with the total weight of the world’s termites: 10%

Average speed of catsup leaving the bottle: 25 miles per year.

Percentage of Russian government income that comes from vodka sales: 10.

Number of muscles in a cat’s ear: 32.

Average number of people who choke to death each year on ballpoint pens: 100.

Gallons of water required to produce a pound of wheat: 25.

Gallons of water required to produce a pound of meat: 2,500.

Percentage of typing done by the average person’s left hand: 56%

Percentage of harmful organic waste water pollution attributable to humans: 10.

Percentage of harmful organic waste water pollution attributable to livestock: 90.

Average pounds of paper consumed per person each year in the United States: 560.

Average pounds of paper consumed per person each year in Nigeria: 7.

Number of possible ways to make change for a dollar: 293.

Estimated percentage of the generic diversity of the world’s 20 key food crops that has been lost in just the past 50 years: 75%.

Gallons of water required to produce a ton of paper from virgin wood pulp: 24,000.

Number of dimples on a regulation golf ball: 336.

Amount contributed to members of Congress in the period 1987-96 by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association: $1,422,434.

Amount received during the same period from meat industry lobbyists by Senator Phil Gramm of Texas: $611, 484.

Percentage of American grain that is fed to livestock: 70%.

Number of people in the U.S. killed each year by assault rifles: 250.

Number of people in the U.S. who die each year from cancer related to pesticides: 10,400.

Percentage of all pesticides used in the world that are used on cotton: 25%.

Average number of American soldiers who died per year during the 12 years of the Viet Nam War: 4,800.

Number of medical schools in the United States: 127.

Number of these schools that don’t offer even one course in basic nutrition: 102.

According to a Life magazine report, percentage of babies born to Gulf War veterans who have been born deformed: 67%.

Number of Americans who die prematurely each year because of alcohol abuse: 125,000.

Percentage of Britons opposed to Monsanto’s efforts to introduce genetically altered foods before the company staged an advertising blitz in 1998 to gain public support: 44%.

Percentage of Britons opposed to Monsanto’s efforts to introduce genetically altered foods after the 1998 advertising campaign: 51%.

Percentage of the American population that is made up by three out of four Americans: 75%.

Number of Americans who miss work each day because of digestive health problems: 200,000.

Approximate number of people on earth who have the same birthday as you: 9,000,000.

Number of bombs the United States has dropped on Iraq since 1990: Thousands.

Approximate cost of a single “smart bomb” dropped on Iraq: $1,100,000.

Number of year-long jobs paying $10 per hour that could be paid for by the price of a single bomb dropped on Iraq: 60.

Number of $10 meals that could have been purchased for the price of a single bomb dropped on Iraq: 1,000,000.

Number of four-year scholarships to a top private American university that could have been paid for by the cost of a single bomb dropped on Iraq: 10.

Number of computers that could have been bought for American schools for the cost of a single bomb dropped on Iraq: 1,000.

According to an audit commissioned by the EPA, percentage of violations to federal safe drinking water rules that are not reported: 88.

Percentage of Americans who believe that the sun revolves around the earth: 18%.

Percentage increase in American children aged two to four taking psychiatric drugs like Prozac and Ritalin between 1991 and 1995:  50%.

Percentage of these children who were 2-year-olds: 10%.

 

Read BB Sharper regularly in the Pure Water Occasional.

Bacteria Rights


Posted April 16th, 2012

BACTERIA RIGHTS: All About Picking Nits

The Gazette Pleads Compassion for the Tiny and Unpopular Folk

by Gene Franks

The identification of the true and the good is but a pious wish.– Miguel de Unamuno.

Editor’s Note:  This piece appeared originally in a paper Pure Water Gazette in the early 1990s Some of the organizations referenced no longer exist.–Hardly Waite.

Among the things that clutter my desk for a season or two then disappear, there was once an article by William Murchison, the paragon of conservative wisdom, that I had torn from someone’s Dallas Morning News. If I had it now, I would give you a line or two to illustrate how totally steamed up a righteous man can get when things don’t go according to his Plan. What got Murchison’s blood boiling and his pen spitting venom was that some Catholic prelate or other had offered a public prayer entreating the Almighty to care for the amoebae.

It wasn’t that Murchison had anything against amoebae; he just thought that with erratic stock prices and consumer confidence on the decline there were enough real problems to keep several Almighties jumping without worrying the One-and-Only with the silly affairs of wee nothings like amoebae.Murchison went on to chastise the “animal rights” people for wasting time fretting about monkeys and rats while Earth was bulging with people who needed fretting about. Murchison’s statements qualify him as a serious proponent of an ism most people don’t think about much. Speciesism. It’s a deeply rooted mode of thinking, surely as old as humanity, though the term didn’t enter our lexicon until the mid-1970s. Peter Singer, the Australian philospher who coined it, defines speciesism as “a prejudice or attitude of bias toward the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species.”

 

Marjorie Spiegel, in The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery, expands its meaning to include the belief that “different species of animals are significantly different from one another in their capacities to feel pleasure and pain and live an autonomous existence.” Some animals, as Orwell said, are more equal than others.

Probably you think I’m leading into an attack on Murchison, Limbaugh et al–the loathsome speciesists. To the contrary, I shall belabor the point that we all are speciesists. Holding one’s own species above others has always seemed as normal as rice cakes to me–a necessary ingredient for survival. Likewise, it seems normal to place the welfare of those most like us above that of those less like us; it’s easier to feel sympathy for a camel than for his intestinal parasites.

It is fashionable to scorn “bourgeois” creeds like Christianity and capitalism. Jean Genet, the French criminal and writer, said, however, that if one is truly to reject middle class values, one must learn to like licking spit from the sidewalk. Hygiene, too, is middle class. To deplore Christianity while wearing clean underwear is mere intellectualizing. Similarly,if one is to be really legitimate, to reject speciesism, as is becoming fashionable, one must put intestinal parasites on a par with the camel. Or the poodle. The avoidance of speciesism is essentially an intellectual exercise with little application to reality. The most eager supporters of the welfare of other species are often, in fact, the most blatant practitioners of species discrimination.

Long before I had heard of Peter Singer or animal rights, I read a newspaper ad for a ritzy steak dinner sponsored by a local humane society to benefit its pet cemetery. What interested me–along with a curiosity to know if the humane-ists replaced their dead poodles’ blood with embalming fluid, planted them in little boxes, and sang tearful hymns–was that they did not see the irony. My grade-school daughter caught on right away: “Boy, they really love their pets, but they sure don’t love cows much.” A few years later, when another organization announced a fur show to raise money for its shelter for battered women, lots of people noticed the absurdity. One young man griped so loudly that the group abandoned its project. That’s progress, I thought.

The reason the fur show got thumbs down, though, was not because the world had taken a step toward enlightenment but simply because fur is an easy issue. People easily see the injustice of murdering a racoon or a mink so a snooty lady can flaunt her wealth in its skin. (Bob Barker suggests that the world’s snooty ladies could better flaunt their riches by wearing cloth coats with thousand-dollar bills pinned to the sleeves.) Protesters against fur get the thumbs up sign even from guys in pickups with gun racks. If you demonstrate against hamburgers or rodeos, you get a different hand sign from pickup drivers. Try parading for the rights of fleas, ticks, cockroaches or E. coli and you’ll get nothing but a horse laugh from everybody. Species equality is only a theory, even among the animal rights community.

To my knowledge, there is no organization devoted to preventing cruelty to fleas or cockroaches. Ironically, some of the most persistent persecutors of such unpopular life forms are promoters of humane treatment of favored animals. Take the the lowly flea. Although the planet’s fleas outweigh the human population (Life, May 1994), no one seems concerned about their rights. They are, in fact, specific targets of persecution by the group of speciesists I shall call companionists. If you haven’t heard of companionism it’s because I only recently coined the term. Many now avoid saying “pet” and refer to the dogs and cats who live with them as “companion animals.” I, therefore, call those who put the rights and welfare of their companion animals above those of other creatures companionists.

Some companionists stop at nothing to spare a puppy or a kitten the slightest inconvenience, but don’t bat an eyelash at mass execution of the “pests” that nature has assigned to their favorites. Killing fleas and ticks, in fact, is regarded as an essential part of humane treatment of companion animals. The question is only how one can dispatch them “environmentally,” since we’re finally catching on that when you poison the flea, you also poison the dog and the person who lives with the dog. “Environmentally acceptable” solutions aren’t necessarily humane. For example, a Texas animal rights group recently devoted most of a newsletter issue to “safe” flea and tick control. They recommended use of diatomaceous earth (DE) on fleas. DE kills fleas by piercing their waxy protective moisture barrier so that they die of dehydration. The article reports it matter-of-factly. Had the writer been reporting the death by thirst of a neglected horse or circus animal, or of a retriever chained in Texas summer heat, the tone would have been one of pity and outrage.

 

 

 

 

The dog and cat business, let’s face it, is not only the supreme example of speciesism in action, but also one of our great crimes against the environment. While we are quick to point out the environmental devastation and consequent animal suffering caused by human meat eating, we conveniently ignore that ever greater amounts of meat are being consumed by companion animals. Visit any supermarket for verification. More shelf space is devoted to pet food than to baby food. Pets are pests to the planet, but so ingrained is companionism in our society that few are bold enough even to suggest reducing their numbers.

Permaculturist Bill Mollison says that if you want to do the planet a great favor you will eat your dog, mulch your cat, and shoot your horse. These domesticated favorites are essentially useless–a drag on the system. Termites, by contrast, are literally indispensable to the planet’s existence. And without bacteria, plants could not grow and life would be impossible. But true to our self-destructive penchant, we devote great resources to nurturing dogs and to eradicating termites and bacteria.

Now, so you won’t think I’m pitching a flea or termite protection society I’ve just founded, I’ll explain that I’m picking on dog and cat people simply to make us all ponder our inconsistency. We pick from among Earth’s creatures as if we were choosing bananas at the market, then invent lofty reasons to justify our choices. We all are guilty of species discrimination. Even Peter Singer argued, for reasons I find flimsy, that it is acceptable to eat certain mollusks.

 

 

So, companionists will please refrain from writing angry letters. You were only a convenient example. I could have as easily pointed a finger at organic gardeners, those blatant speciesists who divide the insect world into “pests” and “beneficials” They love their darling lady bugs and trichogamma wasps but are fierce persecutors of aphids and cabbage loopers. Or at myself, for, though it pains me to confess it, 1, too, have a totally useless black dog living in my back yard for whom, in true speciesist fashion, I get tinned and dried carcass from the supermarket. May the gods of cows, the rainforest, and good sense forgive me.

Veganism

When a man becomes steadfast in his abstinence from harming others, then all living creatures will cease to feel enmity in his presence.– Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras.

VEGANISM—pronounced VEE-gunizm—means living on the products of the plant kingdom, excluding flesh, fish, fowl, animal milk and dairy produets (butter, cheese, yogurt, etc.), eggs, honey, animal gelatin, and all other foods of animal origin. It also excludes animal products such as leather, wool, fur, and silk, in clothing, upholstery, etc. Vegans usually make efforts to avoid the less-than-obvious animal oils, seeretions, ete., in many soaps, cosmetics, toiletries, household goods and other common commodities.–Definition of veganism from Ahimsa, the American Vegan Society’s official membership journal.

Our society is spineless when it comes to taking a stand on the age-old questions about our conduct toward our fellow creatures. Typically, moral leadership comes via some bird-blasting authority figure who enjoins us to be “kinder and gentler.” Christianity has over the centuries only muddied the waters with its vagaries about our “dominion” over others, a phrase generally taken as license to eat, pillage, or exploit whatever we choose with God’s blessing. Ironically, Big Science, or Scientism, as Professor Pietro Croce calls it, which is now America’s leading religion, simply duplicates the dominion creed by promoting “humanism” and our manifest right to exploit and experiment on other creatures for the greater glory of Man.

The East has traditionally given more attention to the human/animal question.. As a result, the concept of Ahimsa is deeply rooted in Oriental thinking. Ahimsa is a Sanskrit word that means non-killing or non-violence. It is sometimes rendered in English as “dynamic harmlessness.” Victoria Moran, in her book on veganism, Compassion: The Ultimate Ethic,describes living in accord with Ahimsa as “purposefully living to do the most good as well as the least harm possible.” The key is “least harm possible,” because totally harmless living is a theory, not a practical possibility. Try as we will, we leave paths of destruction. Ordinary acts like breathing and walking do great violence. Mowing a lawn destroys a million universes. Practicing Ahimsa is referred to as “walking lightly upon the earth.” But still one must walk.

Veganism, often called the First Pillar of Ahimsa, attempts to put Ahimsa into practice, especially in dietary and lifestyle choices. As commonly used, veganism is an extreme form of vegetarianism. Its practice can be complicated.

For the past several decades, Mr. H. Jay Dinshah has devoted himself, with keen insight, indefatigable energy, and, as you are about to witness, no small amount of good humor, to the never-ending task of unravelling the complications that surround veganism. Mr. Dinshah founded the American Vegan Society (AVS) and serves as its president. He is also editor ofAhimsa, an information-packed journal which has been “lighting the way since 1960,” as its banner proclaims.

The Gazette is honored to reprint an excerpt from Mr. Dinshah’s voluminous writings. The piece below is on the subject of vinegar eels, a problem that most readers probably do not worry about much. It is from a longer piece entitled “Maple Syrup, Gelatin, and Vinegar,” from the October-December 1993 Ahimsa. In it, Mr. Dinshah examines vegan concerns about three common foods. Maple syrup has been rumored to contain a small amount of animal fat added to the sap to keep it from foaming during processing. Mr. Dinshah’s investigation revealed that while animal fat was used at one time, this is no longer the case. Maple syrup is, therefore, “ethically acceptable,” though, like all artificial sweeteners, not recommended in large quantities from the health standpoint. Gelatin, most commonly known to Americans as the popular junk food called JELL-O, contrary to rumors to the contrary, is still made from “slaughterhouse collagen (found in the connective tissue, bone, and cartilage of animals)” and is therefore not an acceptable vegan food. In the article that follows, Mr. Dinshah explains the American Vegan Society’s findings on vinegar.

VINEGAR

by H. Jay Dinshah

An interesting question arose recently regarding the use of vinegar. What are vinegar eels, and do they play a part in the vinegar making process?

Vinegar eels are a type of nematode (thread-like worm), the maximum size of which is variously given as 1/10 to 1/2-inch long. Their eggs are carried from place to place by tiny fruit flies (Drosophila), and deposited on or in the skin of the apple, which gives them a free ride to the vinegar making establishment.

Initial AVS investigations (mainly encyclopedia articles) seemed to indicate the utilization of vinegar eels in the manufacturing process. However, a careful checking with The Vinegar Institute of Atlanta, Georgia revealed that eels are not used deliberately, but rather viewed as a pest or contaminant, apparently not related to the vinegar process itself.

They may live (eating, secreting, and reproducing) at any stage of production, in the top layer of the fermenting liquid. In modern submerged-culture fermenters they are less common than in old-style packed generators. The eels and eggs are killed by pasteurization, and removed by filtration. Their presence is also minimized by modern hygienic procedures in the factory that reduce the likelihood of transfer.

It is not a case of adding a pound or two of nematodes to alcohol (from apple cider, grape wine or grain alcohol) to convert the raw material to vinegar This is done by bacterial action on the decomposing fruit substance.

There appear to be some ethical grounds–though perhaps not overwhelming ones–why vegans should not use vinegar, as compared to any number of other foods which need cleaning off of insects or their eggs, or require animal droppings to be washed away. From a standpoint of squeamishness, it should be pointed out that one customarily washes one’s fruits, vegies, and leafy greens; and if a garden-variety bunny has seen fit to relieve herself on a plant it is easily cleansed.

This cannot be said of a liquid in which tiny worms have been “eating, secreting, and reproducing,” to say nothing of swimming, diving, or water-skiing. On the other hand, with the realities of bulk transport and storage, the average consumer (vegan or otherwise) would probably prefer not to know that the federal government sets standards on how many pounds of rat-dirt or gallons of urine are permissible per carload of flour. Sorry ’bout that.

Aside from the ethical question, there is good reason to be wary of vinegar. The bacterial decomposition of apples (from which most food vinegar is made) creates first alcohol, and then acetic acid (which gives the sour taste).

To quote Agatha & Calvin Thrash (both M.D.’s) in Nutrition for Vegetarians, “Acetic acid, a waste product in the human body, is an irritant to both the stomach and nerves. It is one of the three commonest dietary causes of gastritis in the United States, along with aspirin and alcohol. All products made with vinegar can just as easily be made with lemon juice, a healthful article. Pickles made with vinegar are injurious to the stomach lining, causing loss of protective mucus and changes in the lining cells (nuclear enlargement and coarsening of the chromatin and increased mitosis [cell division-ed. D.].”

The vinegar question was discussed at length at two AVS Council meetings, and it was decided to leave the substance in the “gray area” between vegan and unacceptable products (along with refined sugar, photo film, rubber tires, etc.).

The Council Members noted how easily vinegar is replaced with citrus juice, and felt vinegar use should be discouraged, but would not necessarily refuse a salad with dressing containing a little. Due to the mitigating facts they stopped short of abstinence as a requirement for AVS Advanced Membership.

We are not dictators to dogmatically force our views or actions on others, but seekers of Truth. When the facts are known, it is our duty to help others understand and act on the matter according to the development of their own consciences. A line must be drawn somewhere, though, for voting purposes, to avoid a vegan society’s degenerating to the lowest common denominator of practice, and eventually being led (by sheer weight of numbers) down some “middle path” of “ovo-lacto-pisco-pollo-porko-bovo-veganism.”

Ahimsa is a quarterly publication of the American Vegan Society. Membership is open to all. Please contact AVS/ 501 Old Harding Highway/ Malaga, NJ 08328, or call (609) 694-2887 for information.

Buying Shoes in a Mutual Eating Society

By Gene Franks

The biological world is a mutual eating society in which every species is the prey of another. But if there were any species not preyed upon by another, it would increase and multiply to its own self-strangulation, as human beings, through their skill in defeating other species (such as bacteria), are in danger of disrupting the whole biological order by over-population and thus of destroying themselves.–Alan Watts.

There is an old Taoist story about a farmer whose horse ran away. His neighbors consoled him, saying that losing his horse was a terrible misfortune. “Could be,” said the farmer. The next morning his horse came back, and with him a half dozen beautiful wild horses. “What great luck!” said the neighbors. “Could be,” said the farmer. That afternoon, the farmer’s son fell from one of the wild horses he was attempting to ride and suffered a broken leg. “What rotten luck!” said the chorus of neighbors. “Could be,” said the farmer. The very next day the Emperor’s conscription officers passed through the area seizing able-bodied young men for service in the army. The farmer’s son with his broken leg was passed over. “What great luck you’re having!” said the neighbors. “Could be,” the farmer replied.

The moral, if stories must have a moral, is that in this world of illusions things are often quite different from what they seem on the surface. We usually assume that it is better to have seven horses than one or that it is bad to break your leg. But these are only assumptions. I see in my own life that when I think I’m winning I’m often losing, and vice versa. Perhaps the story also means that what is good for one is not necessarily good for another. The farmer’s son, an impetuous rider of wild horses, might have preferred seeking his fortune in the Emperor’s army to withering away in the safety of his home listening to Taoist stories. Could be.

Several years as an “aspiring vegan” have taught me that the practice of harmlessness is relative to the individual and that there is no universal standard of diet or conduct that can be applied to every individual in every condition of life. Eskimos or desert nomads would quickly perish eating the food that American vegans thrive on. Certainly a Canadian subsistence hunter cannot be measured with the same moral yardstick as an urban American. And to adopt a “more harmless than thou” attitude simply because we do not eat blubber or snare bunnies is to misunderstand completely how Earth’s “mutual eating society” operates. A typical American who drives a car, takes the elevator to his office, or wears a plastic raincoat is just as surely a slayer of animals as the subsistence hunter who stalks and kills a doe, butchers her for food, and makes his clothing from her skin.

Far more items than most of us imagine originate from exploitation of animals. Automobiles, for example, roll on tires that contain animal ingredients. To follow Ahimsa to the letter, one would have to forego automobile ownership and also give up products brought to market in automobiles or made of ingredients transported in automobiles. Even if you limit your food to that grown in your own garden with “cruelty-free” tools, seeds, and fertilizer (if such existed), brought in on foot by someone wearing non-leather shoes, you still have to fret about cutting up earthworms with your spade or eating their castings with your turnips.

In our commerce-driven social system in which we “act” indirectly, mainly through product purchases, following the path of harmlessness is especially complicated. We are often reduced to making “lesser evil” choices which are more statements of principle than clear-cut acts of harmlessness. Although for several years I have bought only non-leather shoes (a considerable hassle for one who wears size 14), I’m not convinced that this is more than a gesture. A vegetarian friend who wears leather shoes argues convincingly that a single pair of sturdy leather shoes, cared for excellently and worn until they disintegrate, causes less environmental damage, hence less animal suffering, than the five pairs of synthetics I wear out in the same time span. The havoc caused by manufacturing and transporting my five pairs of size 14s is considerable. My friend takes the pragmatic view that it is kinder to use the skin of a cow that has already been murdered for her flesh than to encourage the making of synthetics. Could be.

Several years ago I read a piece by Mr. Dinshah on the use of photographs in Ahimsa. Film contains animal ingredients, so strict application of vegan principle would prohibit photos. However, photographs enhance the publication’s ability to promote harmlessness, and it was concluded that the end justifies the means. This seemed sensible to me. Living in the real world involves compromise. Being kind to dogs sometimes makes it necessary to be unkind to fleas. Total harmlessness would require total inactivity, which is itself contrary to the goal of doing “the most good” as well as the least harm.

To illustrate how complicated this can get, Mr. Dinshah could elect to use drawings and not photographs in Ahimsa, but he would then have to consider the contents of the drawing materials, the wisdom of paying an artist money that could otherwise be spent to promote harmlessness, and even how the artist would spend the money. In the case of my shoes, an alternative would be to wear no shoes at all. The most “harmless” action in many cases is simply not to act. But wearing no shoes would be a decisive act that would change my life completely. It’s hard enough to earn one’s bread wearing Converse basketball shoes. Try doing it barefoot. And should we not consider the employees of non-leather shoe companies who will lose their jobs if I stop buying shoes?

Now, to get even more complicated, suppose I find a pair of really good size 14 leather shoes for $5 at the Goodwill store. Should I buy them? Would it make it acceptable if I donate the $175 1 save on basketball shoes to the American Vegan Society? The cow is dead, whether I buy the shoes or not; and if I don’t buy them, they’ll probably go to the city dump, since it isn’t likely that some other giant-footed fool who doesn’t mind wearing unstylish clodhoppers will come along. Am I not, in fact, committing an act of violence and being a pious hypocrite if I fail to buy and use these perfectly good leather shoes?

And suppose I find some great used canvas size 14s that have only a tiny patch of leather to protect the heel. Should I buy them, and if so, should I take the leather off? And suppose . . .


How Much Does Food Really Cost?


Posted April 12th, 2012

How Much Does Food Really Cost?

by Hardly Waite, Pure Water Gazette Senior Editor

    There is a pervasive misconception about food prices in the United States because of the way we keep our books. We like to congratulate ourselves for having “cheap” food by world standards and to attribute this low cost to our efficient and highly productive food provision system. This is because most people are not aware that the price we pay for food at the market is only a tiny part of the real, complete price.. The real cost involves hidden dollars as well as non-monetary costs of far greater importance. Viewed in its totality, we pay more for food than any nation on earth. 

    For example, there are massive taxpayer-funded subsidies for transportation systems, including super highways, bridges, harbors, and airports that allow long-distance shipping of large quantities of food items. This makes food appear artificially cheap. People do not consider that without super highways local growers would be able to compete with multinational corporate farmers. These subsidized transportation systems greatly benefit large corporate food producers and actually work to the disadvantage of small local food producers by flooding their market area with cheap food brought in from great distances. What we pay for roads is part of the cost of food.

    Publicly financed global communications systems also greatly aid large corporate food producers at the expense of small growers, and they, too, must be considered as part of the cost of food. One estimate is that U. S. corporations benefit from subsidies and externalized costs to the tune of $2.4 trillion per year. This corporate welfare comes out of our pockets.

    Another potent subsidy item is university research, which is rarely if ever aimed at helping small farmers or local markets. Instead, it focuses on high-dollar technologies that benefit corporate agribusiness and do great harm to smaller producers and usually to the environment. For example, The Ecologist reports the case of a mechanical tomato picker that was developed at considerable public expense at the University of California. It greatly reduced labor costs for large tomato farmers, but its purchase price was so high that smaller growers could not afford to use it in their fields. “This one technology,” says The Ecologist, “helped to consolidate California’s 4,000 tomato farms into just 600 in about a decade.” Taxpayers paid a little less for tomatoes at the market, but they also got to pay for some very expensive research. The 600 surviving companies got fatter and richer, but 3,400 smaller tomato farmers, not to mention innumerable laborers who were replaced by the picking machines, would be hard pressed to see the benefits of this publicly financed research..

Sprite Shower Filters


You’ll Sing Better!

http://www.spriteshowerfilters.com

    And then there are the direct subsidies we taxpayers give to “farmers.” When they talk about farm subsidies on the Ten O’ Clock News, people envision the Brown family keeping their little vegetable farm going with the help of an Agriculture Dept. check. Actually, in both the U.S. and the United Kingdom, a full 80% of the government’s financial help goes to the richest and largest 20% of the “farmers.” The needy farmers being fed at the public trough, of course, are multinational agribusiness conglomerates who use part of their subsidy checks to gobble up the family farms of the Browns and their neighbors who did not qualify for subsidies. Add the cost of farm subsidies into your food budget.

    Perhaps the most intangible of the costs of agribusiness food, however, is the “health tax.” How do you estimate the cost to your health of consuming nutrient-depleted foods, drinking pesticide contaminated water, and breathing polluted air? Perhaps the greatest cost of all is hidden in the impact of corporate agriculture on the environment and the health of citizens. Air pollution, greenhouse gasses, soaring cancer rates, fossil fuel and water depletion–these are all hard items to assign costs to. But pay for them we do, each time we purchase a factory-raised chicken or a loaf of phony bread at the supermarket

    The Pure Water Gazette urges its readers to support local growers and to resist the agribusiness effort to globalize food production and destroy small food producers. Buy locally and organically whenever you can. The slightly higher price you pay the local grower is a bargain. 

 


 

Winterize Your Lawn


Posted April 12th, 2012

Winterize Your Lawn

Introductory Note. “Winterize your Lawn” takes a whimsical look at a very serious flaw in the American lifestyle. The grassy, well-kept lawn, which we have come to think of as an inevitable and never-ending icon of our culture, will eventually have to go. As sure as the sun sets in the west, we will eventually be forced by the necessity in the form of water shortages and environmental pollution to find a better use for our time and limited resources than the meaningless ritual of grass growing. Our stubborn adherence to the culture of the lawn will surely make us the laughing stock of future civilizations—the society that worked its fingers to the bone watering and nurturing a useless crop that we then harvested with noisy, smelly little toys, and sent to the landfill in neat plastic bags.

As silly as it seems, lawn care has become such an entrenched ritual in America that to criticize the custom is like failing to support the troops or refusing to kowtow before the flag.

“Winterize your lawn,” by an unknown author (or one too wise to reveal his name), is encouraging to me because it reminds me, a lawn atheist, that the Almighty is really on my side. – Gene Franks.

 

Winterize your lawn,” the big sign outside the garden store commanded. I’ve fed it, watered it, mowed it, raked it and watched a lot of it die anyway. Now I’m supposed to winterize it? I hope it’s too late. Grass lawns have to be the stupidest thing we’ve come up with outside of thong swimsuits! We constantly battle dandelions, Queen Anne’s lace, thistle, violets, chicory and clover that thrive naturally, so we can grow grass that must be nursed through an annual four-step chemical dependency.

Imagine the conversation The Creator might have with St. Francis about this:

“Frank,  you know all about gardens and nature. What in the world is going on down there in the Midwest? What happened to the dandelions, violets, thistle and stuff I started eons ago? I had a perfect, no-maintenance garden plan. Those plants grow in any type of soil, withstand drought and multiply with abandon. The nectar from the long-lasting blossoms attracted butterflies, honey bees and flocks of songbirds. I expected to see a vast garden of colors by now. But all I see are these green rectangles.”

“It’s the tribes that settled there, Lord. The Suburbanites. They started calling your flowers ‘weeds’ and went to great extent to kill them and replace them with grass.”

“Grass? But it’s so boring. It’s not colorful. It doesn’t attract butterflies, birds and bees, only grubs and sod worms. It’s temperamental with temperatures. Do these Suburbanites really want all that grass growing there?”

“Apparently so, Lord. They go to great pains to grow it and keep it green. They begin each spring by fertilizing grass and poisoning any other plant that crops up in the lawn.”

“The spring rains and cool weather probably make grass grow really fast. That must make the Suburbanites happy.”

“Apparently not, Lord. As soon as it grows a little, they cut it–sometimes twice a week.”

“They cut it? Do they then bale it like hay?”

“Not exactly, Lord.  Most of them rake it up and put it in bags.”

“They bag it? Why? Is it a cash crop? Do they sell it?”

“No, sir. Just the opposite. They pay to throw it away.”

“Now let me get this straight. They fertilize grass so it will grow. And when it does grow, they cut it off and pay to throw it away?”

“Yes, sir.”

“These Suburbanites must be relieved in the summer when we cut back on the rain and turn up the heat. That surely slows the growth and saves them a lot of work.”

“You aren’t going believe this,  Lord. When the grass stops growing so fast, they drag out hoses and pay more money to water it so they can continue to mow it and pay to get rid of it.”

“What nonsense! At least they kept some of the trees. That was a sheer stroke of genius, if I do say so myself. The trees grow leaves in the spring to provide beauty and shade in the summer. In the autumn they fall to the ground and form a natural blanket to keep moisture in the soil and protect the trees and bushes. Plus, as they rot, the leaves form compost to enhance the soil. It’s a natural circle of life.”

“You better sit down, Lord. The Suburbanites have drawn a new circle. As soon as the leaves fall, they rake them into great piles and have them hauled away.”

“No! What do they do to protect the shrub and tree roots in the winter and keep the soil moist and loose?”

“After throwing away your leaves, they go out and buy something they call mulch. They haul it home and spread it around in place of the leaves.”

“And where do they get this mulch?”

“They cut down trees and grind them up.”

“Enough! I don’t want to think about this anymore. Saint Catherine, you’re in charge of the arts. What movie have you scheduled for us tonight?”

Dumb and Dumber, Lord. It’s a real stupid movie about…”

“Never mind.  I think I just heard the whole story.”

 

My Secret Life as

a Farmer

by Gene Franks

Cultivators of the earth are the most valuable citizens . . . the most vigorous, the most virtuous, and they are tied to their country and wedded to its liberty and interests by the most lasting bonds.–Thomas Jefferson.

I was not born to govern, but to dig and to plow.–Sancho Panza.

For a color picture and more information about this hero, whom we call The Passionate Amateur, see the editorial note at the end of this article.

 Editor’s Note:  This piece was published in the early 1990s in the paper Pure Water Gazette. At this writing,  April of 2012,  it is clear that the author’s fears about agribusiness seed patenting have become reality.

 

Stephen Foster, they say, was never in Kentucky, but he managed somehow to write the best song anyone ever wrote about his or her old Kentucky home. This gave me courage to write something about agriculture.

While my hands-on farming experience is probably not much greater than Foster’s experience with old Kentucky homes, I have been, all my days, an enthusiastic consumer of agricultural products as well as a passionate winter farmer. Winter farming is to be understood in the context of summer patriotism and sunshine soldiering.

On one of the two or three days cool enough to pass for winter here, I get out my seed catalogs, drool over the pictures in front of a nice fire, then call in an order for enough seeds to plant a broad greenbelt from by back door to somewhere deep in Central America. In two weeks I have chairs and tables filled with trays of peat pots, which soon contain pale seedlings with Olive Oil figures–more like growing hairs than future vegetable bushes. Some live long enough to get transplanted later to outdoor soil.

From that point, things go downhill. Spring, here, is only a calendar maker’s theory, and as the weather heats up, my passion for farming cools down. Heat makes me philosophical; I start thinking about plants rights, especially the right of Johnson weed and Bermuda grass to live among beets and okra if they so choose. In the end, the weeds and grasses predominate. I get some potatoes, planted by the easy Ruth Stout no-digging system, and enough tomatoes to gorge myself on for a few days. I have lots of grapes, if the rain falls right, plums, if a late frost doesn’t ruin them, and most years a tree full of bright orange Japanese persimmons, of which I sell half to the Persimmon Lady for $5.

If you have a persimmon tree, you probably know the Persimmon Lady. I see her only at harvest time, just after the first frost, when she shows up at my door and insists on buying part of my crop, although I offer it free. Probably, like a phantom from a sad country song, she visits all farms with persimmon trees so she can make big trays of her deceased daughter’s favorite persimmon candy to take to orphanages. That’s my theory, anyway. So although my farming has more often taken the form of planning, theorizing, and talking than of plowing, digging, and sweating, I consider myself a farmer none the less. And it is the annual sale of half my persimmon crop that makes me a professional farmer and qualifies me to write with authority about agriculture.

On Seeds and Unsung Heroes

As food crops become more uniform, so do cultures. Foods and crops are an important part of a people’s heritage: they perpetuate and enrich its customs. As food crops become more uniform, so do people. As traditional varieties become extinct, human cultures lose something very special and irreplaceable.–The 2nd Graham Center Seed and Nursery Directory (1983).

 

Gardeners are emerging as principal biological heroes in the struggle of the era to maintain the biological diversity that sustains life on the planet. Backyard biodiversity is becoming prime territory for the conservation of life.– Seeds of Changc 1994 Seed Catalog.

It was during my winter seed catalog ogling almost 20 years ago that I started to catch on that events of great significance were taking place that almost no one knew about. While junk news consumers were wallowing in the tribulations of whoever was the O.J. Simpson of the time, I, sans TV then as now, was reading some weird stuff in the old Graham Center Seed Directoryand Kent Whealy’s Seed Savers Exchange bulletins. I learned, for example, that in 1970, after several decades of pressure from the seed Industry, which is actually an appendage of multinational oil and pharmaceuticals corporations, Congress quietly caved in and passed the nation’s first seed patenting bill. It was quickly signed into law by President Nixon. Ten years later, a lame duck Congress passed controversial amendments to the original legislation which were signed by President Carter.

No one seemed too worried about this but a couple of professors, a man in Princeton, Missouri named Kent Whealy, folks at a non-profit organization called the National Sharecroppers Fund, and a few thousand radical vegetable gardeners in small towns around the country who were depleting their meagre resources and working their dirty fingernails off to keep about half a million ancient plant varieties that were being dropped from seed catalogs from becoming extinct. I should explain, for you non-farmers, that preserving plant varieties doesn’t mean just putting little bags of seeds in alphabetioal order. Seeds must be planted to make new seeds from time to time because their life span is limited. It was a formidable task. Something like saving the rainforest by replanting it in your backyard. Like the heroes of old who brought the Scriptures through the Dark Ages, amateur gardeners were feverishly working to keep plants alive when the establishment wanted them dead.

I read about heroes like John Withee, who founded a non-profit organization called Wanigan Associates (“the legal name for a one man bean hobby,” he called it), for the purpose of collecting, propagating, and distributing seeds of heirloom beans. (For more information about Mr. Withee, go here.) [Heirlooms, by broad definition, are open-pollinated varieties several generations old–often of European descent. Open-pollinated means plants which pollinate without human interference, or, in Kenny Ausubel’s words, “they propagate themselves in the imaginative multiplicity of sexy practices nature designed.”] Wanigan (Withee), without a government grant or a research staff, was keeping about 400 varieties of beans alive. His “associates” were amateur gardeners around the country who volunteered to plant and save seeds from specific varieties of beans.

And there was Kent Whealy, a journalist who got interested in heirloom plants when Baptist Ott, his wlfe’s grandfather, gave him some bean, tomato, and morning glory seeds he had brought from Bavaria and kept going for four human generations. Whealy was soon so involved in seed saving that he quit his day job, lived through some financial hard times, and eventually founded a non-profit organization called Seed Savers Exchange that became the rallying point for individuals interested in saving heirloom plant varieties from extinction.

Whealy stated the organization’s purpose in the 1981 Seed Savers Exchange yearbook:

Thc Seed Savers Exchange is an organization of gardeners who are working together to save heirloom and endangered vegetable varieties from extinction. We are particularly interested in contacting gardeners who are presently keeping seed of vegetable varieties that are: family heirlooms; not in any seed catalog; garden varieties of Indian, Mennonite, Amish, Dunkard, Hutterite, or Cajun gardeners; foreign unusual or mutational extremely disease-resistant, insect-resistant, or drought-resistant; very hardy, of exceptional quality, or otherwise outstanding.

Wheaty eventually moved the SSE from its original Mlssouri home to the present site at Heritage Farm in lowa. (SSE, RR3, Box 239, Decorah IA 52101.) Heritage Farm, recently expanded to 84 acres, is home of an Incredible cache of seeds, literally thousands of vegetable varieties, some dating from the Mayflower. There are even some endangered animals, including the ancient wild white park cattle, hunting targets in England from the 12th century, now almost extinct. A recent project was the addition of about 500 varieties of 19th century apples.

Of the many dedicated amateurs who devoted much energy to bringing heirloom plants through the Dark Ages of the 20th century, I will single out a gentleman named Ben Quisenberry. I bought tomato seeds from Mr. Quisenberry for several years. For a couple of dollars, he always sent six times as many seeds as I ordered in little packets with the lines:

 

The kiss of the sun for pardon
The song of the birds for mirth
One is nearer God’s heart
in a garden
Than anywhere else on earth.

Mr. Quisenberry lived in Syracuse Qhio. I still have correspondence from him in my file, written in a clear, steady hand when he was in his nineties. In his last letter, from January of 1982, he returned my $3 and told me he was now past 95, out of the seed business, and a resident at “the Charleston Court, a home for old folks.” Two years earlier he had suffered a tragic loss. He had to go to the hospital “just when my tomato garden of 500 plants needed me most,” and when he got out he had lost 22 of the 31 tomato varieties he was propagating. Among the lost varieties were Stump of the World, a rare Square tomato, and Tiger Tom.

.The regular seed lists Mr. Quisenberry sent me featured names like Big Ben, Long Tom, Red Cup, Mortgage Lifter, Marglobe, Chech’s Bush, and his favorite, the pink, thin-skinned Brandywine, which, he boasted had been grown for over 100 years by the same family: “Proof of excellence.” Anyone interested can still grow Mr. Quisenberry’s Brandywine by purchasing seeds from Seeds of Change, currently the nation’s leading purveyor of heirloom seeds [PO Box 15700/ Santa Fe, NM 87506. Phone: (505) 438-8080.]

Mr. Quisenberry, an expert tomato grower, maintained hundreds of varieties of tomatoes from 1910 until shortly before his death. His seed lists always encouraged customers to become ex-customers by saving their own seeds. Here, for posterity, are the instructions he sent me for saving tomato seeds:

Tomato should be dead ripe; cut in half between the stem and blossom ends. Push the seed out of the cavities, and wash on a piece of wire fly screen to remove the pulp and goo from the seeds. Spread them out on a smooth board; move them around occasionally so they won’t stick together or to the board. When thoroughly dry, store in an air-tight container. Longevity of tomato seed is 5 years or longer.

Mr. Quisenberry won’t make the history books, but he was one of my heroes. Why does our society consider it more important to kick a ball or write a movie script than to grow tomatoes? (For a related article on Mr. Quisenberry, with an impressive picture, go to the Gazette’s Hero Award section.)

The Curious Custom of Plant Patenting

Under existing plant patenting legislation, corporations get protective patents, royalties and vastly reduced competition. Farmers and gardeners are faced with illegal varieties, hybrids whose seeds cannot be saved and royalty fees they never had to pay for non-patented seeds. Plant patenting laws offer protection for corporate profits while further narrowing the genetic basis on which agriculture itself depends.Declaring certain varieties illegal and patenting others is a bizarre luxury we cannot afford. The 2nd Graham Center Seed and Nursery Directory (Rural Advancement Fund, 1983).

 

Old friends are always the best, you see,
New friends you can find any day–

From an old Jimmie Rodgers song.

 

The concept of ownership, even the parts we accept through long usage, can be bizarre. Each year a Kansas oil company sends me two or three checks for about $15 in payment for my .0065105000 royalty interest in crude oil taken from beneath land described as NE/4 SW/4 NE/4 SECTION 20-12N-10E of Okfuskee County, Oklahoma. Like the cab driver in the Harry Chapin song, I always stuff the check in my shirt, but I can’t quit wondering how I, among all earth’s creatures, was chosen to be the “owner” of something that was in the earth eons before I was born. Apparently I own it because my grandfather happened to plant corn on the land above it, but it would make as much sense for me to claim a .0065105000 share of sunshine or the planet Jupiter.

 

Suppose I decide to keep “my” oil rather than sell it to the Sonoco Oil Co. (which I probably couldn’t do, since I only “own” the right to sell it for the price the oil company sets, not to possess it), and I learn to process my oil in some special way that makes it unique and that I go to the U. S. Patent Office and get a patent on my particular type of oil. All who sell oil that falls under my patent description will then have to pay me royalties. But my oil looks exactly like everyone else’s and it is very hard to enforce my patent, so I go back to the Patent Office and to help me out they give me a patent on all oil that is black so it will be very easy to tell who is using my oil. Imagine Exxon’s dismay upon learning it will have to pay to use my patented black oil.

 

This story isn’t as far-fetched as you think; in fact, it closely parallels the deal we got when the same multinationals who later brought us NAFTA and GATT bullied Congress into allowing plant patenting. The patenting of plants is an idea so absurd that sensible people would not entertain it, but while Americans were getting their opinions on farm policy from Green Acres , “ownership” of the cardboard tomatoes on their burgers quietly passed from the public domain to ITT.

 

Ownership of plants falls in the same category as the ownership of sunshine. Tomatoes, for example, are ancient beings. They were cultivated by the Incas and Aztecs (“tomato” derives from an Aztec word). They were “discovered” by Spaniards, taken to Europe, then “introduced” to America by Europeans early in our history. They have been standard American fare since the late 19th century. But by obtaining the right to patent plants, the multinationals have put themselves in a position to “own” patented varieties of tomatoes, to charge us a fee for using “their” tomatoes, and even eventually to gain control over broad categories of tomato varieties to protect their patent rights. In a recent example, a company that obtained patents for two genetically altered varieties of snap beans was given a patent over hundreds of similar snap beans. Cary Fowler, in the old Graham Center Seed Directory for 1979, described events in Europe, where Common Market interests brought in seed patenting before our own laws were passed:

 

In Europe where the [seed patenting] laws were first passed, there have been problems with enforcement. It is not easy to describe a variety of tomato or anything else in such detail that it could be positively distinguished from another variety in a court of law. Furthermore, as the varieties are grown each year they often change (genetically) in subtle ways in response to their environment. This presents more legal headaches for the company trying to enforce its patent on a “product” which differs from year to year. In an attempt to reduce these problems, European lawmakers are phasing in a system which would make some plant varieties now grown in Europe illegal! These varieties could not be grown commercially. Their seeds could not be sold. Even backyard gardeners could not grow the illegal varieties if their gardens were located within a certain distance of a commercial plot. Think of being hauled into court on a charge of growing a “Big Boy” tomato!

 

Immediately after the passage of seed patenting laws in England, Shell Oil of Great Britain bought 56 seed companies. In the United States, the number of seed companies has fallen rapidly since plant patenting became law; most of the old standard seed companies are now owned by multinational oil, chemical, and pharmaceuticals companies. If you buy Burpee seeds, you are now buying from ITT. Gurney belongs to Amfac, Golden Acres to Diamond Shamrock, DeKalb to Monsanto, Ferry Morse to Limagrain of France. Other highly invested seed company owners are Cargill, Ciba-Geigy, Union Carbide, International Multifoods, Occidental Petroleum, Sandoz, Stauffer Chemical, and Upjohn. Seeds aren’t just business; with patenting, they have become very big business.

 

Although the seed trade itself can be lucrative, especially if you “own” certain plant varieties whose seeds can’t be saved by customers, the multinationals’ main interest in seeds is that they complete a cozy loop with their other businesses. Seeds fit nicely with agribusiness, the processed food industry, oil, and pharmaceuticals. The idea is to create monoculture crops that require lots of agricultural chemicals and energy-intensive farming methods to produce food that is easy to package and sell but so devoid of nutrients that the end product is medical and pharmaceuticals customers. A cozy loop.

 

Because the people who make agricultural chemicals also sell seeds, much research (paid for usually by public grants to universities) is dedicated to developing pesticide-resistant plants. The push is to create plant varieties that go best with oil-and-chemical-intensive agriculture and that lend themselves to mass merchandising rather than consumer satisfaction and nourishment. To believe that companies that take in millions per year on headache remedies don’t want you to have a headache is ultimately naive. To drug vendors, nutritionally depleted, chemical-laden foods are as much an asset as illness-producing drugs and vaccines.

The immediate effect of the multinational companies’ takeover of the seed industry has been a drastic and serious loss of plant diversity. Small seed companies, often family owned, had for years been a mainstay against government-supported standardization of agriculture. Old varieties of farm and garden seeds were maintained and supplied as a matter of tradition and as a service to customers, even when they were not best sellers. New corporate owners, however, conducted the seed business the same way they conducted their other businesses, with a bottom line of profit. Marginally profitable varieties were quickly dropped in favor of the company’s best selling patented hybrids. [For non-farmers: Hybrids are produced by human intervention through crossing two genetically different parents. Hybrids are dear to seed companies’ hearts because seeds cannot be relied upon for future planting. You have to go back to the seed company for next year’s seeds.] Abandoned strains of traditional plant varieties quickly perish unless a conscious effort is made to preserve them.

So much has been written about the importance of biodiversity in regard to rainforest preservation that I won’t belabor the point except to say that the same urgent need exists for agricultural diversity. The adage that variety is the spice of life does not go far enough. Variety is nature’s most persistent strategy for excellence and for survival. While most people now grasp the importance of preserving endangered animal species, few are concerned about losing the Chech’s Bush tomato.

 

The junk news has woefully underreported the precarious state of America’s food production system. Few know, for example, that in 1970 we barely averted disaster when corn blight wiped out a large part of the nation’s hybrid corn crop. The National Academy of Sciences warned that not only corn but “most crops are impressively uniform genetically and impressively vulnerable.” Of the innumerable varieties of corn, large seed companies had by the 1970s quietly squeezed a// but six varieties virtually out of the market. Seventy-one percent of America’s corn crop was grown from only six varieties, and three of these were said to be virtually identical. Only one variety of sweet potato accounts for 69% of our annual crop, and 95% of our peanuts are from 9 varieties. It is a system designed to make money, not to assure an abundant and secure supply of nutritious food.

 

Junk Food, Junk News:

The American Way

Big Mac is a junk version of food, porno a junk version of sex, virtual reality a junk version of life—they all entertain but leave one with a sort of hollow, empty feeling afterward.–Christopher Scheer in The Nation.

 

Our problem lies in the postulate that everything can be “explained” by taking recourse to death-related laws.—Theodor Schwenk.

 

 

When issues are filtered through regular government, business, and public information channels, which I collectively call the junk news, they usually come out in neat, TV-compatible parcels. The complexities which contain the substance are lost in the process. For example, when the junk news presents the “controversy” surrounding vaccination, which is a terribly complex issue, it is conveniently reduced to the statistical probability of your child’s having a dramatic reaction to a shot. As devastating as reactions are, especially to damaged or dead children and their parents, they are only a small part of the larger issue of what vaccines do to the individual’s total health and the health of others, or how they affect the well-being of future generations.

The issue of conventionally vs. organically grown food, similarly, has been implanted in the public mind as largely a question of pesticide residues. Thus, your choice between organic broccoli, at triple the price, and the grocery store variety may be based on how you view the conflicting reports of how many rats per thousand are killed by how many parts per million of this as opposed to that pesticide. Important as pesticide residue is, it is only at small part of the issue.

The molding of public opinion on food has been exceptionally effective. We are trained by the junk media and university nutritionists to view the body as a sort of input/output machine that runs on fuels called proteins, carbohydrates and fats. These are viewed by nutrition “experts” as dead and impersonal objects, like gasoline or diesel fuel, whose power can be measured as “calories” and whose worth can be manipulated with synthetic additives. To use the great German hydrologist Theodor Schwenk’s term, food has been “demythologized.” Once a source of wonder and veneration, revered in Springtime rituals as a symbol of life itself, the noble grain of wheat has now been hybridized, chemicalized , and devitalized–embalmed and buried, with an impersonal epitaph called a food label, in a frozen pepperoni pizza.

Schwenk also said that “a subtle death-process” was at play in the creation of such devices as the refrigerator and the automobile, where “natural laws were stripped of wisdom and projected into matter.” Certainly a “death process” was involved in the creation of our food production and delivery system. The end of the process, the modern supermarket, is a graveyard of embalmed animal cadavers, chemicals contrived to resemble food, grains grossly overprocessed from genetically engineered seed to deadly Twinkie, and tasteless, painted, rubbery imitations of fruits and vegetables which have only coincidental resemblance to their namesake.

Part of the input/output mythology is that foods have a constant value in food-label grade nutrients that has been recorded for all time in government nutrient lists like USDA’s famous Handbook 8.Though it has been known for decades that these compilations are myth, people still believe in them and universities still teach them as gospel. I remember an article from 1960s by Adele Davis called “Which Apricot? Grown Where?” which demonstrated the utter fallibility of the nutrient-table system. More recently, the General Accounting Office demonstrated at length that Handbook 8 is flawed and unreliable and that, in fact, most information on processed foods is simply copied from manufacturers’ brochures without verification. After all, McDonald’s would not lie. (USDA has forgotten, perhaps, that a major baby food maker, all its baby-adoring ads notwithstanding, was convicted of selling flavored sugar water labelled “apple juice” for years.) We have recently heard stories of frozen orange juice and even “fresh” grocery store oranges that contained no trace of vitamin C. Papayas tested by GAO contained less than 1/7 the vitamin A promised by Handbook 8.

 

Once Again, the Killer Tomato

 

People joke about the deplorable quality of produce and say “tomatoes don’t taste like they used to,” but few realize fully the torture that modern agribusiness inflicts on standard food plants. Peter Bahouth, former director of Greenpeace, was eating a salad one day in Toronto and became curious about the tomato’s origin. His research resulted in an article called “Attack of the Killer Tomato,” which appeared in the 1994 Seeds of Change Catalog and was excerpted in Vegetarian Voice (Vol. 20, No. 3).

The tomato, Bahouth discovered, was grown on Mexican land that had once been publicly owned “ejidos,” or small collective farms worked by local farmers. It was now controlled by a partnership of the Jolly Green Giant Company and the Mexican Development Corp. The killer tomato was grown from a hybrid seed developed from a Mexican strain at U.S. taxpayer expense by the University of California, then sold to Calgene, Inc., which obtained a patent.

The land was “prepared” by fumigation with methylbromide, said to be an ozone depleter 120 times more potent than CFC-111, then treated with Monsanto pesticides by $2.50-per-day unprotected Mexican farm workers. Production waste was shipped to the world’s largest hazardous waste landfill in Emelle, Alabama.

After harvest, the tomato was wrapped in plastic, placed in a plastic tray, and put in a cardboard box. Citizens of Point Comfort, Texas get the brunt of the health problems from making the plastic, while 300-year-old trees in British Columbia and Great Lakes area residents downstream from pulp mills take the hit for the boxes.

The tasteless tomato, once boxed, was reddened by ether and shipped to Canada in CFC-refrigerated trucks at great expenditure of energy. In Toronto, the plastic was discarded and shipped to Detroit for incineration. The amount of fuel used for the entire process is staggering. Behouth concludes:

The Toronto tomato probably cost 50 cents, but we can see that if we really look at the true economics of an everyday item like a tomato we are not folding in the social costs of this type of production. That’s what is really driving this type of economic system. You realize that having your own garden and growing your own tomatoes can be a very subversive and radical act. And it makes the fruit taste that much sweeter.

 

The Gazette challenges you do do something radical. Grow a tomato!

 

Editor: “My Secret Life as a Farmer” first appeared in the Spring 1995 issue (No. 45) of the PURE WATER GAZETTE. Related articles from the same issue you might like to look at are “Is Organic Food Worth the Price?” by Gene Franks, and Tiger Tom’s weighty indictment of animal patenting, “Give ’em an Inch.” The caption to the lead picture of the tomato farmer was originally the lead in to “The Gazette’s Great Coloring Contest.” I’m sorry–the contest is over, but if you’d like to print the picture and test your crayola skills, have at it.

 

Below is the winning entry as colored by Mr. R. L. Duwe of Decatur, TX. Here’s the Gazette’s artsy rationale for choosing Duwe’s entry, which appeared in Gazette #46:

If I were an art critic, I would explain Mr. Duwe’s strength as a crayonist by praising his radiant colors, his keen attention to surface detail, his rich pigmentation, and his superb pictorial arrangement. I would describe how his strong, rhythmic curvilinear organization enhances the theme of the work. I would speak of the rich nuances of color, the boldness of his crayon strokes, the perfectly executed perspective, the intimacy he establishes with his subject matter, the delicacy of his flesh tones, his masterful use of symbolism to elevate the tomato grower to archetypal proportions. But not being an art critic, I’ll just say that he stayed in the lines, his picture was pretty, and I liked it.