Avalon Orchards
Avalon Orchards, located in Innisfil, Ontario, was established in 1988 with the objective of producing organically grown apples.
Apple growing in Ontario is challenged by diseases, such as apple scab and pests like codling moth.
Varieties that demonstrated high resistance to those were selected to be grown organically.
Approximately 10,000 trees, including Nova Scotia MacINtosh,Nova Scotia Spy, Redfree, Freedom, Prima and Liberty are grown in the orchard..
These varieties have been developed using traditional techniques of cross breeding, and not through genetic modification.
Kaolin clay is used for pest control.
This clay is diluted with water and sprayed on the fruit.
It is the same clay that is used in toothpaste.
By picking time it is normally washed off by the rain.
TASK: Turn the passive forms in each sentence into active.
Circle Sun Farm
In 1999 Circle Sun Farm was revitalized as an organic dairy farm. Now they raise organic beef for ground beef. In addition, they mix their free-range pastured pork with the beef and their own herbs and garlic to make fine organic sausages. They also raise rare breeds and a variety of poultry, all without using any pesticides, chemical fertilizers, growth hormones or antibiotics.
They care about the land and betterment of the surrounding community.
TASKS:
1. Give your opinion:
a. What is the difference between free-range farm animals and enclosed stock?
b. How does the use of chemicals affect human health?
c. How is the organic farming better for the land and the community?
d. Do you see organic farming thrive in the future?
2. Explain the meaning of these words: revitalize, dairy farm, rare breeds, poultry, pesticides, fertilizers, growth hormones, antibiotics, betterment, community.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
TWO GREEN COMPANIES
1. BIOBAGS
BioBag Canada sells Canada’s leading brand of fully certified 100% biodegradable and compostable bags.
BioBags are supplied to over 3,000 communities worldwide.
BioBags are an effective environmentally friendly alternative to paper and polyethylene bags.
BioBags can be reused, composted or incinerated.
BioBags are made from material containing cornstarch, vegetable oil and compostable polyester.
BioBags will completely compost within 10 to 45 days in a controlled composting facility depending on soil conditions, temperature etc.
Analyses have shown that BioBags have a more positive impact on the environment through reduced levels of greenhouse gas emissions and lower acid precipitation than paper and polyethylene bags..
BioBags are also available for pet waste disposal, and films for organic farms and gardens to inhibit weeds.
TRUE OR FALSE:
1. BioBags are a better alternative than paper or plastic bags.
2. They cannot fully decompose in the landfill.
3. They contain polyester.
4. They are made of corn.
5. You can put them in a green bin.
6. They are not good for the soil.
7. Burning plastic bags causes acid rains.
8. BioBags are recyclable.
9. BioBags are exported from Canada.
Answers: 1.T, 2.F, 3.T, 4.T, 5.T, 6.F, 7.T, 8.F, 9.T.
2. ECOVER
Ecover started 25 years ago as a small soap company in Belgium.
Since then it has developed into an international leader in the production of environmentally sustainable laundry, dishwashing and general household cleaning products.
Ecover’s mission is to provide an alternative solution to conventional cleaning products by using safe ingredients at a minimum cost to the environment.
It has developed a full line of plant-based cleaners and detergents.
Ecover’s factory features a grass roof for insulation, wood from sustainable forests and bricks from coal mine waste.
The facility is 99% emission free.
TRUE OR FALSE:
1. Ecover is a factory in Belgium.
2. It is 25 years old.
3. They produce cleaning products.
4. Those products are safe for the environment.
5. They are very low priced.
6. They are made with coal.
7. The factory is environmentally friendly.
8. They do not have any gas emissions at all.
Answers: 1.F, 2.T, 3.T, 4.T, 5.F, 6.F, 7.T, 8.F.
BioBag Canada sells Canada’s leading brand of fully certified 100% biodegradable and compostable bags.
BioBags are supplied to over 3,000 communities worldwide.
BioBags are an effective environmentally friendly alternative to paper and polyethylene bags.
BioBags can be reused, composted or incinerated.
BioBags are made from material containing cornstarch, vegetable oil and compostable polyester.
BioBags will completely compost within 10 to 45 days in a controlled composting facility depending on soil conditions, temperature etc.
Analyses have shown that BioBags have a more positive impact on the environment through reduced levels of greenhouse gas emissions and lower acid precipitation than paper and polyethylene bags..
BioBags are also available for pet waste disposal, and films for organic farms and gardens to inhibit weeds.
TRUE OR FALSE:
1. BioBags are a better alternative than paper or plastic bags.
2. They cannot fully decompose in the landfill.
3. They contain polyester.
4. They are made of corn.
5. You can put them in a green bin.
6. They are not good for the soil.
7. Burning plastic bags causes acid rains.
8. BioBags are recyclable.
9. BioBags are exported from Canada.
Answers: 1.T, 2.F, 3.T, 4.T, 5.T, 6.F, 7.T, 8.F, 9.T.
2. ECOVER
Ecover started 25 years ago as a small soap company in Belgium.
Since then it has developed into an international leader in the production of environmentally sustainable laundry, dishwashing and general household cleaning products.
Ecover’s mission is to provide an alternative solution to conventional cleaning products by using safe ingredients at a minimum cost to the environment.
It has developed a full line of plant-based cleaners and detergents.
Ecover’s factory features a grass roof for insulation, wood from sustainable forests and bricks from coal mine waste.
The facility is 99% emission free.
TRUE OR FALSE:
1. Ecover is a factory in Belgium.
2. It is 25 years old.
3. They produce cleaning products.
4. Those products are safe for the environment.
5. They are very low priced.
6. They are made with coal.
7. The factory is environmentally friendly.
8. They do not have any gas emissions at all.
Answers: 1.F, 2.T, 3.T, 4.T, 5.F, 6.F, 7.T, 8.F.
Food Miles
Circle the number you think is correct:
1. The average Canadian meal travels about: 10,000 - 2,500 - 1,000 km from farm to plate.
2. But when you buy food grown in the Ontario Greenbelt, the distance drops to: 250 - 1,000 - 2,500 km.
3. Farms use only 5% - 10% - 15% of the total fossil fuels used by the food industry; the rest goes to transportation, packaging and marketing.
ANSWERS: 2,500; 250; 10%.
Insert the following words in the text:
footprint, climate change, fruits, vegetables, meats,planet, produce, smog
Not only does shopping local mean you enjoy fresher and tastier _________, ____________ and ____________, but you're contributing to a healthier ____________. By shopping for Greenbelt grown _____________ and meat, you help reduce ____________ and lessen your carbon ________________ and emissions that cause ________ _________.
1. The average Canadian meal travels about: 10,000 - 2,500 - 1,000 km from farm to plate.
2. But when you buy food grown in the Ontario Greenbelt, the distance drops to: 250 - 1,000 - 2,500 km.
3. Farms use only 5% - 10% - 15% of the total fossil fuels used by the food industry; the rest goes to transportation, packaging and marketing.
ANSWERS: 2,500; 250; 10%.
Insert the following words in the text:
footprint, climate change, fruits, vegetables, meats,planet, produce, smog
Not only does shopping local mean you enjoy fresher and tastier _________, ____________ and ____________, but you're contributing to a healthier ____________. By shopping for Greenbelt grown _____________ and meat, you help reduce ____________ and lessen your carbon ________________ and emissions that cause ________ _________.
Facts on Endangered Breeds of Livestock and Poultry
Sources: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "The Chance to Survive" L. Alderson (www.rarebreedscanada.org)
About one third of the world's domestic animal breeds are now at risk of becoming extinct.
About 40 breeds of domestic animals contribute to 30-40% of the total value of food and agriculture production.
In 80% of the world's rural areas, the locally adapted breeds are superior to common modern breeds.
In North America, about 41 breeds are seen to be at risk.
Breeds can be lost when too much political and economic emphasis is given to one breed to the exclusion of others.
Sustainable, well managed use of animals in their environment will likely be the most cost-effective way of maintaining breeds for the future.
The Charolais was a rare breed 150 years ago; it is now a beef breed of international importance.
About one third of the world's domestic animal breeds are now at risk of becoming extinct.
About 40 breeds of domestic animals contribute to 30-40% of the total value of food and agriculture production.
In 80% of the world's rural areas, the locally adapted breeds are superior to common modern breeds.
In North America, about 41 breeds are seen to be at risk.
Breeds can be lost when too much political and economic emphasis is given to one breed to the exclusion of others.
Sustainable, well managed use of animals in their environment will likely be the most cost-effective way of maintaining breeds for the future.
The Charolais was a rare breed 150 years ago; it is now a beef breed of international importance.
CHANGING THE FOOD SYSTEM IS JUST WHAT THE DOCTOR ORDERED
BY Wayne Roberts
The most authoritative grouping of medical experts in the world released Policy and Action for Cancer Prevention, which identifies cancer as an environmental disease that can only be prevented by political and economic initiatives treating the “causes of causes” of a disease that kills 11 million people a year.
The World Health Organization gives the report published by the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research the same stature as the international panel on climate change, which settled the key scientific debates around global warming and moved the policy agenda toward corrective actions.
The report focuses on diet and fitness, and delivers a one-two punch to the food and auto industry.
The first punch comes in the opening line: “Cancer is a largely preventable disease.” Overwhelming evidence blames a third of cancers on cigarette smoking, the report says. Equally overwhelming evidence puts the combination of poor diet and insufficient exercise a close second. Without even counting the cancers caused by polluting carcinogens, these conclusive findings reframe cancer as an “environmental disease” -- in medical terms, one that comes from the environment external to the patient’s body and genes.
Punch two comes from the doctors’ orders that cancer must be treated by the political equivalent of chemotherapy: what it calls “the classic public health approach.” The public health measures that are usually credited with the major gains in the quality and length of life in industrialized countries over the last hundred years rarely cured the immediate causes of the “big killer” infectious and contagious diseases. Instead, they treated the first causes, such as overcrowded tenements and factory sweatshops, disease-festering water supplies and open sewers.
The standard “check-up and a check” recommended by mid-1900s cancer societies get short shrift, dismissed as “primary prevention” limited to early detection by primary physicians. The new science puts primary emphasis on what is called “primordial prevention,” directed at the deeper forces behind cancer.
During the era when “classic public health” was in its prime, substandard water suppliers were brought up to standard by public utilities that went to the enormous expense of cleaning and sterilizing water and delivering it virtually free to all residents. The analogy between what public authorities did and do for water treatment and what they should do for diet and exercise is repeated several times in the report. If people have a right to health, then government has a duty to provide the infrastructure, laws and regulations to protect health, the clear logic goes. The government doesn’t stop with information on the importance of drinking clean water; nor does it cut back because bottled water is available as an option. Neither factor absolves the state “from the obligation to ensure the provision of a safe supply of water.” Nor does anyone accuse governments of acting like a nanny state when water regulators insist on high standards.
Perhaps the very success of the classic public health movement and its first cousins in progressive social movements – women’s suffrage, abolition of child labor and workplace safety laws were standard accompaniments of public health campaigns of those days – led to the undoing of the classic heritage for a period of time.
When safer and better food, water, air and work led to longer and healthier lives for the entire population, the old-time (in the industrialized world) infectious and contagious diseases were largely marginalized. The new source of threats came from chronic diseases, such as heart disease and cancer.
Many of these new big killers – they’re still common causes of death in the poor countries of the Global South, where the majority of the world’s people live – were classified as “diseases of affluence.” This framing of chronic disease implied that more willpower and moral strength was needed to counter the by-products of progress and affluence -- too much salt, fat, sugar and starch and too little exercise. Governments had little role to play in this framing of chronic diseases, except to encourage individuals to opt for healthier lifestyles and nudge companies to voluntarily cut back on some harmful ingredients.
Only tobacco and alcohol addiction escaped this framing of health issues, probably because they cause problems for innocent others, through second-hand tobacco smoke, drunken driving and the like. They’ve been regulated with more or less classic methods, such as policies that reduce usage by raising prices and limiting availability and access. Aside from old-style safety measures, food and fitness matters have largely escaped such forceful government regulation and have almost totally escaped “classic” public health tools such as public infrastructure that ensures availability and access of high-quality options.
The report from the World Cancer Research Fund earns its place in public health history by arguing for forceful government actions that get to the causes of the causes – ending agricultural subsidies that make “junk foods” cheaper than unsubsidized healthier foods, for example, or undoing trade laws that prevent countries from restricting junkfood imports, or limiting unfettered access to children by junkfood advertisers or making healthful foods more available to people on low incomes. Getting to the causes of causes also requires infrastructure that overcome the carcinogenic infrastructure of suburbia with street designs that make walking or biking more pleasant, efficient and safer than driving a car.
The report also calls for treating farming practices from a classic public health perspective. “Air, soil and water need to be regarded as public goods, and their preservation and protection as essential to the health, welfare and survival of the human species and the living and natural world,” it says, meaning that agriculture departments beholden to interest groups no longer have the last say in regulating fundamental building blocks of life and health.
As might be expected by anyone following health advice over the last 50 years, the World Cancer Research Fund report comes out four-square in favor of breastfeeding and staying fit and trim, but against excess salt, fat, red meat, booze, sugar and processed meats.
“The supply and demand mechanism has not got it right,” Dr. Marmot says in his introduction to the report, a statement that may seem as obvious as recommendations to exercise more and eat less fat and sugar. But by identifying curative, restorative and preventative powers higher than individual lifestyles and self-regulated market choices, the report opens the door wide to entirely new ways of thinking about public choices that can prevent one of the most-feared diseases in modern history.
Read this report, and call me in the morning.
(Adapted from Now Magazine, March 5-11, 2009; Wayne Roberts is the author of The No-Nonsense Guide to World Food.)
The most authoritative grouping of medical experts in the world released Policy and Action for Cancer Prevention, which identifies cancer as an environmental disease that can only be prevented by political and economic initiatives treating the “causes of causes” of a disease that kills 11 million people a year.
The World Health Organization gives the report published by the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research the same stature as the international panel on climate change, which settled the key scientific debates around global warming and moved the policy agenda toward corrective actions.
The report focuses on diet and fitness, and delivers a one-two punch to the food and auto industry.
The first punch comes in the opening line: “Cancer is a largely preventable disease.” Overwhelming evidence blames a third of cancers on cigarette smoking, the report says. Equally overwhelming evidence puts the combination of poor diet and insufficient exercise a close second. Without even counting the cancers caused by polluting carcinogens, these conclusive findings reframe cancer as an “environmental disease” -- in medical terms, one that comes from the environment external to the patient’s body and genes.
Punch two comes from the doctors’ orders that cancer must be treated by the political equivalent of chemotherapy: what it calls “the classic public health approach.” The public health measures that are usually credited with the major gains in the quality and length of life in industrialized countries over the last hundred years rarely cured the immediate causes of the “big killer” infectious and contagious diseases. Instead, they treated the first causes, such as overcrowded tenements and factory sweatshops, disease-festering water supplies and open sewers.
The standard “check-up and a check” recommended by mid-1900s cancer societies get short shrift, dismissed as “primary prevention” limited to early detection by primary physicians. The new science puts primary emphasis on what is called “primordial prevention,” directed at the deeper forces behind cancer.
During the era when “classic public health” was in its prime, substandard water suppliers were brought up to standard by public utilities that went to the enormous expense of cleaning and sterilizing water and delivering it virtually free to all residents. The analogy between what public authorities did and do for water treatment and what they should do for diet and exercise is repeated several times in the report. If people have a right to health, then government has a duty to provide the infrastructure, laws and regulations to protect health, the clear logic goes. The government doesn’t stop with information on the importance of drinking clean water; nor does it cut back because bottled water is available as an option. Neither factor absolves the state “from the obligation to ensure the provision of a safe supply of water.” Nor does anyone accuse governments of acting like a nanny state when water regulators insist on high standards.
Perhaps the very success of the classic public health movement and its first cousins in progressive social movements – women’s suffrage, abolition of child labor and workplace safety laws were standard accompaniments of public health campaigns of those days – led to the undoing of the classic heritage for a period of time.
When safer and better food, water, air and work led to longer and healthier lives for the entire population, the old-time (in the industrialized world) infectious and contagious diseases were largely marginalized. The new source of threats came from chronic diseases, such as heart disease and cancer.
Many of these new big killers – they’re still common causes of death in the poor countries of the Global South, where the majority of the world’s people live – were classified as “diseases of affluence.” This framing of chronic disease implied that more willpower and moral strength was needed to counter the by-products of progress and affluence -- too much salt, fat, sugar and starch and too little exercise. Governments had little role to play in this framing of chronic diseases, except to encourage individuals to opt for healthier lifestyles and nudge companies to voluntarily cut back on some harmful ingredients.
Only tobacco and alcohol addiction escaped this framing of health issues, probably because they cause problems for innocent others, through second-hand tobacco smoke, drunken driving and the like. They’ve been regulated with more or less classic methods, such as policies that reduce usage by raising prices and limiting availability and access. Aside from old-style safety measures, food and fitness matters have largely escaped such forceful government regulation and have almost totally escaped “classic” public health tools such as public infrastructure that ensures availability and access of high-quality options.
The report from the World Cancer Research Fund earns its place in public health history by arguing for forceful government actions that get to the causes of the causes – ending agricultural subsidies that make “junk foods” cheaper than unsubsidized healthier foods, for example, or undoing trade laws that prevent countries from restricting junkfood imports, or limiting unfettered access to children by junkfood advertisers or making healthful foods more available to people on low incomes. Getting to the causes of causes also requires infrastructure that overcome the carcinogenic infrastructure of suburbia with street designs that make walking or biking more pleasant, efficient and safer than driving a car.
The report also calls for treating farming practices from a classic public health perspective. “Air, soil and water need to be regarded as public goods, and their preservation and protection as essential to the health, welfare and survival of the human species and the living and natural world,” it says, meaning that agriculture departments beholden to interest groups no longer have the last say in regulating fundamental building blocks of life and health.
As might be expected by anyone following health advice over the last 50 years, the World Cancer Research Fund report comes out four-square in favor of breastfeeding and staying fit and trim, but against excess salt, fat, red meat, booze, sugar and processed meats.
“The supply and demand mechanism has not got it right,” Dr. Marmot says in his introduction to the report, a statement that may seem as obvious as recommendations to exercise more and eat less fat and sugar. But by identifying curative, restorative and preventative powers higher than individual lifestyles and self-regulated market choices, the report opens the door wide to entirely new ways of thinking about public choices that can prevent one of the most-feared diseases in modern history.
Read this report, and call me in the morning.
(Adapted from Now Magazine, March 5-11, 2009; Wayne Roberts is the author of The No-Nonsense Guide to World Food.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)