We Will Be What We Will Be Eating

As George Bush once said, 'Most of our imports come from abroad'. That is certainly true of UK food, where 50% is imported. Key agencies are now warning that recent developments are conspiring to make food more risky in the UK (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jun/27/uk-faces-significant-risks-to-quality-of-food-imported-post-brexit-says-report). The Food Standards Agency (FSA) appear especially worried about the current relative dearth of quality controls on 'higher risk' food coming from the EU post-Brexit. Higher risk foods include dairy products, eggs, feed for animals and meat. Promised testing has been deferred again, because its costs would make the cost of living crisis worse. The FSA say that full UK import controls are needed post-Brexit. Post-Brexit deals with e.g. Australia and the US (with their very different welfare requirements) will only increase the demand for routine testing. The Covid19 pandemic has also reduced inspections of UK food businesses by Local Authorities. This is driven by shortfalls in both funding and specialist personnel. The Ukraine war and the energy crisis are also placing additional pressures on many people to choose the cheapest of foods. It would be unsurprising if this combination of factors, increased incidences of food poisoning and/or resulted in the importing of infections into the animal stocks of the UK.

Fracktious

Some people appear incapable of taking 'No' for an answer. Fracking (using pressured chemicals to drive 'natural gas' out of shale rocks) in the North of England, has been repeatedly condemned as a 'bad idea'. Plans for this activity could be boosted, however, by the frackers (I use the term carefully) being eligible for substantial UK government tax breaks (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/28/fracking-firms-could-be-eligible-for-uk-tax-breaks-worth-billions). Fracking, in the North of England, is inappropriate as 1) the generated gas (even if it went only to local users) would do little to solve the UK's energy crisis; 2) methane (a potent 'greenhouse gas') is liberated by this activity; 3) burning the gas would, anyway, increase carbon dioxide release, exaccerbating global heating; 4) the UK has a much higher population density than countries, where fracking is more common; 5) fracking has been linked to earth tremors, pollution of groundwater, human health problems etc and 6) people, in the designated areas, don't want it. The UK government's tax break was intended to encourage the oil giants to prospect for new oil and gas deposits, largely in the North Sea. Even this, is highly contentious. Many environmentalists think these also should be 'left in the ground'.

Some of My Favourite Pictures of Indian Butterflies

An attempt to brighten a dull June day in the UK!

Natural Selection of Evolutionary Ideas?

The debate between acolytes of NeoDarwinism and a variety of Biologists now dissatisfied with this 'unifying' theory, seems to be getting quite exciting (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution). It's pointed out that Darwin's idea of 'natural selection' (particular genes being favoured, over extended periods of time, by environmental factors) was once thought to be the 'key', to giving Biological Sciences a collective coherence. This, it was thought, would place it on a par with the 'laws' of Chemistry and Physics. This is challenged in at least two respects. The first challenge is the claim that Biology doesn't need a 'unifying law'. It's pointed out that the 'laws' of Physics and Chemistry (actually, simplier sciences) have exceptions and/or complicating factors. The second challenge is that some organisms can transform, by showing rapid 'heritable' changes. This is unlike the slow process of speciation envisioned by traditional NeoDarwinism. This is sometimes referred to as 'plasticity' or 'epigenetics'. Organisms have many genes. It is not unreasonable to suppose that which genes are activated and for how long, may be influenced by the organism's early experiences. This would enable such organisms to deal with a range of environmental challenges (like a drying environment or a different source of food provision). The whole process of sexual reproduction is geared to maximising genetic diversity. Meiosis (the form of cell division that produces the gametes), ensures that genes are effectively 'shuffled'. Some genes (including recent mutations) could be effectively 'held in reserve', before a later use is found for them? Certainly, evolutionary theory appears to be evolving.

Seeing the Changes 1658

Some flowers around Loughor Foreshore. Sneezewort (Achillea ptarmica); Betony (Stachys offinalis); Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) and Common hogweed (Heracleum sphondylium).

Farming Versus Nature in the Norfolk Broads?

Wetlands are amongst the most endangered environments on this planet. Wetlands support a vast array of animal and plant species. A couple, at great personal expense, are (for a second time) taking England's Environment Agency to court, to stop water abstraction destroying internationally-important wetlands in the Norfolk Broads (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/27/environment-agency-faces-legal-battle-over-water-removal-in-norfolk-broads). The Environment Agency licences farmers on land near protected wetlands, to remove groundwater to irrigate potatoes and other crops. It's estimated that this water abstraction increases crop yields by 15-20%. A 2015 Natural England study found, however, that, over the last 50 years, water abstraction had been the major cause of extinctions in that area. The rocks of Norfolk are mainly calcareous limestones and mudstones. Water abstraction reduces the flow of calcareous groundwater. Atmospheric carbon dioxide combines with rainwater to produce carbonic acid. This makes the waters of the fens more acidic, killing rare alkaline-loving plants and their associated animals. The couple, who are themselves farmers, point out that Tourism is, by far, the biggest employer in the Norfolk Broads. They argue that, although food production is important, boosting yields should not be done, if it permanently destroys unique ecosystems.

Viral 'Swimming' Aids

Microplastics have lots of potential for generating problems for both environments and their producers (us). A Stirling University study has confirmed that microplastics extend the infectivity of freshwater-based human intestinal viruses (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/27/viruses-survive-in-fresh-water-by-hitchhiking-on-plastic-study-finds). The Stirling study found that human intestinal viruses, like rotavirus, remained infectious for at least 3 days after 'hitching a ride' on microplastic particles. This is another good reason for reducing the release of microplastics from washing machine effluent, car braking systems etc.