Honorary Life Membership Award - Royal A&P Society NZ

Make Mine ‘Full Fart Milk’

My New Year’s Resolution is to commit to farmers and only use and drink full fart milk.

There are strong opinions around Cattle being ‘Environmental Destructors’. 

Hmm. It’s certainly developing as a difficult, debated and disputed question.

So, let’s start with looking at the ‘size’ of the problem. It is argued that nature produces 97% of CO2 and mankind only 3%. Of course, that opens up another huge debate about global warming and what is causing it.

Fingers are being pointed at farming, particularly cattle farting, as a main culprit. And that is being vigorously disputed.

“Cows have a digestion system that emits methane. We need to change cows and work towards artificial meat,” says Bill Gates. He fails to point out that methane from cows breaks down into CO2 & water after 10 years. Grass absorbs the CO2 by photosynthesis & the cycle keeps repeating.

However, it seems that decisions have been made determining cattle are responsible and subsequently the development of an innovation - Tinkering with the inner workings of the dairy cow.

When added to Daisy’s daily diet, Bovaer is said to cut bovine gas emissions by up to 30% overall.

And of course, with these kinds of developments, the end users and public are the last to know, when the decision is announced and dumped on them. Just as the  launch was celebrated as making a difference, “… the pesky public were not quite as ‘excited’…indeed some were reaching for the pitchforks. They started poking around the Bovaer small print and had spotted ingredients like silicon dioxide, propylene glycol and a compound called 3-nitrooxypropanol (known as 3-NOP) which US and Japanese authorities have linked to reduce male fertility.”  (Robert Hardman/Daily Mail/7 December 2024)

In the UK there are concerns that with the use of Bovaer which is ‘thought’ to prevent climate change, there is a risk not just for animals but potentially for people too. For example, the label states ‘may damage male fertility & reproductive organs.’ And Farmers are recommended to wear protective equipment when feeding Bovaer to cows because it is very toxic to inhale.

The re-engineering of the ‘cow’ has sparked a new eco war. There's even more Bovaer air in the food chain than anyone realised, and it has sparked an epic battle among shoppers and farmers in the UK and closer to home in Australia. Some Farmers have announced they would not be consuming anything from an animal fed on Bovaer.

Arla Foods Group is a Danish-Swedish  multi-national cooperative, the 5^th biggest dairy company in the world and one of the first to produce milk  from Bovaer treated  dairy cattle. 

Following massive boycott of Arla over its trial of Bovaer’s methane-reducing additive, the UK government has stepped in, committing to mandate the additive for all cows in England by 2030.

To make matters worse, it has emerged that there is more of the ‘stuff’ in the food chain! Producers & retailers are being ‘blacklisted’ and accusations of scaremongering, misinformation and conspiracy theories are rampant.

It’s got to the point where they are giving away Bovaer products for FREE in supermarkets & people are still not taking them!

The idea that we can stop bad weather by drugging cows with BOVAER to reduce their farts is generating lots a scepticism to say the least.

Dr Jennine Morgan, a retired GP says, “It is clear to me that treating cows with a chemical to remove 23% of the 0.38% of total methane produced in UK is a complete nonsense & will likely harm the cow’s microbiome & possibly our own.”

@farmingUK had a positive piece on Bovaer as a chemical used to reduce methane emissions in cows. Dr. Jennine Morgan replied, “The chemical was found in 4/5 samples of milk tested. It was also found in liver, adrenals, muscle & brain. Ovary size was reduced. Rats treated with it failed to get pregnant. Do you deny it says this in the study documents? Moreover, what effects does it have on soils, small mammals, insects, birds, worms etc? Where are the studies? What effect does it have on the microbiome of cows?”  Farming UK deleted their post.

Meanwhile it is becoming a political issue in Australia with Craig Kelly (an Australian conservative politician) recently stating that , “If I’m successful winning the Libertarian Party’s  nomination for the Senate, and I’m elected – I will do everything in my power as a Senator to ensure that Bovaer is never mandated directly or indirectly – and that any beef or diary sources from animals drugged with Bovaer must be labelled.”

Since then, A2 Milk Australia have confirmed they don’t use Bovaer in the feed of the cows that produce their milk.

Cattle do not release more methane than grasses would without them, they do speed up the process of the cycle, but they are also essential for the continued survival of the cycle.

By grazing most of the plant leaves and moving on to new pastures, ruminants revitalize grasslands. Without grazing, the land dies.

In a recent piece in NZ Farmer, Paige Wills, a sheep and deer farmer, raised the contradiction in the approach of Silver Fern Farms (SFF). “On the one hand, they tout New Zealand’s clean, green farming image…On the other hand, they seem intent on pushing us toward unproven biotech solutions to satisfy corporate buyers…The two approaches are fundamentally incompatible.”

Paige notes that at a SFF roadshow the disconnect was exampled with SFF announcing Tesco”s 39% emissions reductions as their aspiration. She asks, “Why not tell the world that, per kilogram of meat or litre of milk, New Zealand farmers are unmatched in efficiency and sustainability?...Instead they are steering us toward biotech tools…unnatural, costly products that disrupt an animals natural process.” (https://www.ruralnewsgroup.co.nz/rural-news/rural-opinion/back-farmers-not-big-corporates)

Although methane is produced by cows, bacteria breakdown the methane into carbon dioxide and water after about 10 to 12 years. That means that there is never a cumulative load of new methane in the atmosphere.

Where might all this end up?

Well, the UK recently completed a trial of a carbon credit system that sets a daily allowance for each person—in effect, a limit on your ability to purchase food, clothing, goods, and travel as you have always done. The limit has been set at 20kg of carbon emissions per day, with food restricted to 2600g.

For example, a packet of cheese at 1100g would be almost half your daily carbon allowance!

Now, put that in the context of the Government’s rushed Gene Technology Bill deregulating biotechnology. The bill does away with the labelling of gene altered foods, hands decisions to a government appointed regulator, ignores the precautionary principle which maintains products need to be proved safe before release, removes any liability for mistakes, exposes our farming sector to corporate control by patent holders, and ignores the risks to our economy.

Watch the Video “The Gene Technology Bill-What Kiwis Need To Know” on YouTube -   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5b2skQADT4

And the vile comments flow

 

Our Prime Minister, during some of the most tortuous years experienced in my life, has announced her resignation. 

And the tap spewing bitter vitriol is opening up. 

Let’s be clear from the start, I am not committed to ANY political party, nor do I wear a political ideological straight jacket. 

What a coincidence that on Tuesday [17/01/2023], Ron Trotter had entitled his Blog ‘ Is the Prime Minister “Evil”?’ 

He was questioning the state of NZ politics where our Prime Minister was being branded “evil”. He noted that “...Transforming Jacinda Ardern into a hateful  caricature… signals that political discussion has steered away from the predictably ideological towards the dangerously metaphysical…”.

As Ron notes, the fact remains the  “country is economically, socially & culturally outperforming a great many of the wealthy nations against which we like to compare ourselves.” His Blog is worth a read...

http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2023/01/is-prime-minister-evil.html

As far as I am concerned, the vitriolic personalised slagging says more about those making the comments, rather than it does about Jacinda Ardern as PM.

[Illustration is from Ron Trotter's Blog]

Politics should be directed... 'to the well-being of the people.'

Groucho Marx is attributed as saying, “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”

I believe our current model of democracy is a croc, and for that reason I am not looking forward to the next election in New Zealand.

Apparently just 45.7% of the world’s population are considered to live in a democracy of some sort. Just 6.4% of the world’s population is considered to live in full democracies.

The Economist Intelligence Unit ranks countries in a Democracy Index. Each country is given a score out of 10 in four categories: electoral process and pluralism, functioning of government, political participation, political culture, and civil liberties.

In 2021, New Zealand’s score was unchanged from the 2020 index, we ranked the world’s second most democratic country, after Norway.

I continue to question the operational effectiveness of our Democracy which operates as an Opposition Parliamentary System. My focus is not about Political parties per sae, rather the system in which they operate. Does it truly serve democracy and the overall wellbeing of the Country? Or is it more of a sporting match where teams vigorously compete against each other in the hope to be the ‘winner’? And what is the role and responsibility we, the voters, have to ensure democracy operates well?

Let’s review the three models of political opposition:-

Classical Opposition - To oppose anything and everything.

Opposition in Principle - Bent not only on wrenching power from the government of today,     but on ending once and for all the system on which that government rests.

Cartel Arrangements -  The third is a counter-concept to the other two. It relates to   government under various forms of cartel arrangements among political organisations   operating within the framework of parliamentary institutions.

In the nonsensical game of Opposition Politics, scoring political points seem more important than the issue. In 2019 Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Centre for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, noted, “The lessons of the world happiness report over the years is that … honesty in government are crucial for well-being…Politics should be directed as the great sages long ago insisted: to the well-being of the people…”.

It is interesting to note that there is plenty of research on what parliamentary opposition is, but very little on its effectiveness.

Reflect on your living memory of government, are the behaviours we have regularly seen (remember I am talking about the process of government, not parties), the hall marks of an ‘effective opposition’?

I argue that historically, the consistent practice of political opposition has been a combination of both Classical Opposition and Opposition in Principle. Very rarely during my active interest in voting, if at all, have we experienced the third model, that of  cartel arrangements i.e., the various parties working together in the best interests of the Country, rather than point scoring against each other.

Certainly, there have been isolated examples of that happening, but it is not the common approach by any stretch of the imagination.

Successive governments have developed the habit of responding to symptoms, not identifying the root cause of problems – and of course, we the voters, have conditioned them to think and behave that way. “Populism trumps data”. (Max Rushbrooke Dominion Post Opinion 22/10/22) Most of the systemic issues we have are unlikely to produce measurable outcomes within one 3 year term anyway.

When will we stop reacting to symptoms and start dealing with the root causes?

The importance of open, considered debate and discussion on any topic cannot be underestimated. It helps us learn and understand. Putting forward ideas & even provocative thoughts takes courage & care. Receiving other & opposite opinions takes patience & understanding. Doing all of that well creates a continuous, exciting & exhilarating learning environment. It is okay for rational disagreement, and regardless of how confronting, dignity illustrates the better person.

In August 2022, Thomas Costello & Shauna Bowes wrote in PSYCHE, “Political views are, fundamentally, opinions… It is now apparent that reasonable, intellectually charitable discussions between progressives and conservatives are quite scarce…leaving little room for compromise or legislative success…ideological extremism is associated with low cognitive flexibility…we do warn against people who are sure that theirs is the only solution to societal problems…absolute certainty is something to avoid.”

Another hallmark of democracy is participation, and voting is an act of participation.

Many observers lament the decline in voter turnout and view this trend as detrimental to the democratic process. The fact remains, those of us with the privilege (some may say ‘right’) of being able to vote should be exercising that privilege. Not only that, but we should also be actively questioning and challenging candidates.

Are we going to allow the selfish game of egocentric and vain political point scoring to continue?

It is a simple behavioural logic (conditioning) – say nothing and the current behaviour will continue. In short, we can’t point the finger at politicians and aspiring candidates – they just deliver what they think we expect of them.

Leadership isn’t about doing what’s popular, it is about doing what’s right.

There is a basic logic that democracy will benefit when more citizens participate. The Intelligence Unit of the Economist magazine measures the quality of governance (EUI Index). Nations with overall higher political participation also have better performing government.

The truth is that most of us make shallow voting decisions focused on the here and now, ‘what’s in it for me?’ Are you more likely to support candidates who are prepared to take the long view or those that just hand out  goodies for you in the here and now?

And that is it in a nutshell really. It doesn’t matter which party is in Government, they must maintain voter popularity rather than do what is right to stay in power. If it shouldn’t be that way, then we the voters, will have to change our behaviour.

 

Use of the word Health an ‘inverted euphemism’.

Localised District Health Boards have been dumped and a  centralised bureaucracy established.

[*1]

DHBs were set up to be responsible for the integration of all health services in a particular area officially known as “resident populations”. They were responsible to monitor the health status of that population.

Recently, suddenly, and with little discussion, a new Centralised bureaucracy was announced. Apparently, this was necessary because a patient in one geographic area receives state funding for a particular drug or treatment while a patient with similar clinical needs in another area does not. The Government, not the DHBs control the funding.

The question, “Restructuring yet again is the solution to what problem?” springs to mind.

Some answers include ‘The problem is the cost. Healthcare has become commoditized, politicised’ ‘We have a healthcare system that is only one big Accident & Emergency centre.’ ‘DHBs are stubborn, and always too slow.’

Even if those are correct diagnoses, is restructuring the answer? Remember health care is delivered by people. In an effective organisation the people are clear on what they are supposed to do and enabled to be able to do that.

The key word of diagnosis (in my opinion) is ‘politicised’. Restructuring is often synonymous with Politics.

During my service in the Public Health system, I experienced four restructures plus the one that created the opportunity for me to be employed.

The process of restructuring faces many challenges leading to most organisations failing to successfully implement it, usually because it is imposed from the top down with little or no real engagement of the people who do the actual work. The great Peter Drucker is credited with saying “Culture eats strategy for breakfast”. In other words, no matter how big or clever the plans, unless the team is onboard, you ain’t going nowhere. 

In the words of someone whose opinion I respect, "...perhaps because we are so good at organizing, we tend as a nation to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization."

Bad policy is more harmful than flesh eating bugs.

By sheer coincidence I came across a book ‘Curious kiwi words’ by Max Cryer (2002). I looked up ‘Health’ and here is what he said:

“Although the word health normally indicates that a body is functioning well, in New Zealand it’s often used to mean sickness. In spite of their titles, the Ministry of Health, health insurance, health professionals, health clinics and health legislation are entirely concerned with problems related to illness. Television and radio have health reporters who report on various matters to do with ill health…

The word health is probably an optimistic gesture towards what people want it to be (i.e. healthy) but the fact remains, that during their working day, health professionals only ever meet people who are ill.

For a while there was a moderate attempt to substitute the word wellness as a sort of middle ground, but the word never took off.”

Max referenced a social commentator, Richard Wolfe, who called the word ‘Health’ an “inverted euphemism’.

[*1] The Dominion Post / 28 October 2022 / Murdoch Cartoon / page 13