The Bee-Log

By Richie Gerber

“Don’t it always seem to go. That you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone. They paved paradise. And put up a parking lot.” Famous lyrics from the song Big Yellow Taxi by Joni Mitchell. How do these lyrics relate to Solar Farms you might be asking yourself?

Whenever we hear solar power brought up we all burst out in green Goosebumps because it is touted as a clean and sustainable energy source. As a mater of fact much of the new energy legislation being pushed by government relies heavily on solar power. I would like to shed some light on the dark side of Solar Power since nobody is really talking about this. Even environmentalists are split on this one.

Let The Sunshine

Most of the big money and interest in solar power is being bet on huge solar farms.  Enormous government dollars are being given to big players in the Solar Farm industry. Billions of our dollars are going to big energy corporations invested in this technology. Many solar farm projects are being considered to be located on government land. But there are lots of other projects slated for private land as well. Most are in remote areas such as the Mojave Desert. Just to see how huge this is, the Bureau of Land Management in California is reviewing applications for permits utilizing over 1 million acres in the Mojave Desert for solar farms alone. There are hundreds of projects for huge solar farms around the US as well as Canada. They are mostly in remote areas and take up vast amounts of land since the solar arrays are designed to have the largest amount of surface area to increase efficiency.

I’ve been to the Desert on a Horse with no Name

Let’s take the Mojave Desert for an example. Most people hear the word desert and think it is barren and junky land, of no useful value. Most folks don’t realize that it is a wonderful and diverse eco system, which has evolved over millions of years. It has a multitude of animals, plants and other living things adapted to this unique environment. Since it is not very hospitable to humans, which diminishes its ability to be developed, we have labeled it as junk land. Just like here in Florida, at one time some called the Florida Everglades a swamp, not realizing its diverse eco system that also provides water to the entire South Florida Region.

When Sunny Get’s Blue

In a Solar Farm the dozers come in and make roads to the remote tracts. Then they scrape the huge land areas and smooth out the surfaces. So now vast tracts of virgin land have been changed for all time forward. Metal racks are erected to hold the solar arrays. These solar panels absorb sunlight but also give shade to the land underneath them. Now we have millions of acres of historically sun caressed land put into the shade. This must have an enormous effect on the sensitive and diverse eco system. Now repeat this scenario hundreds of times all over the country.

I Am a Lineman for the County

In order to deliver the power from these remote regions to the population centers large transmission lines must be constructed through these remote areas. Huge amounts of water are needed as well to help cool the turbines, which convert the sun’s heat into electricity. Remember that some of these areas like the Mojave Dessert do not have that much water to spare. That’s why it is named the Mojave Dessert! If this is not a shock to the environment then I don’t know what is. All we talk about is global warming and carbon footprint while sometimes missing the larger picture that sometimes the cure is as bad or worse than the problem.

One Man’s Ceiling is Another Mans Floor

Even the governor of California has shown his lack of sophistication on this subject by not realizing the value of the Mojave Dessert. Governor Schwarzenegger said in a speech last year at a Yale University climate-change conference: “If we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave Desert, I don’t know where the hell we can put it.” Maybe he will start to understand that even this desolate dessert is a unique and valuable eco system, which needs protection. Even Governor Ah-nold doesn’t have a clue.

Epp-Bee-Log: I don’t want to appear that I am a negatively charged electron with no ideas. So I would like to tell you my positively charged proton plan in my next posting. I call it: Cousin Richie’s Here Comes The Sun Solar Power Plan. So let’s not Take Paradise and put up a Solar Farm until you hear me out.

Do Nothin’ Til You Hear From Me

The waiter opens with, “Tonight’s seafood special is a fillet of lightly grilled Organic Maine Salmon in a USDA Organic Reduction Sauce consisting of the essence of Organic Lemon and Organic Artisanal Extra Virgin Olive Oil from the Messina region of north east Sicily and finished in the oven…” I stopped listening at the Organic Salmon part. “What is Organic Salmon and who says its Organic?” I ask. He replies, “our highly renowned fishmonger, of course”. I placed my order for the “Organic Salmon” all the while questioning myself on how a fish could be certified as organic.

So what really is “Organic Salmon”? And who besides this “highly renowned fishmonger” certifies that this Salmon is organic? Please note that I have been involved in the organic movement since owning an organic farm in Maine in the 70’s. Then in the 80’s-90’s I owned the Bread of Life Natural Foods Markets, which evolved into the largest Natural and Organic Supermarket in the Southeast U.S. My Plantation, Florida store was voted Store of the Year in 1996 by Whole Foods Business Magazine. I ultimately sold my three stores to Whole Foods Markets in the late 90’s and remained on as the Regional Vice President for several years. This gives me some street cred when it comes to all things organic.

All of us are very familiar with the green and white circle USDA Organic Seal on many products. It is an outgrowth of the Natural Organic Program (NOP) created by congress in the 1990’s. In 2002 only agricultural products that were grown following verifiable organic methods and certified by a qualified certifier were permitted to use the USDA Organic Seal.  This is no child’s play either; the law was very strict which made me happy. I did not want to see scammers getting into the biz trying to make a quick buck and destroying the movement’s credibility. As a matter of fact the law had some very sharp teeth, “A civil penalty of up to $11,000 for each offense can be levied on any person who knowingly sells or labels as organic a product that is not produced and handled in accordance with the National Organics Program’s regulations.” These standards applied to produce, meat and poultry, not seafood. In other words there is no USDA organic standard for fish and seafood. Something is starting to smell fishy to me!!! How about you?

Most of the Salmon today is farmed raised. Fish farms. Aquaculture, the fish version of agriculture is the largest producer of commercial salmon.  So what are these fish farms like and what’s the problem? The first problem I see is the physical properties of a fish farm. They consist of large pens in the ocean that keeps the salmon inside. It keeps predators out as well.  Picture thousands of salmon all living in a pen in the ocean. They are constantly eating and pooping. Some say that the currents flush out the debris from the pen. It looks s like it needs lots of flushing. Since there are so many fish together in one concentrated area the farmers feed them feed pellets that are laced with antibiotics in order to prevent a bacterial infection or sea lice from wiping out the crop of fish like a Salmon Flu. Some of these farmed fish escape from their pens which can cause harm to the wild salmon population.

 Most of the pellet food the salmon is fed is not organic. Take for comparison organic chicken. They must be fed exclusively organic feed. Antibiotics are not permitted in the feed. The birds must have access to open areas, the so-called free-range organic chicken. When fish are raised in pens one realizes the lack of sustainability in the system. Although the pens are moved from one area to another there is still toxic effluent left in the wake. The pollution can be devastating to whole areas of the ocean as well as other fish and fauna.

Again I ask you, “What is an Organic Salmon?” Is it a fish that is fed pellets of non-organic feed possibly laced with antibiotics?  Does it spend its entire life closed in a pen, squished in with thousands of genetically alike fish? Is it raised in a small concentrated pen teeming with bacteria and other possible toxins? Well here is my answer to the pressing question, “what is organic salmon?” THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ORGANIC SALMON. PERIOD!!! This beast does not exist yet. It is a marketing ploy and has the potential to harm the great work of the current organic standards that exist under the NOP. It can only add confusion. The term “Organic Salmon” must not be used until the USDA creates standards under the NOP.

Take note that farmed raised salmon appears very red in the fish case at the store. At first you may think this means it is better or fresher than the less red wild caught. In fact, wild caught salmon has a natural red color whereas farm raised salmon  gets it red color from red food dyes because farm raised is naturally very pale. The deep reds you see in the fish case at the store is because the producers add red food color to the farm raised fish to make them more marketable to customers since customers relate red to salmon. I am not a fan of additives to mask things. Many shoppers select salmon because of its healthful omega friendly fats. In fact, the farm raised salmon has very low levels of these healthy oils, which are found in high quantities in wild salmon.

Wild Salmon is a much better choice in my humble opinion. It contains high levels of the healthy omega-3 fish oils, which everyone is looking for these days. It was not fed some antibiotic feed pellets. It does not have any red dye food color to enhance its appearance. So when I am at the store I try to go to the wild side and avoid the “Organic” hype in the fish case.

Epp-BEE-Log: If you remember three things you will never be thought of as gullible or dumb. 1) There is no Santa Clause. 2) There is no Tooth Fairy. 3) And there ain’t no such thing as “Organic Salmon”.

By Richie Gerber

Most of us have heard all the stories on U.S. Water Boarding. But have you heard about the Chinese Wall Boarding of thousands of US citizens? Outrageous you might be saying but please hear me out. Thousands of US citizens are truly being tortured by Chinese Wall Boarding today, which is destroying their health, wealth and future.

Chinese Wall Boarding was most prevalent from 2004-2007.  It has its basis in the housing boom as well as several “acts of god”. These “acts of god” were the active 2004 hurricane season in Florida and then in 2005 the devastating hurricanes Katrina and Rita in Louisiana. The combination of these events created a huge building boom that in turn swelled the demand for wallboard, a key component in buildings, beyond the production capacity of U.S. producers. Builders started importing Chinese Wallboard in order to meet the booming demand.

So what is the connection between water boarding and Chinese Wall Boarding you may be asking? Torture!!! At this very minute hundreds of US citizens have been living a tortured life in buildings that have Chinese Wallboard aka drywall, sheetrock, gypsum. Victims have been crying for help and yet most Americans do not even know what is going on. The U.S. Government is not acting swiftly or effectively to end the torture. I think the EPA has a plan to make a plan. When Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) wrote a letter on this mater to the EPA in early February he did not receive a reply back until almost two months later! I guess they were planning to make a plan on how to write a letter to a Senator.

This Chinese Wallboard is different than its American Counterpart. Homeowners in as many as 16 states from Florida to Louisiana to Virginia and Washington, DC have been affected–over 100,000 homes nationally with almost 50,000 in Florida alone. All these homes were built using Chinese Wallboard and the victims have very similar complaints–a strong smell of “rotten eggs”, chronic health problems, air conditioning, electrical and plumbing problems as well as financial hardships. Is this starting to sound like torture yet?

Health complaints from victims include frequent nosebleeds, recurring headaches, asthma attacks, respiratory distress as well as skin and eye irritation. As a mater of fact some pediatricians have requested parents keep kids out of these toxic homes. Imagine how you would feel finding out that your dream house is in fact toxic to you and your kid’s health.

The smell of sulfur permeates these homes. Many Chinese Wallboard homes smell like “rotten eggs” because the wallboard has sulfur in the gypsum. Think of wallboard as a sandwich. An outer layer of heavy paperboard with a filling of the mineral gypsum sandwiched in between them. It appears that the gypsum used in this Chinese Wallboard has a higher amount of sulfur. Hence the “rotten egg” odor.. Air quality tests by the EPA have also found organic compounds similar to acrylic paint as well as Strontium. It appears that in damp and humid conditions this Chinese Wallboard offgases creating a cacophony of toxic gasses.

Another problem that many of these affected homes have is the unusually high deterioration of A/C equipment, plumbing and electrical systems. Many of these homes have gone through multiple A/C units as the condensers and compressors rot out. In this day and age this type of equipment should last for years and years but some people have replaced theirs multiple times. Typically copper turns green with age, which is natural. In these homes the copper water pipes, electrical wires turn black and then rot out. You can see how dangerous this is.

Who owns these homes? Young couples, some with kids some without, retirees, singles, and all kinds of folks like you and me, that’s who. What do you do if you start to feel sick or the doctor tells you to keep your kids out of that house? You can’t abandon it since you have your life savings tied up in it and the bank expects to receive your mortgage payment in a timely fashion. You purchased the house at the top of the market and now the market is at the bottom so you risk loosing your shirt if you sell now. You must disclose to any potential buyer the problems associated with the house. Having a “rotten egg” smell does not make it any easier to sell either. And what bank is going to put out a new loan on a place that has recurring mechanical problems. These innocent victims are being Chinese Wall Boarded.

I have an idea! How about shutting the A/C’s, turning on all the fans and opening up all the windows. This will air out the place over time. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! In fact opening up the windows makes the situation even worse. Can you imagine that these people should not open their windows since that will increase the humidity and exacerbate the problem? So now the torture victims are confined to a stinky, toxic environment and cannot let fresh air into their torture chamber since that will make things worse. They have to watch as their physical, emotional and financial health rot away.

Epp-BEE-Log: The US Government has not identified this as the tragedy it is. The Consumer Products Safety Commission and the EPA have been dragging their feet and using all of the typical gobbledy-gook lingo to explain why they have not acted swiftly. Where is FEMA? Where is the outrage? Where is the help? Right now at this very moment, as you read this article fellow Americans are suffering from Chinese Wallboarding.

© Richie Gerber

By Richie Gerber

Can you guess the connection between Bees and Headaches? Most people can’t. Here is my first hint: aspirin. Can you now guess the connection? Probably not so here my second hint: Bayer. Still don’t know? Then here is the final giveaway hint which will make the connection obvious, neonicotinoids? Clothianidin aka Poncho^® ? Imidacloprid aka Gaucho^®? Humm…not as easy as I thought.

Give up? Here is what Bees and headaches have in common. Bayer, you heard me correctly. Bayer, the aspirin people with global sales of $45 billion, owns a subsidiary call Bayer CropScience AG that manufactures herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides (mentioned above) as well as treated seeds. CropScience alone does $8.8 billion in global sales that is about 20% of Bayer’s business. The EPA in a fact sheet issued 5/31/2003 has described Bayer’s Clothiantin, one of who’s trade names is Poncho^® a pesticide from Bayer’s CropScience division, as follows: “ Poncho^® is highly toxic to honey bees on an acute contact basis (LD50 > 0.0439 µg/bee). It has the potential for toxic chronic exposure to honey bees, as well as other nontarget pollinators, through the translocation of Poncho^® residues in nectar and pollen. In honeybees, the effects of this toxic chronic exposure may include lethal and/or sub-lethal effects in the larvae and reproductive effects in the queen.” Is this starting to give YOU a headache? It sure is for me. It’s even worse for the bees.

In May 2008 Germany banned the use of Poncho^® when German beekeepers reported loosing over 50% of their hives after a Poncho^® application was linked to the deaths of millions of bees in the Baden-Württemberg region. Bayer responded that the toxic effect was an isolated incident caused by an “extremely rare” application error. So Poncho^® is banned in Germany where Bayer was founded in 1863 and has its global headquarters. After the “extremely rare” application error people started to link Poncho^®with Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). CCD has been ravaging bee populations and nobody knows its cause. Beekeepers thought they had the smoking gun.

So why does the EPA still allow the use of this insecticide in the US even though they described it in 2003 as “highly toxic to honeybees”? And why does the EPA still allow the use of this insecticide when its use has been banned in Germany where Bayer was founded 146 years ago, and has its global headquarters? Sure beats me. The EPA issued a Press Release on 7/1/08 stating its position on the subject. They state, “EPA believes this incident in Baden-Württemberg is not related to CCD. Although pesticide exposure is one of four theoretical factors associated with CCD that the United States Department of Agriculture is researching, the facts in this case are not consistent with what is known about CCD.” So for this specific incident the EPA does not see a connection between Poncho^® and CCD. I am fine with their position that for this specific incident Poncho^®, a “highly toxic” pesticide to bees, caused widespread bee deaths and that the Baden-Württemberg incident was not consistent with CCD. OK, I’ll buy that.

Then in August 2008 the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit in federal court to force the EPA to disclose studies of the effect of  Poncho^®  on honey bees. They believe that the EPA has evidence of the link between CCD and pesticides, which it has not made public. So far the EPA has not responded to the NRDC’s request for information. This is quite strange indeed. It appears to me that “everybody’s got something to hide except for me and my monkey”.

Numerous theories have been floating around regarding the cause of CCD but none has been proven. Some of the challenges facing bee populations are: parasites such as Varroa mites, bacterial or fungal disease, commercialization and industrialization of beekeeping, pesticides, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, climate and more. I believe that it may be a combination of several or all of these factors as well as others we do not even know about at this time.

I always told my Maine neighbors as well as my Bread of Life customers, I try not to eat food that has been treated with stuff whose instructions are: wear a long sleeve shirt and long pants, gloves, hat and respirator. Do not inhale or get in contact with skin or eyes. Then they dump this stuff on their food and EAT it. No way Jose!!! But those are pretty much the instructions for the application of Poncho^®.

Epp-BEE-Log: I think the name Poncho^® for an insecticide is cool. That is why I used it so much in this article. Great marketing! The EPA needs to redouble its efforts to analyze many of the substances on the market to see if they are part of the CCD problem. Maybe it might be a combination of chemicals. Maybe one farmer is applying chemicals while a nearby field is being pollinated. The EPA must also release any and all information on chemicals that are being applied to our food so we can see what is going on. All I can say to the EPA is, take two aspirin and call me in the morning!

By Richie Gerber

Back in the mid eighties, when I owned The Bread of Life Natural Foods Stores, Paper vs. Plastic was the controversy of the day. Until then I only offered paper bags. All of us health food guys resisted going to the dark side: plastic. It was at a time when the Natural Products Industry started going through the growing pains of modernization. Gaining wider appeal in the mass-market ignited a wave of new customers to the Health Foods Industry and the need to adopt new ways in order to make them feel more comfortable shopping at our stores.

I started giving people a choice of paper or plastic bags. It became the hot topic of the day. Petro chemical, mass-market environmental hazard, non-recyclable, non renewable and unnatural were a few examples of the phrases going around describing the plastic bags. Several very committed customers expressed their displeasure with me offering plastic bags. Several even stopped shopping at my store.  Later they returned because all the stores started giving the same choice.

My rap was, and still is the following; EVERYTHING has consequences. Although paper had several positive aspects, especially that it is biodegradable among other things; there were negative problems that were not being talked about. It really is not a black and white issue. Here are several of the problems regarding paper bags. If you have ever seen a bundle of 1/6 Barrel Bags you would know what I am talking about. They are the brown paper shopping bags everyone loves to double up on, with or without handles. One bundle of these bags probably weighs over 10 pounds and they take up huge amounts of space. Critters love to live in and/or eat the paper and the glue that holds them together so who knows what happens in the distributors warehouse in order to prevent infestation. Don’t ask, don’t tell.

The transportation impact of fuel used to transport both favors plastic.  It is much lighter and more compact. So you can fit more plastic bags on a truck. It would take two trucks to carry the paper bags compared to one truck to carry the same amount of plastic bags, and the plastic bags weigh less, which burns less fuel to transport as well. And again, in real life people love to have their groceries double bagged. It’s part of the beast. Recently several environmentally conscious companies eliminated plastic bags altogether. No more choice.

Well actually they do give a choice of paper or BYOB (bring your own bag). BYOB is by far the best solution to this decades old dilemma.  I commend these forward thinking companies for bringing this issue back to the forefront. Reusable bags are hands down the BEST SOLUTION.

Julie and I always have canvas bags with us when we go grocery shopping. This is one very easy feel good act. Sometimes we are out and about and end up with a plastic bag. My tip for the day, use these plastic bags as garbage bags. They work great and you use less store bought trash bags.

Epp-BEE-Log: When it comes to the paper vs plastic debate the best answer is neither. They both have good and bad points, which tends to minimize or even equalize these two. If you are looking for the REAL answer it has to be BYOB.

By Richie Gerber

It happens to me every time I go to a party or gathering with Julie. Someone always brings up some permutation of an issue regarding the alternative lifestyle in order to, “pick my brain”. I guess these issues are all over the media, making people wonder about them. That’s great. At a recent gathering I was surrounded by several couples that wanted my point of view. They wanted to know which produce, local or organic, was better for the environment. The discussion heated up very quickly as I realized I was being ambushed. They were all Local Yokels and I am an Organic Fanatic.

Being a highly trained orator and forensic debater I immediately started to shower them with personal attacks and insults spiced with profanities (only kidding). I have been outnumbered before in similar situations so this did not faze me one bit. Here is what I told them.

My view of the Local vs. Organic question is as follows: If the Local produce is Organic then it is a moot point. Local Organic produce is the best. Local Organic is a no brainer as the number one choice since it supports organic farmers in your local community as well as reduces the negative impact of toxic chemicals on the environment, farm workers and your family.

So that narrows the real argument to Local Conventional Produce vs. Organic. Here is “Richie Gerber’s” produce hierarchy from most desirable to least:

 1. Local Organic= best

 2. Organic= great

 3. Local Conventional= avoid

Pretty simple. In my opinion the position for Local is very myopic. Its highest and best value is the reduction of greenhouse gases because of the reduced transportation impact on shipping the produce. It has less of a carbon footprint than Organic produce trucked in from other places. Reducing the carbon footprint is the most popular hot button environmental issue of the day. This is a valid point. I fully agree. But I have one caveat. Since EVERYTHING has consequences, we need to determine what, if any, consequences Local has. In my humble opinion: many. First off, this carbon footprint thing is a trade off issue that has other consequences, which I will explain shortly. On the other hand Local earns bonus points for supporting neighbors and local farmers. This is a very big deal so that it a big plus.

Remember, EVERYTHING has consequences. Local Conventional farming relies heavily on cides. I say, don’t take cides, eating Herbicides, Pesticides, Insecticides and Fungicides is committing suiricide. Don’t Take Cides. All these cides leave their everlasting residue on our land, in our rivers, in our streams and in our bodies! If that’s not enough, the Local produce could be grown from seed altered with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s). And if that is not enough to freak you out get this one. Drum roll please. The produce could be irradiated!!! Watch Out, that tomato you are about to eat is a pesticide ladened, gene spliced nuked nightshade. I admit this is extreme but it is definite that some of the above has happened to your tomato.

Earlier I gave Local produce bonus points for supporting neighbors and local farmers, a huge and noble act. Here is where we part ways. I think health is the highest and greatest issue. Health overrides everything. Your family’s health, farm workers health and the health of our planet trump everything. Everything.

 All the gains from reducing the carbon footprint for Local are totally washed out with the horrible chemical residues damaging our environment and the health of the people who eat these products. I should throw in the exposure of these toxic chemicals on the agricultural workers as well. Toxic chemical residues on our food as well as runoff into our streams and lakes are a cause for alarm. Children are more susceptible to the dangers lurking in chemical produce. I finished up with my usual over the top inflammatory statement to nail my point.  “I would rather give up a few feet of glacier in the ant-arctic than feed my kid poison for dinner tonight”.

You can probably imagine that I was the most popular person at the party. I know it is a crude statement but it does crystallize this argument as well as personalize it. Questions and discussion flowed back and forth after I expressed my unconventional point of view. Everyone was shaken out of their comfort zone and now had more information to think about. I also wanted everyone to understand that I did not want to throw the Local farmers under the bus. I explained to the partiers the need to educate our Local farmers on the benefits of Organic agriculture. Help them cut off their dependence on chemical agriculture. Show them safer methods of farming from their agricultural extension service or other agencies involved in alternative agricultural methods. Help them become part of the solution.

Epp-Bee-Log: EVERYTHING has consequences. This is not a black or white issue. Even though global warming might be helped, adding more toxic chemicals to the world is not a sustainable solution. So, as I said before, I will gladly say again, don’t take cides, eating Herbicides, Pesticides, Insecticides and Fungicides is committing suicide. Don’t Take Cides!!!

So count me in on the Organic Side.

News Flash: 10 Billion Bees descend on California’s Central Valley!

Bee on Richie's Mango Tree ©Richie Gerber

This might sound like an alarm or call to action but in fact it is a yearly occurrence. It is the largest migration of “workers” in the US, actually in the world. Every February over 2,200 18-wheelers carrying more than 1.2 million hives from all parts of the US descend on California with their 10 billion bees. No, it is not Woodstock for the bees! The 10 billion bees descend on California in order to pollinate the almond crop.  It’s nuts, literally. That is equal to lining up 2,200 trucks end to end from Midtown Manhattan to Greenwich, Connecticut 30 miles away.

California’s Agricultural Industrial Almond Complex yields over 80% of the world’s almonds. This makes almonds the number one horticultural export crop in the US and generates over 2 billion dollars in income. It is also California’s #1 agricultural export. Over 1,100 square miles in central California are devoted to almonds. 700,000 acres with about two hives per acre dot this area every February.

For about three weeks in February ¾ of all the nations commercial honeybees are working in the almond groves of California. Just to put things into perspective next year the almond growers will need to increase the number of hives from 1.2 million to 2 million because of new trees maturing as well as increased acreage. This means that the need for honeybees to pollinate the almond crop will increase from 10 billion bees to over 16 billion bees in just one season for just one crop, for just three weeks. Astounding!!! Bee-yond Bee-lief.

After the three week almond bloom is over and the trees have passed flowering the beekeepers pack up the hives with their special forklifts and load them back onto their flatbed tractor-trailers. Than they deliver the hives to the next crop to bloom. After that, the next crop bloom and on and on; apples in Washington State, cranberry bogs in Cape Cod, blueberries in Maine, citrus in Florida, watermelons, cantaloupes, melons, cucumbers, squash, mangos, avocado, cherries, pears etc.… This is the life of the migrant bee, over worked, under paid and underappreciated. 

Bees have always been primarily prized for their honey, which has been a food staple since prehistoric times. Since the advent of modern agricultural industrial methods the relationship of bees and food production has changed dramatically. The role of the bee has grown from a producer of food to a pollinator service provider.

The commercial beekeeper harvests his honey but that has become a smaller percentage of his income compared to renting out his bees. The almond farmers pay about $165 per box (hive) for the three-week bloom. If a beekeeper ships his 30,000 hives for the almond bloom he or she can expect to receive $500,000. Yes, you heard me right, a half a million dollars for THREE WEEKS. Don’t get me wrong; I am not criticizing the beekeeper for making money. I think that is wonderful. It is hard work and with hive loss etc. it is a very risky business. The same goes for the farmer. It is a tough and risky business. 2008’s bumper crop produced 1.5 billion pounds of almonds. 2009 will probably be about 1/3 less because of weather conditions as well as weak pollination. So both the farmer and beekeeper must deal with the age-old feast or famine dilemma. I respect them both immensely.

Bees, you can live with them but you can’t live without them.

Bees have been around over 25 million years. In today’s world they have become an essential part of our agricultural food production industry. While they pollinate one third of the food we eat we have been oblivious to their buzz for help. They are exposed to all sorts of toxic herbicides, pesticides, insecticides and other toxic substances. Each different agricultural area and crop requires it’s own unique chemical cocktail. Although the crops are never sprayed during the pollination season they are certainly treated before the bees arrive. There must be some residue remaining on the plants, which may be toxic to the bees.

Epp-BEE-Log: Since modern woman/man has changed the job description of the noble bee from food producer and added on pollinator service provider we must be more conscious of how bees are treated. Trucking them tens of thousands of miles a year to various agricultural areas with diverse climates and crops must take some toll on them. They also are exposed to more toxic substances living this nomadic life.

Let’s heed their buzz. All we are saying is,” GIVE BEES A CHANCE’.

There is much more to this story that I will cover in future articles. 

* California Almond Board

Bee-ware of Frankin-scents!

Fragrance can be composed of dozens if not hundreds of chemicals, which are not disclosed on the label–a dirty little secret supported by the US Government. Think of Fragrance as a Frankin-scent monster lurking in your shampoo. You may be thinking: how can that be? The FDA rules only require the word “Fragrance” on the label even though Fragrances are actually a huge cocktail of numerous chemical components. Many of these chemicals come with some very negative baggage. For example, the benzene family of chemicals tends to have a sweetish aroma that is very popular among perfumers. The benzenes are petroleum-based, so they’re cheap, easy to come by and a known cause of leukemia. Again, the guiding factor is CHEAP!!! Not health. And the government turns a blind eye to this game.

One of the most alarming, and most common chemicals found in Synthetic Fragrances is phthalates, which have been scientifically linked to a number of degenerative diseases. The scientific journal Environmental Health Perspectives has published a study finding that women of reproductive age (20-40 years) were found to have significantly higher blood levels of monobutyl phthalate than other age/gender groups. Phthalates have been found to be a reproductive and developmental toxicant in rodents. * This is largely attributed to the vast array of phthalates in skin care and cosmetics that women in this age bracket expose themselves to daily. Synthetics Fragrances are cheap and essential oils are expensive which is why so many companies choose to use a synthetic Fragrance instead of the much healthier essential oil alternative. They are addicted to cheap. Avoid products that list “fragrance”, “perfume” or “parfum” as ingredients. This should alert you that the manufacturer is only interested in profit because he is using cheap and toxic ingredients.

Phthalates are plastics used as industrial plasticizers to impart flexibility and resilience to plastic, among other uses. Recent studies have discovered that phthalates can interfere with the normal sexual development of a fetus or infant. Diethyl phthalate (DEP) is most often used as a fragrance ingredient in perfume, cologne, deodorant, soap, shampoo, lotion, and other personal care products (Environmental Working Group 2003; Wolff 2007). Exposure to diethyl phthalate occurs through direct use of products containing this chemical, as well as through inhalation of contaminated air (Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 2005).

In September 2000, scientists from the CDC conducted the first accurate measurements of human phthalate exposures, and reported finding phthalates in every one of 289 people tested.

Phthalates have recently been banned from toys in California, which is great, but how about personal care products, laundry detergents, household products, air fresheners? Phthalates are now everywhere thanks to the ubiquitous use of Fragrance.

Epp-Bee-Log: We can all limit our exposure to Fragrances. Just read labels and look for the “F” word. Even if you see some non toxic words like “natural” connected to it, do not be deceived. No mater which way the label says Fragrance you now know it is a trick word that is meant to hide the truth. Manufacturers that use Fragrance are not the exception in personal care product manufacturing. Almost all manufacturers use these chemical Fragrances. Driven by cheap ingredients the use of Fragrances is actually the norm. My tip of the day is don’t let the Frankin-scent Monster into your home.

*Source: Environmental Health Perspectives: Levels of Seven Urinary Phthalate Metabolites in a Human Reference Population www.ehponline.org/members/2000/108p972-982blount/blount-full.html

Central Park First Earth Day ©Richie Gerber

Julie and I go back to the first Earth Day celebration in Central Park in the early 1970’s. Since 1980, Earth Day was always a major event at our Natural Foods Stores, Bread of Life. In 1992 we gave away over 600 Laurel Oak Trees to customers and local municipalities, which proved to be a big local media event. We have always expressed our concern regarding the environment.

That first Earth Day celebration was an event by the counter culture to focus people’s attention on the challenges facing Mother Earth. We are truly amazed that this counter culture event has crossed over to become a yearly mainstream ritual. Maybe it is not so amazing. Since Earth Day has become such a huge global media frenzy some individuals, companies and organizations have learned how to game the event to position themselves as upstanding stewards of the environment when in reality they are huge polluters as well as massive hypocrites.

Back in the 60’s we had words like “co-opted” and “sell out” for people who were using counter culture ideas for personal gain. Don’t get me wrong; I am not against profit or personal gain. I am against hypocrites who are only in it for the money.

What I mean by the hypocrites are companies who produce the most toxic substances in mass quantities but use the media to project an image of being extremely green and environmentally friendly. You can see any number of these ads on TV and in newspapers or magazines. In the ads they praise themselves for their exemplary environmental stewardship, when in fact we all know they are involved in huge amounts of pollution. They produce products that are detrimental to the environment as well as use negative manufacturing practices that pollute.

Last night I had a dream about how one of these companies, let’s call it TOXIC INC., might go about doing a snow job to cover up their polluting ways. Welcome to my nightmare, here it is:

TOXIC INC. hires a Madison Avenue PR and ad company to produce a major image changing campaign. Please note that 99% of TOXIC’s business has a negative impact on the environment. They want to convey an Earth friendly corporate image to the public while continuing its detrimental business practices. In order to do this they must downplay the toxic 99% of their business and focus on the less than 1% of their business that is Earth friendly.  Let’s call the Madison Avenue PR company SnowJob PR Inc. They first need to create an Earth friendly project to promote. TOXIC decides that since they are destroying large tracts of land in remote areas they will put sod over the depleted areas once they are done destroying them. We must remember that neither the TOXIC INC. executives nor the SnowJob PR guys really know or care about the environmental issues involved as long as they can promote and exaggerate their green initiative. They are only interested in presenting a new clean and green look for TOXIC INC.

So here is the plan. Since this is for such a worthy cause they commission the world-renowned environmental installation artist, GreenGo, to create a huge installation. GreenGo creates a work, which will wrap the entire continent of Antarctica in green polypropylene floating fabric for six days. GreenGo picked Antarctica to highlight global warming as well, in order to get more bang for the buck since it is such a hot issue. Speaking of more bang for the buck TOXIC INC pays to have celebrities endorse the art installation as well as hail TOXIC for its wonderful environmental commitment.

The project is a major hit. The media is all over it. Two hundred celebrities fly to the opening ceremony in 200 private jets, not commercial airlines in order not to inconvenience them and make the experience an easy in and out. Thousand of volunteers prep the material for distribution from airplanes. The entire project is executed flawlessly. The event is in the news for weeks. People all over the world are now raving about TOXIC INC and their commitment to the environment. GreenGo is once again hailed as the great environmental installation artist of our time. Even SnowJob PR  is acknowledged as THE cutting edge Madison Avenue PR Company. Meanwhile TOXIC INC continues to pollute the environment in 99% of its business but has created a false image of being grand environmental stewards.

In order to give some balance one can argue that the 1% green program is the first step in the right direction, which I agree with. When we are talking about huge companies changing even a little on such a massive scale it does have a positive impact. We need to help corporate America increase that 1% to a much higher percentage as soon as possible.

Epp-BEE-Log: I know this is crazy stuff but that’s how dreams are. Some things do ring true though. There are many large polluters who manipulate the media and public opinion in order to convey a false image of being environmentally friendly. My dream for this Earth Day is that more and more people see through this hypocrisy and demand an increased proactive approach to environmental issues from corporations or else my dream will turn into a nightmare. Goodnight. Sweet dreams.

A few years ago, when I started my personal care company, BeeCeuticals Organics, I contacted several manufacturers to produce products according to my specs. I was interested in using only natural and organic ingredients. Our discussions about the ingredients were going well until the subject of scent came up. Scents play an important role in skin care products by working together with the other ingredients. As I learned later on, scents can be harmful too; it all depends on the source.

When one of these manufacturers began to explain what he did to enhance the aroma of his products I almost jumped out of my organic skin! Let’s call him Dirty Larry. I wanted the aroma of Lavender in one of my facial creams. Dirty Larry was happy, he said that Lavender, which he called Lavender Type Fragrance, was readily available and cheap to use in manufacturing. But, wait a second, I said to myself: what did he mean by Lavender Type Fragrance?

He described to me how the practice of using Fragrances is accepted in the cosmetic industry.  And then he specifically defined what he meant by Lavender Type Fragrance by showing me the list of chemicals that, when mixed together smell like Lavender. Following you can read it for yourself:

Ingredients: 4-(40Hydroxyphenyl)-2-butanone, 3-hodroxy-2-methyl-4-pyrone, 4-hydroxy-3-methylbenzaldehyde, a-Ionone, Methyl Sulfide, 2,5-Dimethyl-N(2-pyrazinyl)pyrrole

I was stunned!! What happened to using the essence of Lavender flowers? For two decades I owned Natural Food stores and was aware of Essential Oils being used for their scents and therapeutic qualities.  As it turns out, Essential Oils are a lot more costly than cheap Fragrances and not the scent of choice for most personal care companies. Of course I did not do business with Dirty Larry, but I did learn a lot about how most cosmetic companies operate. Here are some of the facts I learned about the stench of Fragrance:

Many companies including so-called “natural” companies use synthetic Fragrances, especially some of the biggest names and widely used brands. Many even put “natural Fragrance ” in their ingredient list. THER IS NO SUCH THING as a “natural Fragrance “! This is a lie. A natural scent is imparted to a product only by essential oils and would read on the label as “essential oil of…” If you see the word “Fragrance”, you know that product contains nasty chemicals as shown in the above example of Lavender.

Fragrance oils and perfumes are blends of synthetic chemicals that give a distinct aroma to a product. These chemicals do not have to be accounted for in the ingredients list individually. A perfume can consist of a hundred different synthetic chemicals and be listed as “Fragrance” even on a so-called “natural” product. This is so deceptive. One little “F” word can actually represent a hundred different synthetic chemicals!

A few things you should know about “Fragrance”:

·        A fragrance can contain upwards of 150 undisclosed chemicals and yet only be labeled as “fragrance” in the ingredient listing. Companies are allowed to keep the ingredients in a fragrance a secret and claim it is proprietary information.

·        Recent studies have found nearly 100 Volatile Organic Compounds(VOC’s) at high levels in products containing fragrance. Some of those VOC’s include acetaldehyde, chloromethane, and 1,4 dioxane which has been linked to cancer!

·        One of the most alarming and most common chemicals found were phthalates, which have been scientifically linked to a number of degenerative diseases

·        Fragrances are unregulated

·        According to the American Academy of Dermatologists most allergic reactions from skin care products are due to synthetic fragrances. I remember customers coming to my stores with masks on their face or calling in orders that they would pick up outside the store so they did not come in contact with people wearing perfume.

In a laboratory analysis, one popular perfume was found to contain more than forty chemicals classified as hazardous to the liver, and yet the FDA still does not require perfume manufacturers to warn consumers about the toxic chemicals found in these products.

Epp-BEE-Log: This is such a stinky subject. Remember when you see the word FRAGRANCE on a label it can be hiding many unlisted synthetic and toxic chemicals. We must all say NO to personal care products that say FRAGRANCE.