>Todd mentioned oily fish and it made me begin to wonder which fish would
>actually be considered oily? Tuna? Sardines? Salmon? What else?.

 mackerels,  herrings,  anchovies , smelt, and here we have Eulachon. a fish
so oily that the native here were using a whole dried fish as a canddle.
they were extracting the oil too for use as a dip for other foods. In season
( spring) i could dry some herrings or Eulachon or smelt and sell it to
peoples interested. But because of their high fat content they don't store
too long without getting rancid,  let me know in advance if interested.
>
>What's going on in the genetic engineering of food wars? I believe the
>European Communities still have a ban on any types of engineered foods.

I read recently that  Europe might be on their way to let engineered foods
be sold, and because i believe the reasons of their reticences to accept
them have more to do with economico- political reasons than ,because peoples
there ,are more health consious, once this obstacle will be contourned ( and
america knows well how to do that) the market will be floaded with GEF ( if
specificaly interested see the article at the end of my message)


. Then we eat the meat, aren't we at risk for the
>same diseases as someone who unknowingly eats this stuff in processed
foods?

It just makes sense !

>We watched Ray on 48 hours picking out meat and bacon at the grocery store,
>it looked like the same grain fed beef I've been buying, so what's the
>scoop? Is this genetically engineered soy bean eating, grain feed, steroid
>injected beef really good for us to eat?


No and it will be foolish to expect from this kind of diet much result once
past the 1st benefits of letting go of grains. And it will be very
delusionary to use the  paleo diets researches or the example of
hunter-gatherers ,  as a caution for eating supermarkets meats. We really
need to ask louder  for better products and this will require some
boycotting of what is presently offered by the commercial distribution
system.
I have an example right here . i have a friend who bought a farm with two
highland cattles on it.
Those cattles who are small very lean and very rustic looking (long hair and
big horns) will make laugh any cattlemen  . They realised that those cattles
were taking care of themselves ( not getting sick , grazing year round and
giving birth by themselves in the field) so they kept  them and the cheptel
grew. Now she have 17 animals and she is selling locally. the meat by
quarter. I had a talk today  with her  and she is afraid of not being able
to sell enough to continue . She is obviously not paleo and don't have the
incentive of the heart to keep going so her motive is economic. but because
an highland catle don't carry lot of meat ( in fact they are,  because they
have litle fats inserted in the muscle) they don't get as much money from an
animal than a commercial farmer will. So there is somebody here who got into
the paleo business by mistake and she is  desperatly looking for customers.,
because people find more economical ( at 1st sight )  or practical to buy at
the supermarket,  beef from the other side of the world
An other example, other friend pure dedicated certified organic grower
decide to try the eggs business . he use the chicken tractor  principle
 movable coop)   moving his chickens along differentes pastures so they
allways have fresh picking grounds. But because the customers are not ready
to pay the price of the chicken egg raised on organic feed , he quitted. ( i
recycled the hens,  dried them ,not lost for every body)
An other example: 2 friends ,same kind of dedicated organic growers were
producing eggs and vegetables selling at  the market to happy customers.
they realised that they could not ask too much money for there products
without loosing their less,  dedicated to organic, customers.
So they switched to dairy products ( not so paleo anymore) and now they make
a good income . people are more ready to spend  big money for their" treats"
than spend the required price for the nourishing food.

< When you hit it big time, you can afford the better stuff. I'm
> like you, I
> eat what I can find and afford.>
> [log in to unmask]>

Me too,  I shop by the store adds that come in the mail.  If chicken and
pork are on sale,  then thats what we eat for the week.  Today i found a
great deal,  5 dozen eggs for $4.   hhmmmm  better make a lot of deviled
eggs huh?

It is hard to understand that eating cheap is in fact very expensive.
I will not repeat it enough , the prices of food are not representative of
the real cost.
A real food is expensive to produce ( it require respect (of the land,
plants and animals) ,  effort and dedication) .
Buying cheap is in fact contributing to the system that make us miserable in
the 1st place.
To get a real paleo diet it will require.
1 to pay the price for good products so good  productors can propere and
"infect" the other farmers
2 (if poor like me) , to produce a part of the food eaten and you will
realise quickly what is the real cost of growing good foods. ( it is cheap
but very time demanding)
3 (  boycotting the CRAP so there is room for the good stuff ( in my opinion
bacon is certainly as paleo as bread ) commercial pigs have the worst diet
that you can imagine for an omnivorous animal.
we are worth it, the effort . it just feel good to treat yourself as a king
( the kings in the middle age were eating more  paleo  than the
farmer-slaves )
It just feel good to take  care of oneself with respect ( there is no
respect in the way commercial meats are produced).
We don't ask for enough.
jean-claude               ( see below for GEF article)

By Jonathon Carr-Brown, Jo Dillon
and Geoffrey Lean

23 January 2000

Leading European Union officials are
trying to broker a secret deal which
could result in Britain being flooded
with imported GM foods.

Pascal Lamy, the Trade
Commissioner, is determined to
pursue the deal with the United
States, despite being explicitly
forbidden to do so by ministers of his
member states, including Michael
Meacher, Britain's environment
minister.

A spokesman for Mr Lamy confirmed
that he was keen to get the deal "on
the agenda".

If he succeeds, Britain and other
European countries could lose their
power to block imports of GM foods
and seeds from the US, which is
aggressively pushing them.

In return, The Independent on
Sunday has learnt, White House
officials have promised to drop a US
campaign to force cuts in the
subsidies paid to European farmers
under the Common Agricultural
Policy (CAP). That would be
particularly important to France, Mr
Lamy's own country. But it will be
regarded as a double betrayal by
environmentalists and by the British
government which has been
pressing for reform of the CAP,
blamed for doing much to destroy
wildlife and the countryside by
promoting intensive agriculture.

The revelation of Mr Lamy's
intentions is bound to create a row at
international negotiations on the GM
trade which open, under the auspices
of the United Nations, in Montreal
tomorrow.

The talks are likely to be scuppered
by the US's insistence that any
agreement under a proposed UN
Biosafety Protocol would be
subordinate to a future WTO deal.
Similar talks took place last year
when the US and five other grain
exporting countries, called the Miami
group, blocked agreement by 160
nations on controls which would
have allowed governments to refuse
to import GM foods and seeds.

The Miami group, which includes
Canada, Australia, Argentina,
Uruguay and Chile, want all grains
and other foodstuffs (90 per cent of
GM food) excluded from any
biosafety agreement.

A confidential US State Department
memorandum, obtained by The
Independent on Sunday, also reveals
that America has been putting
unrelenting pressure on European
governments to accept American GM
products. It says that US corn
exporters alone "stand to lose $220m
in sales" because of European delays
in approving GM crops and says that
the Clinton administration will need
to keep up the pressure "to find a
way to speed approvals".

Mr Lamy first proposed the deal at
the turbulent World Trade
Organisation (WTO) conference in
Seattle last month. He accepted US
demands effectively to transfer
discussions of controls on the GM
trade from the United Nations
negotiations - where it was heavily
outnumbered - to the WTO, which
would take a much more permissive
attitude. In return the US agreed to
drop plans to ensure that the WTO
forced reform on the CAP, which it
regards as competing unfairly with
US agriculture.

His move was immediately rejected
by EU trade, food and environment
ministers at the conference. Mr Lamy
backed down, but only after
reminding the politicians that the
commission, which he represented,
was responsible for trade
negotiations. His spokesman said:
This type of deal does not
necessarily mean that we are going
to open up markets to American GM
foods." But his plans are still bound
to run into intense opposition from
ministers.

Mr Meacher said yesterday:
Unfortunately, and without
authority, the commissioner made a
serious mistake in Seattle. He was
comprehensively repudiated by
ministers. There can be no question
of trying to resuscitate the proposal."

Tony Juniper, Policy Director of
Friends of the Earth said: "It is an
absolute scandal that an unelected
bureaucrat is taking it upon himself
to make up policy as he goes along,
directly against the wishes of
governments who are seeking to
protect their consumers and the
environment."



Eleanor Heise
President, Canadian Organic Growers (COG)