E-mail to the Green Party

Dear madam/sir,

Thank you for all of your recent correspondence concerning the lapsing of my Green Party Membership. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding.

I have a great affinity with the principles, and the majority of policies of the Green Party; more so than with any of the other political groups. This extends not only to your stance on environmental issues, but to the wider issues such as benefits, education, and foreign policy. In any future elections, I am most likely to vote for a Green candidate.

However, I no longer feel it appropriate for me directly support the Party with either a financial contribution, or by being a full member. I have two reasons for this.

I strongly believe that the best way for a party such as the Green Party to be successful, it should base its policies and campaigning on as firm as base as possible. Having been brought up and educated with a strong scientific basis, and having observed the increasingly populist form that recent politics has taken, it seems that a truly benevolent government should be focusing on what works, what can be shown to work, and to what can rationally be expected to work.

Whilst a large proportion of formal Green Party policy has been formed in this way, I am increasingly concerned by the behaviour of senior Party members who are abandoning these principles and resorting to positions that seem more interested in manipulating irrational fears than in the realities of a given situation.

As a brief example, there was some brief concern over the potential dangers of wireless computer communications. These concerns have very little basis either in observable effect, or in the theories that underlie our current understanding of the physical world. There are certain parts of the media, and opportunistic politicians, who I had no surprise in seeing jump on this and create irrational fears and ban everything headlines. I did not expect this behaviour from senior members of a party that I had joined at least partly on the basis of its rationality.

I fully accept the right of any individual member to hold some particular views that do not agree entirely with the policy of their party. There are of course one or two points in which I disagree with Green Party manifestos. However, there is also an added responsibility upon senior party members, particularly those who are frequently providing a voice for the party in public fora, to be consistent with party policy, and where they are known to disagree, to at least be sure that their disagreement in based on a tenable position.

On a second, more practical note, I have been astounded by the amount of information I have received from the Green Party during my year as a member. Communication is a very important part of any political movement, but the volume of paper that I have received, frequently with separate mailings from different sources containing exactly the same information has almost disgusted me.

In addition, none of this sources seem to offer alternative methods of communication, most notably in my mind an e-mail or internet based method of delivery that would reduce the amount of physical resources used.

I repeat that I will continue to vote for the Green Party at every opportunity. I will continue to support the aims of the Party where I can, both in practical acts, and in communicating with friends, relatives, and in dealing with important issues. However, I cannot consider offering financial support, or continuing my formal relationship with the Party given my concerns raised above.

Yours sincerely,




LSNDuck

Confusion

There are times when I miss my pre-medication days. My feelings were much more clear cut then; if I was angry-depressed, I knew it, if I was apathetic, I knew it (and didn't care).

At the moment, now I am on fluoxetine (which reminds me, must go and takes today's), everything is confusing. My mood is much more balanced and positive. I still have the occasional melancholic period, but I can't remember having an angry or dark mood since changing drugs. I don't tend to feel apathetic any more, but I still think it a great deal.

In one of my previous posts, I described a sense of blocking. Looking back at that post, my mood did seem to be low at the time, but it wasn't too bad. Over the last couple of days, that sense, and my thoughts have been very much against me. Yet my mood has been relatively good.

My mind is still running in the old grooves of self-criticism. I am not capable of doing my job, there is no point in my being there, I have no purpose or use. But my mood isn't there. I am certainly not at the top of my game, but I am not in the depths that I have suffered before. At the same time I know that all of feelings and emotions are there. I can feel them sitting and grinning at me.

This causes a great deal of confusion. My mind can't deal with doing things, going to work, trampolining, or whatever it is. I feel OK; not great, but OK. I can sense darker things there. Then the feedback starts up, I feel fine, so what do I think I am playing at? Guilt now adds into the self-deprecation cycle, but my mood stays reasonable.

Grr at my head.

--
Footnote: For various reasons I went to a different pharmacy for my last prescription. Their fluoxetine is from a different manufacturer from my usual. The capsule coating tastes foul. Ugh.

Obesity evidence

Interestingly, following my recent post concerning Junkfood Science and obesity, a major report has been released on the subject.

The Expert Report, Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective is produced by the World Cancer Research Fund. According to the website the report is:

the most current and comprehensive analysis of the literature on diet, physical activity and cancer.

I shall read as much as I can, consider the evidence used, and report back here.

Newcastle University organic food study

Yesterday, the Guardian and the BBC website reported news concerning an EU funded study into organic foods carried out led by the University of Newcastle.

The Guardian article was titles 'Organic food is healthier: study', whilst the BBC used "Organic produce 'better for you'". Both indicate that the study showed organic foods (in this study, fruit, vegetables, and cow based products) to be more healthy than non-organic food.

Unfortunately, none of the news coverage linked to more detailed information, and I couldn't find any after some cursory searching.

Using the coverage as the sole source of information, I have the following concerns about the report:

It has yet to be published, or peer reviewed. Thus no comment can be passed on the accuracy of the study, or the interpretation of results. Unusually, the BBC noted this.

The main basis for the the organic fruit and vegetables being considered more healthy is that they contain higher levels of anti-oxidants than non-organic comparisons. Whilst many claims are made for the health benefits of anti-oxidants, there is very little evidence to support them. The majority of studies have either shown no benefit, or in some cases, a reduction in benefit where additional anti-oxidants are applied.

It may be that anti-oxidants are good for us, in which case these organic crops will be better in that sense. The coverage, however, incorrectly assumes that this is true, invalidating the conclusion that the study shows the organic produce to be healthier.

Assuming that the journalists were reasonably true to the press release they were given, the information seems remarkably scant. Some mention is made of increased levels of some fatty acids as well as other 'nutrients'. No details of which, and in what quantity were given.

The release itself stated that there were wide variations in results.

So, whilst it may be that organic produce is better for us in some ways than non-organic, as it stands at the moment we can't say so with any degree of certainty. This release of information does not change that position, despite the inference from the news coverage otherwise.

Introduction: Junkfood Science

One blog that I have been keeping up to date with recently has been Junkfood Science. Written by Sandy Szwarc, a qualified nurse, if focusses on the science and issues around obesity. The position of the blog is largely against the message delivered by governments that there is an obesity crisis that is threatening the health of the (western) world. The main points seem to be:

1. Obesity doesn't cause disease or medical conditions as is widely reported. It can be a marker for causes, but isn't one of itself.
2. In some situations, obesity can have positive health influences.
3. Highlighting the discrimination against the obese, including the negative effect that the 'war on obesity' has on this.
4. Indicating that the 'war on obesity' is a potentially large market, especially when reinforced by government campaigns.
5. That the obesity crisis is largely a false interpretation of the real situation.

Generally, the posts are well structured and written. Sandy Szwarc makes frequent references to studies and publications, and offers her analysis of their findings, which commonly run against the popular interpretations.

The clarity and apparent evidence base of these claims has caused me to consider the subject in greater depth. That the main emphasis of Junkfood Science runs against popular opinion, and the beliefs that I have been taught, and with apparently reliable evidence in support, have interested me a great deal.

I have briefly looked at some of the opposing views, some of which are very vehemently against Sandy Szwarc, but I think I will do so in much greater depth, and report what I discover here.