A Family’s Nightmare

The following story comes from the very excellent blog Journal of Whole Food and Nutritional Health wholefoodusa.wordpress.co

It is truly terrifying to me that our civil liberties can be so easily shredded without so much as an explanation or chance to defend ourselves.

Now that spring is finally here we are, at last, heading up to the mountains this weekend where I will be able to “score” some fresh raw milk. Should I bring a lawyer???

And what the HELL is going on in Ohio these days anyway!?

April Update: SWAT Team Raid on Homeschool and Food/Health Ministry for Hungry Families

April 21, 2009 · 29 Comments

Is this image illegal, too? Or is it unpatriotic?

If a dozen or more terrorists held two women, 10 children, toddlers and a baby hostage for six hours, the event would be on television nationwide and on the front pages of newspapers the next day.

I suppose it would not mean so much to me if the victims were not my friends, as if they are my brothers and sisters. In fact, they are probably the most loving family I have met in many, many years. I cannot help but bring the story to the forefront again along with new details and nestling all the legal documents and video together in one place.

In this latest Update video, an investigative reporter interviews the victims and the sheriff’s office and includes video of their children and small farm.

It happened before Christmas 2008 at a food and health ministry for hungry families in Ohio. It was as if the family were bio-terrorists or something.

Three snipers with high-powered rifles were aimed at the home with ten children being homeschooled. Babies and toddlers were inside also. About twelve armed sheriff deputies along with agents from the Lorain County (Ohio) Health Department and the Ohio Department of Agriculture raided and ransacked the inside and held the family for six hours inside a room in their home outside Lagange, Ohio.

Food, computers and phones were seized from their private home along with 61 boxes of grass-fed beef and lamb were taken that was butchered, wrapped and labeled by a licensed and USDA inspected butcher shop and delivered the day before. According to the expired search warrant, deputies were to seize money and bank accounts. The storehouse of organic foods from a variety of suppliers as well as the personal food stock were taken as the terrified family watched.

Why? A dozen eggs had been sold after being coerced by an undercover agent. As anyone would say, “there is more to it than that”. Yes, there was more. The owners of the home, Jackie and John Stowers, and their Manna Storehouse, an organic food co-op inside, were alleged to have operated without having a retail food license.

But this event did not make the newspapers or television news much at all, leaving the public unaware to this day what occurred on December 1, 2008, not far from my house.

In homeschool, the children are being taught the 3Rs, as well as Greek and Hebrew. The two Stower teenagers raise the sheep and goats they care for and love so much. The authorities had apparently been tipped off as to their time to strike as the kids lambs were led to slaughter. This was so they could make the bust the day the packed meat was delivered to their home for distribution. Yes, the grinches stole Christmas-even the Christmas dinner, not for just the Stowers, but for many hungry families in the LaGrange area.

But where is the news media, the fair and balanced team?

Where is the Ohio health rule that states a private co-op who does not sell food but arranges for orders of food to be delivered at one location, is required to have a retail food license? There is none.

No charges have yet been filed against the Stowers and The Manna Storehouse. So, where is the beef? Has it been eaten? Or is it rotting in a leased storage facility?

Substitute Photo

Is this how the Lorraine County Sheriff protects and serves? Is this how the Ohio Department of Agriculture promotes sustainable, organic agriculture and small, family farms? And is this how the Ohio Department of Health and their county counterparts promote and protects public health through their food safety program?

Just who are the terrorists?

It will be a Christmas never forgotten for the Stowers families and the 12 children, including those of Katie, the wife of Chad Stower. Chad is serving America in the Iraqi War as a Navy SeaBee.

The official motto of the Seabees is “Construimus, Batuimus” – translated into English as “We Build, We Fight.” The Seabees have several unofficial mottos as well. Their best known unofficial motto is the simple phrase “Can Do!”

What will you do?

Agave nectar: the new “health” fraud

Here’s another great reminder to KNOW WHAT YOU ARE REALLY EATING FOLKS! Man it’s getting harder every day!

The following is from my good friend in nutrition Kimberly Hartke and The Weston A. Price Foundation:

AGAVE WORSE THAN SUGAR, NUTRITION FOUNDATION WARNS

New Product Contains More Synthesized Fructose than High Fructose Corn Syrup

April 21, 2009, Washington, D.C.– Agave “nectar,” a sweetener increasingly appearing in products aimed at health-conscious consumers, poses greater health hazards than high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), according to a recent article in Wise Traditions, the journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation, a leading voice for accurate nutrition information. Although agave “nectar” is promoted as a healthy alternative to sugar, its high fructose content has nutrition experts raising the caution flag. According to the article, agave contains more free synthetic fructose than high fructose corn syrup, which experts now link to obesity and other health problems.

READ FULL TEXT HERE:

www.http://hartkeisonline.com/

Ingredient Names: What’s really IN that?

Here is yet another reason to read labels carefully, learn what names really mean, and do as much fresh, home-cooking as reasonably possible.

MSG: Is This Silent Killer Lurking in Your Kitchen Cabinets?

by Dr. Mercola

A widespread and silent killer that’s worse for your health than alcohol, nicotine and many drugs is likely lurking in your kitchen cabinets right now.[1] “It” is monosodium glutamate (MSG), a flavor enhancer that’s known widely as an addition to Chinese food, but that’s actually added to thousands of the foods you and your family regularly eat, especially if you are like most Americans and eat the majority of your food as processed foods or in restaurants.

MSG is one of the worst  food additives on the market and is used in canned soups, crackers, meats, salad dressings, frozen dinners and  much more. It’s found in your local supermarket and restaurants, in your child’s school cafeteria and, amazingly, even in baby food and infant formula.

MSG is more than just a seasoning like salt and pepper, it actually enhances the flavor of foods, making processed meats and frozen dinners taste fresher and smell better, salad dressings more tasty, and canned foods less tinny.

While MSG’s benefits to the food industry are quite clear, this food additive could be slowly and silently doing major damage to your health.

What Exactly is MSG?

You may remember when the MSG powder called “Accent” first hit the U.S. market. Well, it was many decades prior to this, in 1908, that monosodium glutamate was invented. The inventor was Kikunae Ikeda, a Japanese man who identified the natural flavor enhancing substance of seaweed.

Taking a hint from this substance, they were able to create the man-made additive MSG, and he and a partner went on to form Ajinomoto, which is now the world’s largest producer of MSG (and interestingly also a drug manufacturer).[2]

Chemically speaking, MSG is approximately 78 percent free glutamic acid, 21 percent sodium, and up to 1 percent contaminants.[3]

It’s a misconception that MSG is a flavor or “meat tenderizer.” In reality, MSG has very little taste at all, yet when you eat MSG, you think the food you’re eating has more protein and tastes better. It does this by tricking your tongue, using a little-known fifth basic taste: umami.

Umami is the taste of glutamate, which is a savory flavor found in many Japanese foods, bacon and also in the toxic food additive MSG. It is because of umami that foods with MSG taste heartier, more robust and generally better to a lot of people than foods without it.

The ingredient didn’t become widespread in the United States until after World War II, when the U.S. military realized Japanese rations were much tastier than the U.S. versions because of MSG.

In 1959, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeled MSG as “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS), and it has remained that way ever since. Yet, it was a telling sign when just 10 years later a condition known as “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome” entered the medical literature, describing the numerous side effects, from numbness to heart palpitations, that people experienced after eating MSG.

Today that syndrome is more appropriately called “MSG Symptom Complex,” which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) identifies as “short-term reactions” to MSG. More on those “reactions” to come.

Why MSG is so Dangerous

One of the best overviews of the very real dangers of MSG comes from Dr. Russell Blaylock, a board-certified neurosurgeon and author of “Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills.” In it he explains that MSG is an excitotoxin, which means it overexcites your cells to the point of damage or death, causing brain damage to varying degrees — and potentially even triggering or worsening learning disabilities, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, Lou Gehrig’s disease and more.

Part of the problem also is that free glutamic acid is the same neurotransmitter that your brain, nervous system, eyes, pancreas and other organs use to initiate certain processes in your body.[4] Even the FDA states:

“Studies have shown that the body uses glutamate, an amino acid, as a nerve impulse transmitter in the brain and that there are glutamate-responsive tissues in other parts of the body, as well.

Abnormal function of glutamate receptors has been linked with certain neurological diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease and Huntington’s chorea. Injections of glutamate in laboratory animals have resulted in damage to nerve cells in the brain.”[5]

Although the FDA continues to claim that consuming MSG in food does not cause these ill effects, many other experts say otherwise.

According to Dr. Blaylock, numerous glutamate receptors have been found both within your heart’s electrical conduction system and the heart muscle itself. This can be damaging to your heart, and may even explain the sudden deaths sometimes seen among young athletes.

He says:

“When an excess of food-borne excitotoxins, such as MSG, hydrolyzed protein soy protein isolate and concentrate, natural flavoring, sodium caseinate and aspartate from aspartame, are consumed, these glutamate receptors are over-stimulated, producing cardiac arrhythmias.

When magnesium stores are low, as we see in athletes, the glutamate receptors are so sensitive that even low levels of these excitotoxins can result in cardiac arrhythmias and death.”[6]

Many other adverse effects have also been linked to regular consumption of MSG, including:

• Obesity
• Eye damage
• Headaches
• Fatigue and disorientation
• Depression

Further, even the FDA admits that “short-term reactions” known as MSG Symptom Complex can occur in certain groups of people, namely those who have eaten “large doses” of MSG or those who have asthma.[7]

According to the FDA, MSG Symptom Complex can involve symptoms such as:

• Numbness
• Burning sensation
• Tingling
• Facial pressure or tightness
• Chest pain or difficulty breathing
• Headache
• Nausea
• Rapid heartbeat
• Drowsiness
• Weakness

No one knows for sure just how many people may be “sensitive” to MSG, but studies from the 1970s suggested that 25 percent to 30 percent of the U.S. population was intolerant of MSG — at levels then found in food. Since the use of MSG has expanded dramatically since that time, it’s been estimated that up to 40 percent of the population may be impacted.[8]

How to Determine if MSG is in Your Food

Food manufacturers are not stupid, and they’ve caught on to the fact that people like you want to avoid eating this nasty food additive. As a result, do you think they responded by removing MSG from their products? Well, a few may have, but most of them just tried to “clean” their labels. In other words, they tried to hide the fact that MSG is an ingredient.

How do they do this? By using names that you would never associate with MSG.

You see, it’s required by the FDA that food manufacturers list the ingredient “monosodium glutamate” on food labels, but they do not have to label ingredients that contain free glutamic acid, even though it’s the main component of MSG.

There are over 40 labeled ingredients that contain glutamic acid,[9] but you’d never know it just from their names alone. Further, in some foods glutamic acid is formed during processing and, again, food labels give you no way of knowing for sure.

Tips for Keeping MSG Out of Your Diet

In general, if a food is processed you can assume it contains MSG (or one of its pseudo-ingredients). So if you stick to a whole, fresh foods diet, you can pretty much guarantee that you’ll avoid this toxin.

The other place where you’ll need to watch out for MSG is in restaurants. You can ask your server which menu items are MSG-free, and request that no MSG be added to your meal, but of course the only place where you can be entirely sure of what’s added to your food is in your own kitchen.

To be on the safe side, you should also know what ingredients to watch out for on packaged foods. Here is a list of ingredients that ALWAYS contain MSG:

Autolyzed Yeast	Calcium Caseinate	Gelatin
Glutamate	Glutamic Acid	Hydrolyzed Protein
Monopotassium Glutamate	Monosodium Glutamate	Sodium Caseinate
Textured Protein	Yeast Extract	Yeast Food
Yeast Nutrient

These ingredients OFTEN contain MSG or create MSG during processing:[10]

Flavors and Flavorings	Seasonings	Natural Flavors and Flavorings	Natural Pork Flavoring	Natural Beef Flavoring
Natural Chicken Flavoring	Soy Sauce	Soy Protein Isolate	Soy Protein	Bouillon
Stock	Broth	Malt Extract	Malt Flavoring	Barley Malt
Whey Protein	Carrageenan	Maltodextrin	Pectin	Enzymes
Protease	Corn Starch	Citric Acid	Powdered Milk	Anything Protein Fortified
Anything Enzyme Modified	Anything Ultra-Pasteurized

So if you do eat processed foods, please remember to be on the lookout for these many hidden names for MSG.

Choosing to be MSG-Free

Making a decision to avoid MSG in your diet as much as possible is a wise choice for nearly everyone. Admittedly, it does take a bit more planning and time in the kitchen to prepare food at home, using fresh, locally grown ingredients. But knowing that your food is pure and free of toxic additives like MSG will make it well worth it.

Plus, choosing whole foods will ultimately give you better flavor and more health value than any MSG-laden processed food you could buy at your supermarket.

---

[1] Mercola.com “The Shocking Dangers of MSG You Don’t Know,” video Part 1

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/08/28/dangers-of-msg.aspx?aid=CD12

[2] Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, Samuels, Jack “MSG Dangers and Deceptions”

http://www.ppnf.org/catalog/ppnf/Articles/MSG.htm

[3] Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, Samuels, Jack “MSG Dangers and Deceptions”

http://www.ppnf.org/catalog/ppnf/Articles/MSG.htm

[4] MSGTruth.org “What Exactly is MSG?”

http://www.msgtruth.org/whatisit.htm

[5] U.S. Food and Drug Administration “FDA and Monosodium Glutamate (MSG)” August 31, 1995

http://www.foodsafety.gov/~lrd/msg.html

[6] eMediaWire “Athlete Alert: Renowned Neurosurgeon Identifies Aspartame & MSG in Sudden Cardiac Death” April 15, 2005

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/4/emw225071.htm

[7] FDA Consumer Magazine “MSG: A Common Flavor Enhancer” January-February 2003

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2003/103_msg.html

[8] TruthinLabeling.org “This is What the Data Say About Monosodium Glutamate Toxicity and Human Adverse Reactions”

http://www.truthinlabeling.org/Proof_AdverseReactions_AR.html

[9] Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, Samuels, Jack “MSG Dangers and Deceptions”

http://www.ppnf.org/catalog/ppnf/Articles/MSG.htm

[10] Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, Samuels, Jack “MSG Dangers and Deceptions”

http://www.ppnf.org/catalog/ppnf/Articles/MSG.htm

More bad news about plastic containers?

Sorry to start the weekend with such a flurry of bad news. Try to be safe out there and have a good one anyway!

New research analyzing mineral water held in bottles made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) raises questions about whether contaminants might leach from PET into the water where they mimic estrogen’s effects. In the study reported online in Environmental Science and Pollution Research on March 10 (DOI 10.1007/s11356-009-0107-7), ecotoxicologists Martin Wagner and Jrg Oehlmann of Johann Wolfgang Goethe University (Germany) report evidence of the bottles’ estrogenicity from multiple tests, but they have yet to pinpoint the exact source.

Billions of bottles and food containers made of PET are sold every year. The plastic is considered safer than others that contain endocrine-disrupting compounds, such as polyvinyl chloridewhich is made with phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA)and polycarbonate, which has been shown to release BPA into liquids at high temperatures.

For the new study, Wagner and Oehlmann used both a yeast-based assay and a reproduction test with the New Zealand mud snail Potamopyrgus antipodarum to tease out whether traces of chemicals in PET or other compounds mimic estrogen’s activity. The researchers tested 20 brands of mineral water sold in either glass or plastic bottles or both.

The yeast-based assay of different samples of mineral water showed that more than half the brands of water had “significantly elevated estrogenic activity,” the researchers note. On average, the effects seen were similar to those elicited by a dose of about 18 nanograms per liter of 17β-estradiol (a natural estrogen). For all but one brand, mineral water stored in plastic bottles had higher estrogenicity than the same water stored in glass bottles. And multiuse PET bottlesmeant to be refilled several timesshowed lower estrogenicity than the bottles meant for one-time use.

The researchers also raised snails in both plastic and glass bottles for up to 56 days. The animals in plastic bottles were shown to have higher reproductive rates than average, and they created more than twice as many embryos as the snails housed in glass bottles.

The formulation and possible chemical content of PET vary. Past studies from William Shotyk of the University of Heidelberg (Germany) and his colleagues (e.g., DOI 10.1021/es061511+) have documented that antimony leaches from plastic water bottles in different amounts according to temperature, length of time on the shelf, and other storage conditions. Antimony or other heavy metals could be acting as an endocrine-disrupting compound in plastics, but such effects are not proven.

The new study has generated some disagreement. PET has long been approved for food container use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In response to the new research, industry trade groups (such as the PET Resin Association in North America) reaffirm that past studies have shown no endocrine-disruption effects from PET in standard lab animal tests. The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, known as BfR, released a statement on March 18 calling the results inconclusive. The BfR statement noted that nonylphenols in bottle lids, for example, might be contaminating the waters tested. The agency called for further research.

But Frederick vom Saal of the University of Missouri Columbia, who advised the researchers on the new experiments, believes that the new findings add PET to the list of plastics that expose humans and the environment to harmful contaminants. “If these snails are showing a response that is clearly an estrogen response” to endocrine disrupters in the plastic or the water, says vom Saal, “then there’s enough estrogenicity in these containers that they can stimulate abnormal reproductive behavior in an animal.” The snails are a “canary in the coal mine,” he says, and “as far as we know, not as sensitive to these hormones as a human cell.” The study also clearly shows high estrogenic activity coming from some but not all ethylene-based plastic bottles, adds vom Saal.

“We are now trying to figure out which compounds are hiding behind this estrogenic activity,” which will be a “hard task,” Wagner says. “We can’t expect that there’s one chemical present at high concentrations that’s causing this activity. It may be more realistic to expect the presence of 5 or 10 estrogenic compounds” acting in concert. Also, estrogenicity of compounds such as phthalates or BPA occurs at such low concentrations that detecting the chemicals’ presence at active doses is difficult.

“It’s a work in progress,” Wagner adds. “You can’t conclude [from the current results] that it’s dangerous to drink mineral water, but it’s clear that we are exposed to [many] more endocrine disrupters than we currently think.”

Snails growing in plastic water bottles made of PET had higher reproductive rates than those raised in glass bottles.

MARTIN WAGNER

Naomi Lubick

Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP

DOI: 10.1021/es900885t

Publication Date (Web): April 8, 2009

Copyright © 2009 American Chemical Society

Carcinogens STILL allowed in Baby Baths

Unlabeled toxics in children’s bath products

The U.S. does not require product labels to alert consumers to the presence of formaldehyde or 1,4-dioxane in personal-care products.

Kellyn Betts

Publication Date (Web): April 8, 2009

Dozens of children’s bath products are contaminated with formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane, both considered probable human carcinogens by the U.S. EPA, according to a study published by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group. No More Toxic Tub documents that more than 60% of 48 popular products tested, including Johnson’s Baby Shampoo and Sesame Street Bubble Bath, contained one or both of the toxic chemicals.

READ MORE HERE:

http://pubs.acs.org/action/showStoryContent?doi=10.1021/on.2009.04.07.346168

Big Dairies Bully Ohio

It’s been no secret that the Mega-Dairies have been pouting and whining “No fair!” ever since some smaller farms started labeling their milk rBGH free.

The various arguments seem to center around the absurd claim that since rBGH has never been officially labeled harmful by the FDA it therefore isn’t harmful, and saying that you don’t use it unfairly implies that your non-growth hormone imbued milk is somehow superior and safer than Big Dairies’ hormone-fiddled pesticide-laced milk, and thus that using growth hormones for milk production is somehow, um, bad.

So, what did a court in Ohio just do? Agree with them of course!

Let’s just hope this doesn’t become a national trend…

FROM THE ORGANIC TRADE ASSOCIATION:

Contact: Sue McGovern
McGovern Communications
781-648-7157
sue@mcgov.com

Federal court rules that truthful information regarding organic production practices may not be explicitly shared with consumers on product labels in Ohio

Greenfield, MA (Tues., March 31, 2009) Consumers in Ohio and elsewhere who are seeking to avoid milk and other dairy products produced with synthetic growth hormones will only be able to discern how their food was produced by looking for the organic label, according to the Organic Trade Association (OTA), the leading voice for the $17 billion organic industry in North America.

On March 30, 2009, a Federal District Court in Ohio upheld an emergency rule enacted by the Ohio Department of Agriculture that takes away consumers’ rights to receive truthful information about organic production practices on the labels of their milk and other dairy products in Ohio. The ruling also goes against the rights of organic dairy farmers and processors to communicate truthfully with consumers regarding federally regulated organic production practices required for products to bear the USDA Organic seal.

“Consumers have a right to know how the food they feed their families has been produced, and organic farmers and manufacturers should be allowed to tell them,” said Christine Bushway, executive director, OTA. She added, “Our country’s national organic system is highly regulated and verifiable, and no American should be denied access to truthful information about it.”

In order to qualify for the organic label, organic farmers are prohibited from using synthetic growth hormones (rBGH), genetically engineered organisms (GMOS), antibiotics and toxic, persistent, synthetic pesticides. The standards also mandate a rigorous system for inspection, certification and verification of organic practices, all of which protect consumers who choose organic products.

“Even though the court’s decision restricts consumers’ right to know where their food comes from and how it is produced, consumers who choose organic dairy products can still be assured that the products have been produced without the use of synthetic growth hormones, antibiotics or toxic, persistent pesticides,” advised Bushway. She noted that the overwhelming majority of Americans wants this information on product labels but will not see truthful information on organic product labels as a result of the court’s decision in Ohio.

The Consumer Reports National Research Center polled more than 1,000 people nationwide on various food labeling issues. Seventy-six percent of those polled were concerned with ‘dairy cows given synthetic growth hormones’ and 88 percent agreed that ‘milk from cows raised without synthetic bovine growth hormones should be allowed to be labeled as such.’

“Consumers have spoken, and we are very disappointed the court disagrees,” added Bushway.

The United States is in the minority among industrialized nations by allowing the use of synthetic growth hormones to artificially stimulate milk production in dairy herds. The practice is already prohibited in Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and in the 27 countries of the European Union.

The only way for consumers to be sure they are choosing products produced without the use of synthetic growth hormones (rBGH), genetically engineered organisms (GMOS), antibiotics and toxic an persistent pesticides is to look for the organic label.

Founded nearly 25 years ago, the Organic Trade Association (OTA) is the membership-based business association for organic agriculture and products in North America. Its 1,700 members include growers, shippers, processors, certifiers, farmers’ associations, distributors, importers, exporters, consultants, retailers and others. OTA’s mission is to promote and protect the growth of organic trade to benefit the environment, farmers, the public and the economy. www.ota.com

Biomass fuels: proceed, but with caution

Naturally, I worry that the fuel-mongers will jump on a story like this and hold it up as a way to dismiss the potential of biofuel. But, I also believe that if we are going to create changes that really work in the long run, then we must hold ideas up for all to discuss. Now, while we are still designing a working model rather than later. Information is only good, but will we use it the right way finally?

Biomass energy ‘could be harmful’

Poor practice can wipe out carbon savings, the report says Biomass power – such as burning wood for energy – could do more harm than good in the battle to reduce greenhouse gases, the Environment Agency warns. Ploughing up pasture to plant energy crops could produce more CO2 by 2030 than burning fossil fuels, if not done in a sustainable way, it said. Its study found waste wood and MDF produced the lowest emissions, unlike willow, poplar and oil seed rape. The EA wants biomass companies to report all greenhouse gas emissions. The agency is calling on the government to introduce mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from publicly-subsidised biomass facilities, to help work out if minimum standards need to be introduced. Wood-burning stoves, boilers and even power stations are seen by many as critical to Britain’s renewable energy targets. Biomass is considered low carbon as long as what is burnt is replaced by new growth, and harvesting and transport do not use too much fuel. ‘Role to play’ The EA’s report reiterated the belief that biomass had the potential to play a “major role” in producing low carbon, renewable energy to help meet future energy needs and help cut greenhouse gas emissions. But the report Biomass: Carbon Sink or Carbon Sinner also found that the greenhouse gas emission savings from such fuels were currently highly variable. At its best, biomass could produce as little as 27kg of CO2 (equivalent) per megawatt hour – 98% less than coal, saving around two million tonnes of CO2 every year.  Biomass is a limited resource, and we must make sure it is not wasted on inefficient generators  Tony Grayling  Environment Agency However, the study also found that in some cases overall emissions could be higher than those of fossil fuels. This was particularly true where energy crops were planted on permanent grassland, it said. Tony Grayling, head of climate change and sustainable development at the Environment Agency, said biomass could play a role in helping the UK meet its renewable energy targets. But he argued the credibility of biomass rested on tough sustainability criteria and called on biomass projects to combine heat and power production. “Biomass is a limited resource, and we must make sure it is not wasted on inefficient generators that do not take advantage of the emissions savings to be made from combined heat and power,” he said. “By 2030, biomass fuels will need to be produced using good practice simply to keep up with the average carbon intensity of the electricity grid.” He added: “The government should ensure that good practice is rewarded and that biomass production and use that does more harm than good to the environment does not benefit from public support.”