Peppering: Science's Bane and Societies Dilemma By Glen Atkinson
Dr Rudolf Steiner's 'Peppering' method of pest control has hit the national news again, followed quickly by detractors waxing lyrical in editorials and letters to the editor filled with half-truths against it. Peppering is one of the methods Dr Steiner suggested in 1924 that could be used to control many forms of pest. It entails burning the pest or parts thereof and sprinkling around the ashes. This was said to create infertility within the target species - they will either move away or die out. It has been used continuously since 1924 on a small scale within the Biodynamic farming community with some startling success. I, personally, have had many positive experiences using the method. An early and convincing experience was in 1978 when Scotch thistle plants set heads with no seeds at the bottom of the fluff. This occurred in the season following the spreading of ash. This latest ripple caused by peppering comes from an article in the NZ Herald on March 25. It reported Coromandel MP Jeanette Fitzsimmons' suggestion to a conference of Engineers for Social Responsibility that peppering should be investigated with "some proper trials". She supported this request with a reference to the antics of yours truly, my colleague Peter Bacchus and some 75 orchards using peppers commercially in the Bay of Plenty. She also mentioned the 200ha possum peppering trial carried out in the Coromandel Peninsular in 1999. Naturally I fully support her suggestion however, there appears to be some significant hurdles to overcome before this cheap, environmentally friendly and effective method can be used to replace the present 1080 based mass extermination of our wildlife every four years. What are the blocks in the way? A few which come to mind are mainstream acceptability, lack of 'scientific' data (only one existing trial), peppering being a 'free' method with no patents possible, and probably most importantly it challenges the scientific materialistic worldview at its core. Scientific Acceptability Like real estate agents want "Location, Location, Location", scientific authorities want, "Data, Data , Data", which costs Dollars, Dollars, Dollars. Science is a rich mans'/rich corporations game and with the present state of disarray among the scientific authorities in our society, it is virtually impossible to provide data that is universally acceptable anyway. Just look to the GE debate for an example. Even if satisfactory data could be gathered who is going to pay for it. So who is going to pay for it? Peppering is a method freely available to anyone who reads Dr Steiner's agricultural course, so no business of any size can 'own' the method. Anyone can do it and with the Kiwi do-it-yourself spirit alive and well, people will. The more it is proved effective the more competition there will be to make a dollar from it. This is a 'social' method and so society must fund its research. Ah, "public good funding", you shout. This illusive beast of NZ government funding is indeed a possibility. However, we are then confronted with the problem of finding an independent scientific institution unconnected to the corporates presently benefiting from poisoning our country. A Landcare scientist offered to do the trials but Landcare has been working on a GE possum bait since 1993. Independent science within a corporatised scientific culture - is this not a contradiction in terms? The existing 'science' on peppering. In 1991, the Forest Research Institute carried out a possum peppering trial done in co-operation with the Biodynamic Association of NZ. This trial is held up as THE definitive trial of peppering's failure, however an examination of the trial's parameters shows that it was testing for repellent effects not infertility and that while bait stations were fed for 16 days prior to the spreading of the ash, the following monitoring was for only two days. This is hardly enough time for the possums' habitual routines to change. When possums returned after two days the trial of peppering as a whole method was considered a failure. And so it should be ina trial using this criteria. To proclaim this as THE definitive study, though, and to stop all further research on this basis is surely highly unscientific. Is a drug approved for use after one small inadequate experiment? Naturally, its effects have to be repeatable. So how many repeats and variations have been carried out? By which scientific standards can this trial be considered definitive? We have $100 million a year spent on 1080 and not one cent spent on further research of this very cost-effective and non-toxic method. This trial was based on the wrong criteria and the wrong time scale and all it has proven is the lack of understanding of the method and the personal foolishness of its perpetrators. May the present, albeit circumstantial evidence, stand as a light beam pointing to the need for further investigation of this method. We have 75 orchards which have repeatedly shown good insect control from peppering over 5 seasons. In the last season, Fuller Rose Weevil adults were found in an orchard while no eggs were found on the fruit. Come and have a look! Peppering's challenge to the materialistic scientific view In answer to my enquiries for scientists to do research into peppering, I have been told they want to establish not only that something works but also HOW it works. It is the HOW of peppering that challenges science so deeply. How can an inert substance (ash) diluted to one part per 100 million be applied at the rate of 250mls per hectare and then cause infertility in one particular species of animal? Biodynamics, through Rudolf Steiner's explanations, has the answer, however it is one science will find very difficult to accept. It involves life being part of an active universe, with influences of planetary streams of creative force being implicated in the formation and maintenance of all living things. It is through the 'cutting off' of these streams of force, in this case the moon, from a particular species of animal, that infertility arises. A wild idea you might say, however the proof of the theory is in its application and I stand before you as one who has done it and succeeded many times over the last 23 years. If peppering is 'proven' to work and the scientists are then duty bound to find out 'HOW', they may find they are lead into a reality which is completely divergent to the cosy A+B=C chemical basis of life they have worked so hard over the last 200 years to bring to dominance today. If you were faced with such a cathartic vision would you not do everything in your power to stamp out and discredit the challenger? Accepting a view of the world which places the human as an active supporter of life - as opposed to the all conquering consumer of life and perpetrator of extinction Western humanity has become - is indeed a road to Damascus experience many people find challenging, yet one they will have if they seriously investigate peppering or biodynamic agriculture in general. Materialistic science has been a great experiment but sadly it is a 200-year old one with very little real critique. So today we find ourselves at the verge of an environmental and health catastrophe driven by corporate capitalists whose only ethics are to produce dollars for themselves. There is very little reflection on its negative impacts for which the taxpayers of the world are presently ultimately responsible - profits to the corporates, disasters to the people. This has to be one of the greatest madness's of present humanity, yet we continue to support it blindly. Indeed, what lambs to the slaughter we are when, on the eve of yet another environmental disaster in the form of the release of GE organisms, we sit back idly having faith in a 'science' which sees nothing wrong with 5 billion years of Earth's evolution being consumed in one generation of materialistic scientific capitalism. Whew, that's something to be proud of and blindly support. Would you have a USA fast food chain running the health department? So why accept Monsanto and cohorts running our food supply and controlling the scientific research our governmental and legal system depends upon? Corporate science does not wish to see their position compromised financially or philosophically and thus do not want peppering or Biodynamics to gain even the slightest pinch of credibility. This is the BIG hurdle peppering faces, not proving itself. This is already available for those with eyes to see. So, yes, peppering can provide an alternative to 1080 and many other poisons for pest and weed control but support for its investigation will have to come from the people, farmers and environmental groups unconnected to and unafraid of the corporate scientific lobby. The clock is ticking and the choice is yours. The Garuda Biodynamic Institute of Te Puke (07-573-5859), is co-ordinating ongoing initiatives and funding for peppering's acceptance and use. Any support you might like to offer should be directed to them. The Biodynamic Association of NZ has stated they no longer wish to be involved in any peppering activities beyond encouraging their own membership's use. Rex Teague wrote: > > On 26 Sep 02, Don/Eve Cruse wrote: > > > What I really meant, however, was a battle between ideas. Such a > > battle should not ever descend into physical conflict, although it can > > do. > > Call me naive but the sentiments of the following article - not to > mention the motivation for writing such an attack - bewilder me. I > hesitate to pass it along, it may however be grist to Don's mill? > > NBR = 'National Business Review' a New Zealand newspaper and > McShane's website is listed at the end, in his signature file. > > ---Cut 'n paste begins--- > From: Owen McShane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Newsgroups: nz.politics > Subject: My NBR column on Biodynamics > Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 09:23:09 +1300 > > Taking Pepper with a Grain of Salt > The New Zealand Skeptics awarded this year�s �Bent Spoon Award� > to Jeanette Fitzsimons. The Green Party Co-leader had been > advocating �Biodynamic Peppering� as a means of getting rid of > possums. She dismissed the award as silly nonsense. Some readers > might sympathise, thinking �Surely, there are more important things > for the Skeptics to be worried about, than obvious nonsense like > this.� > > But the Skeptics got it right. Australia�s Painted Apple Moth was first > recorded in the Waitakere suburb of Glendene in 1999 and was later > found in Auckland�s Mt Wellington. The insect could cause millions of > dollars of damage to New Zealand�s trees and plants. > > MAF launched an eradication programme. That�s what Biosecurity is > supposed to be about. The Greens and their mates saw an > opportunity to stamp out a bit more science. Dr Ruth Frampton, > MAF�s Director of Forest Biosecurity, headed up the technical team, > and recommended a programme which would use aerial spraying if > necessary. > > The pest has been wiped out in Mt Wellington. But, in Waitakere City, > a bunch of failed political candidates took control of the Community > Advisory Group (CAG) which was supposed to help MAF work with > the community while implementing the programme. MAF > commissioned an independent survey of residents in the infested area > which revealed that seventy-three per cent wanted to eradicate the > moth, while 89% had no objection to the use of targeted aerial > spraying. But a vocal minority on the CAG demanded that MAF > consider alternative �Ground Based Approaches�. > > Sure enough, one of these turned out to be Ms Fitzsimons� very own > bent-spoon-award-winning �Biodynamic Peppering�. Garuda > Biodynamics a Te Puke based purveyor of Biodynamic Peppering, > runs a web page which explains that Biodynamics, first articulated in > 1924 by Austrian Rudolf Steiner, �is based on a concept of life forces > which work in nature to bring about balance and healing� and that in > Peppering �the insect is gathered and burnt to an ash, which is then > spread over the land you wish to protect�. > > In December 2001, the Community Advisory Group presented MAF > with a formal �Peppering Trial Proposal against the Painted Apple > Moth�. The submission had been prepared by Hana Blackmore (a > Green candidate in the Tamaki electorate) assisted by Garuda > Biodynamics, Meriel Watts (a Green candidate in the Waitakere > electorate), Glenys Bean, and John Clearwater (a former scientist > with HORT Research who favours the use of pheromones over the > sprays). > > None of these people were living in the affected area. In November > 2001, the Waitakere City Council sponsored a meeting at which > Garuda Dynamics tabled their initial thoughts on the use biodynamic > peppering recipes against the painted apple moth in West Auckland. > > The formal proposal ultimately explained that the insect ashes > �produce the negative Energy of the pest�s reproductive force, > operating on a vibrational level, not a material one. Used in the field it > enters the soil and surrounding vegetation producing an �unfriendly� > and inhibiting environment. It is host specific and non-toxic, and does > not have a lethal effect.� > > The proposal advocated the use of �Field Broadcast pipes� which are > �PVC pipes with internal copper circuits that can �radiate� the > biodynamic preparation that is placed within it�. > > I am not making this up. > > Surely the meeting should have sprinkled the Garuda man and his > friends with some crematorium ash, which, according to Biodynamic > theory, would have sent this bunch of pests packing. Believe it or not > the proposal was prepared and submitted to MAF and MAF actually > referred it to their Technical Advisory Group, and to ERMA and to its > Agricultural Compounds Group for assessment. So our response to a > biosecurity crisis was to divert some of our best and brightest minds > into examining a system which did not even claim to kill the moths. > The initial proposal explained that the ethereal vibration, which must > be in tune with astrological events, chases the insects out of the > territory and may �inhibit� their reproduction - possibly because they > are so busy running away. > > When a member of the Technical Advisory Group pointed out that > they did not want to chase the moths out of Waitakere and back to > Mt Wellington the CAG simply dropped this section from the proposal > and focused on inhibiting reproduction. The comments from ERMA > and the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Group must > have heartened Garuda no end. ERMA reported that �No approval is > required under the HSNO Act for a substance that does not trigger > any HSNO thresholds. However, it is unclear from the information in > the proposal whether any threshold is triggered.� > > The ACVM Group (now part of the New Zealand Food Safety > Authority) reached a similar conclusion. No doubt we shall soon hear > that Peppering has been �approved� by the authorities. Finally the > Technical Advisory Group recommended that any trials be carried out > on some other insect rather than compromise and delay the > eradication programme in Waitakere. The end result is that the aerial > spraying programme will continue without Biodynamic Ethereal > Peppering,and presumably without reference to the signs of the > Zodiac. > > Was All well that Ended Well? > How did a team of government scientists and bureaucrats end up > wasting their valuable time and taxpayers� money considering a > wacky proposal to use �etheric vibrations� to deal with a genuine > biosecurity risk? What will happen when we get an outbreak of foot > and mouth disease? Will some other Community Advisory Group, > stacked with fringe fanatics, come galloping to the rescue with burnt > bull testicles on copper shish kebab skewers in plastic tubes dangling > from the tree tops? MAF�s idea of community consultation had the > best of intentions. There was a genuine need to work with those > whose would be directly affected by the eradication campaign. > > But the Community Advisory Group was taken over by a bunch of > zealots who didn�t even live in the area. Mr Witten-Hannah, the > spokesman for the CAG shelters behind a whole mountain range. The > Waitakere CAG became a platform for action groups and aspiring > politicians. Some members resigned, complaining that �CAG has > become STOP in all but name�. > > As the �Peppering� enthusiasts realised they were losing the > �intellectual� debate within MAF they reverted to personal attacks on > Dr Frampton, suggesting she was an intransigent, pig-headed > scientist standing in the way of holistic thought and natural remedies. > The abuse became so savage that MAF Director-General Murray > Sherwin issued a press statement deploring the personal attacks on > Dr Ruth Frampton and confirming that she would continue to lead the > programme. But not for long. > > In May 2002, Dr Frampton suddenly announced her retirement �to > spend more time with her family.� Actually she was made redundant. > > The Anti-Science Activists had been thrown their sacrificial lamb. Kubi > Witten-Hannah, welcomed the news �hoping for a better working > relationship with the Ministry of Agriculture�, explaining that Dr > Frampton �had fixed ideas about the way things should be done.� No > doubt, Dr Frampton was less than enthusiastic about wasting her > time assessing burnt insects and ethereal vibrators while the moths > were continuing to breed and feed. > > But in these PC days it wasn�t the fruitcakes who got the chop and > were persuaded �to spend more time with their families�. No, it was > Dr Frampton, a highly regarded scientist, who has served her > discipline and her country well. Dr Frampton ended up walking down > the redundancy road, waving goodbye to her colleagues. > > She is just the latest victim of the Green Party�s �anti-knowledge > wave�. > -- > Owen McShane, Rangiora Road, Northland, NZ > See "Straight Thinking On Line" (http://mcshane.orcon.net.nz) > > ---Cut 'n paste ends--- Garuda Biodynamics - for BD Preps, Consultations, Books & Diagrams See our web site @ http://get.to/garuda
