7 Perfume families
The Comité Français du Parfum has classified the vast range of fragrance combinations into seven major families, each divided into subgroups. This classification applies to perfume products for women and men alike. In many cases, word order varies according to manufacturer, e.g. woody spicy or spicy woody, floral oriental or oriental floral.
The Citrus family (also called hesperide) comprises essential oils obtained from the zest of citrus fruits such as orange, bergamot: citrus, floral chypre citrus, spicy citrus, woody citrus, aromatic citrus.
The Floral family is predominantly composed of flower fragrances, e.g. rose, tuberose etc. soliflore (also called single-fragrance floral), lavender, floral bouquet, floral green, floral aldehydic, floral woody, floral fruity woody.
The Fougère (or fern) family, despite its name, does not reproduce the smell of ferns, but features blends of woody and lavender notes. Fougère, soft amber fougère, floral amber fougère, spicy fougère, aromatic fougère.
The Chypre family, named after the perfume Chypre created in 1917 by François Coty, is comprised of oak moss fragrances blended with floral or fruity notes. Chypre, floral chypre, floral aldehydic chypre, fruity chypre, green chypre, aromatic chypre, leather chypre.
The Woody family is more suited to men and contains sandalwood, cedar, patchouli and vetiver. Woody, woody citrus coniferous, woody aromatic, woody spicy, woody spicy leather, woody amber.
The Amber (or oriental) family is warm and powdery and often has vanilla accents. Floral woody amber, floral spicy amber, soft amber, citrus amber, floral semi-amber.
The Leather family is the most masculine and evokes the smells of tobacco, smoke and leather. Leather, floral leather, tobacco leather.
==============
Perfume making techniques and Raw materialsTo extract fragrances from flowers, plants or other natural material as efficiently as possible and to fulfil the exponentially increasing demands of the market, perfume makers, throughout history, have developed a variety of extraction and conservation techniques to obtain the purest and most highly concentrated forms of raw materials.
Advances made in modern chemistry allow natural smells to be reproduced in laboratories.
Perfume making techniques
The distillation
The distillation technique is based on the ability of steam to capture essential oils. This technique was first used in Antiquity but was perfected by the Arabic civilisation in the 8th century AD and is still used today in traditional perfume making.… read more : the distillation
The absorption
The absorption technique is based on the ability of animal fat to naturally absorb odours. Depending on how well the plant matter withstands heat, this process can be conducted at either hot or cold temperatures… read more : the absorption
Extraction using volatile solvents
Extraction using volatile solvents consists of dissolving the fragrance-bearing part of the plant in a solvent which is then evaporated. This technique was practised in the 18th century using ether… read more : extraction using volatile solvents
Other Perfume making techniques
Supercritical carbon dioxide extraction consists of using a carbon dioxide by-product as a solvent. Since this solvent is much easier to eliminate production costs are lowered… read more : other Perfume making techniques
The raw materials
The raw materials of plant origin
The raw materials of plant origin used in the composition of perfumes come from all over the world and are selected for their quality and originality… read more : the raw materials of plant origin
The raw materials of animal origin
The raw materials of animal origin are considerably less well known than those of plant origin and are now almost systematically replaced by synthetic products so that no species are threatened. For ecological reasons Parfumerie Fragonard no longer uses any raw materials of animal origin… read more : the raw materials of animal origin
Synthetic raw materials
Synthetic raw materials form the basis of contemporary perfume making. Since the mid-19th century, modern chemistry has enabled the perfume industry to develop so as to fulfil the qualitative and quantitative expectations of the global market.… read more : synthetic raw materials
http://www.fragonard.com/?noredirect=1
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Sanjay Gupta Is Anti-Antioxidants
Sanjay Gupta Is Anti-Antioxidants By Alan Graham
With Alfred Lehmberg
AlienView.net1-25-9
Before I share my small amount of empirical data regarding the use of antioxidants to protect your eyes -and everything else part & parcel to a healthful quality of life- let me address the likely appointment of Dr. Sanjay Gupta as our next Surgeon General and examine his seeming bias toward antioxidants, et al.
Frankly, Sanja hasn't met a Drug Company or a dangerous pharmaceutical he doesn't like. Consider, he has ties with most of the biggies in the Pharmaceutical industry. This is very amply illustrated by his endorsements of SSRI's for pregnant women & Vioxx for arthritis sufferers, just to name two suspiciously questionable moves.
Additionally, he has his insidious "Pharm-Speak" down solid. You know "... the benefits outweigh the risks..." rap. Uh huh... even if you do kill 58,000 people, or so, to relieve their joint pain!
This is without considering, of course, that there is a much better, completely safe, and inherently natural way to relieve joint pain... That's right! Visit alienview.net/ ALLT1.html#dogtest, Arthritis, Misery, and the Dog-Test, for an overview showing that Glucosamine & MSM really works for joint pain... and I have the dog to prove it!
Anyway, Dr. Gupta seizes virtually every opportunity he can to discourage people from taking supplemental antioxidants and other supplementation. To this end, he uses certified-as-bogus studies to "prove" that antioxidants only provide for the consumer's harm, and especially if you take large amounts in a broad spectrum.
An example of said bogus studies, and a favorite among many doctors, concerns where Cancer patients were given Vit.E & Beta Carotene and then subsequently reported that they'd gotten worse compared to the placebo group. The truth of the matter is that these studies incorporated false data coming from a sub-group of persons who had lung cancer... but did not quit smoking while on chemo. Outrageous!
...And just one freaking time, reader, I would like to see these negative Vit.E studies use something besides the grossly inferior (made from petroleum) kind of Vit. E (found in Centrum) with its 2 opposing molecules! This is the "dl" alpha tocopherol - where the "l" molecule, you'll observe, is not usable by human beings... but can still plug the Vitamin E "receptor site" so the usable "d" molecule cannot then be used!
See, if the "study" said they took 100iu of Vit.E, this equates to as little as only 25iu of E actually being enjoyed by the tissues!
It gets worse! The small percentage of the artificial, manmade "d" molecule used will only be "used" one time & then it is excreted like garbage. Conversely, the natural Vit.E, with its single "d" molecule made from soy beans, etc. will be recycled in the body several times!
Plainly, the preceding is a clear example of the kind of mendacious "dirty-tricks" shenanigans -defining the activities of unethical and immoral sociopaths- as clearlypracticed by these corporate psychos! It remains, mind, that even though this phony data has, subsequently, been abundantly clarified, MD's still use it to poo- poo the use of antioxidants, and ALL supplements for that matter, without regard to the efficacy of these supplements when used in a conscientiously applied program of general nutrition. The reader must agree how wrong this is.
Yeah, I know doctors will counter with the "logical" gloss that if the petrol "d" chemical formula is the same as the Natural "d" formula, then they are the same "on paper" & will react exactly the same way in your body.
OK, tell that to Mother Nature... AND the Canadian Government research proving the unmistakable difference between the two!
Their study shows that the biopsied tissue in the brain confirms the efficacy of the natural version. Of course, on reflection, it could be that Canada grows a lot of Soy beans and wants to sell same... and they do... but I'm fairly confident they are not lying about the superiority of Natural "E" because the #1 Holistic Doctor on the web, mercola.com, says essentially the same thing! I've never caught him in a lie!
FYI - even the superior "d" alpha tocopherol is not nearly the BEST form of Vit.E, though it is still demonstrably superior to the more cheaply produced (...ding!) artificial "dl" alpha form. One is prodded to imagine the positive results which might have been attained in the above mentioned "bogus studies" had they "knocked it up another notch" by using "Natural Mixed" Tocopherol with the natural beta, gamma, and delta tocopherols used in addition to the alpha tocopherols... ...or, heavenforbid they should use the synergistic effect of ALL 8 forms of Vit.E - the 4 tocopherols plus the 4 tocotrinols. See, that's not money in their pockets...
OK, there are hundreds of Vit.E and antioxidant studies coming up with completely opposite results... mostly determined by he who has an ax to grind; however, myempirical data comes from a large group of ONE...ah, mostly ME. Push passed that. Consider, I just confirm what has been cited elsewhere in credible studies by credible persons without that aforementioned ax to grind.
Changing gears, some of you might remember my paper on rense.com a year or so back called - 20/20 Bowel Disease! ...Or, how Crohn's can improve your eyesight!
(http://www.alienview.net/ALLT1.html#eye)
Anyway, that piece was in regards to my taking large doses of antioxidants, et al, effectively curing my "incurable" Crohn's disease, but in addition discovering that the antioxidant regimen actually improved my eyesight... among other significant improvements!
Reader, before I started taking a very broad spectrum of antioxidants I would have to get slightly stronger glasses about every 18 to 24 months... pretty much like everybody else, but after I started supplementing I went 10 freaking years without new glasses at the time I wrote that paper in 2006.
In the couple of years since then I have managed to add several more big scratches on the now 12 year old lenses plus the writing on my TV seemed to be getting a little fuzzy... so I decided to finally go get an eye test and new lens prescription.
Well folks, it was my TV getting fuzzy, actually, not my eyesight!
The sweet, young, and perky eye doctor -who "laughed" & "smiled" from the moment I sat down in the chair-gushed that it was truly unusual that after so many years I could still read most of the letters BELOW the 20/20 line -I only missed one- with my old glasses! Moreover, she did not have to remotely change my prescription!
I told her about taking a broad spectrum of antioxidants for my Crohn's! The eyes are very susceptible to harmful uV light, oxygen, and the resulting Free-Radicals; the unintended consequences were those antioxidants seemed to have protected my eyes, too, by neutralizing the damaging free-radicals.
I was going to sound-off further, thinking she might be interested (seeing as she's an eye doctor)... Silly me - She stopped smiling immediately & said "I see," curtly ...the friendly perkiness was decidedly over. I guess she'd drunk the Gupta Kool-Aid.
Here's some of what I took :
1).. Lutein & Bilberry - Even though these are classic Eye antioxidants, I took them for my inflamed gut..not my eyes.
2).. Resveratrol - Super powerful antiox. found in red wine. Take the capsule form...one glass of DRY red wine will improve digestion & you will live longer don't try to get an adequate dose of Resveratrol by drinking wine - you'll have to drink way too much.
3).. Grapeseed Extract - Very cheap antiox. that is good for everything but especially good for the gut & it would appear the eyes also...considering I likely took more of this than any other antiox.
FYI : If you believe Regis that SWEET grape juice is a healthful way to get antioxidants then you don't understand that the unhealthful insulin increase -along with a dozen other things wrong with a LARGE BLAST of sugar & fructose not slowed down by any fiber- cannot be negated or justified by the antioxidants in grape juice...ah, in other words, it is STUPID to ever drink sweet grape juice except maybe that tiny amount the priest gives you.
FYI-2 : "Grape-Stuff" that is acceptable in descending order of efficacy : (a)..Grapeseed Extract - (b)..Dry Red Wine - (c)..Dry Red Wine (alcohol-Free) - & lastly, a handful of WHOLE grapes - BUT NO sweet juice & NO Grapeseed Cooking Oil, it is refined, toxic Crap...don't believe the hype.
4).. R-Fraction Alpha Lipoic Acid - this R-Fraction form is superior to regular ALA. - this is the great recycler of other antioxidants.
5).. Turmeric (Curcumin) - The yellow stuff in curry powder.
Powerful antiox. that has been shown to possibly prevent cataracts. I take it in capsules & I cook with it.
6).. Ginkgo Biloba - Protects the retina along with your heart & brain. The data, sponsored by the drug industry a few years ago that showed Ginkgo didn't work was so flawed as to be laughable, so lets move on - but write if you really want it explained.
7).. Selenium - The #1 most powerful trace mineral antioxidant out there. Take a daily total of about 400mcg...there is usually about 100mcg or so in a good multi. The FDA was sued so Supplement makers could openly advertise that supplemental Selenium would reduce cancer significantly. Please only buy Selenomethiodine or Amino-Acid Chelated Selenium...I would never take more than 400mcg daily unless I had cancer, then I would take 600mcg - you see selenium can have toxic effects if you take much over 600mcg for very long.
8).. Astragalas - Especially good liver antiox.
9).. NAC - Another great liver antiox. Remember, anything that is good for your liver is good for digestion which is good for your eyes.
10)..The "Mixed Tocopherol" Vit.E and the very expensive (but probably worth it) Tocotrinols...don't feel bad if you think the tocotrinols seem just a little too expensive...they are too damn expensive, so just get the "Natural Mixed" unless money is not a consideration. No need to take more than a 400iu softgel in addition to the 30 to 60iu in most Multi's.
Seriously, get a team of the most brilliant eye doctors in the world and arm them with an unlimited budget to do everything humanly possible using their Allopathic Medicine (western mainstream medicine). Reader, they will NEVER accomplish anything even close to what I did!
The empirical evidence? I cured my Crohn's, my "hereditary" arthritis, and kept the same corrective eyewear for nearly 12 years... actually, it's gonna be a lot longerthan 12 years because these are brand new lenses... but with the same old prescription!
Oh yeah, I haven't had a cold or taken a flu shot in that same 12 years.
Back to Gupta; what's his angle, really? Are we served by having him in an office with an increasing importance via new health care initiatives coming down the pike from Obama and his posse? The real irony, friends and neighbors, is that a natural approach to illness by way of healthful diet and nutrition is just the kind of cost savings our society should be looking for... but for the wrong kinds of Gupta indorsed people, consider, making the wrong kinds of money... the wrong kinds of way!
Regarding Sanjay's likely appointment (he looks so good on TV), wouldn't it be refreshing & good for the folks to have a SG who actually tried to do something relieving the "stranglehold" the Drug Companies have on Doctors & Dieticians? I bet there are a lot of MD's who might like that... you know, the ones who are not firmly entrenched in the vile "Pharmaceutical Kickback Program"...humm, are there any of those - do you think?
In closing, understand it wasn't Gupta who cured my Crohns, healed my arthritis, or improved my sight. No, that was a product of lay understanding as it pertains to the intrinsic value of diet, nutrition, and supplementation. No more reader, certainly, no less.
Questions?
Alan Graham
alan068@centurytel.net
http://www.alienview.net/ALLTCON.html
Well be.
With Alfred Lehmberg
AlienView.net1-25-9
Before I share my small amount of empirical data regarding the use of antioxidants to protect your eyes -and everything else part & parcel to a healthful quality of life- let me address the likely appointment of Dr. Sanjay Gupta as our next Surgeon General and examine his seeming bias toward antioxidants, et al.
Frankly, Sanja hasn't met a Drug Company or a dangerous pharmaceutical he doesn't like. Consider, he has ties with most of the biggies in the Pharmaceutical industry. This is very amply illustrated by his endorsements of SSRI's for pregnant women & Vioxx for arthritis sufferers, just to name two suspiciously questionable moves.
Additionally, he has his insidious "Pharm-Speak" down solid. You know "... the benefits outweigh the risks..." rap. Uh huh... even if you do kill 58,000 people, or so, to relieve their joint pain!
This is without considering, of course, that there is a much better, completely safe, and inherently natural way to relieve joint pain... That's right! Visit alienview.net/ ALLT1.html#dogtest, Arthritis, Misery, and the Dog-Test, for an overview showing that Glucosamine & MSM really works for joint pain... and I have the dog to prove it!
Anyway, Dr. Gupta seizes virtually every opportunity he can to discourage people from taking supplemental antioxidants and other supplementation. To this end, he uses certified-as-bogus studies to "prove" that antioxidants only provide for the consumer's harm, and especially if you take large amounts in a broad spectrum.
An example of said bogus studies, and a favorite among many doctors, concerns where Cancer patients were given Vit.E & Beta Carotene and then subsequently reported that they'd gotten worse compared to the placebo group. The truth of the matter is that these studies incorporated false data coming from a sub-group of persons who had lung cancer... but did not quit smoking while on chemo. Outrageous!
...And just one freaking time, reader, I would like to see these negative Vit.E studies use something besides the grossly inferior (made from petroleum) kind of Vit. E (found in Centrum) with its 2 opposing molecules! This is the "dl" alpha tocopherol - where the "l" molecule, you'll observe, is not usable by human beings... but can still plug the Vitamin E "receptor site" so the usable "d" molecule cannot then be used!
See, if the "study" said they took 100iu of Vit.E, this equates to as little as only 25iu of E actually being enjoyed by the tissues!
It gets worse! The small percentage of the artificial, manmade "d" molecule used will only be "used" one time & then it is excreted like garbage. Conversely, the natural Vit.E, with its single "d" molecule made from soy beans, etc. will be recycled in the body several times!
Plainly, the preceding is a clear example of the kind of mendacious "dirty-tricks" shenanigans -defining the activities of unethical and immoral sociopaths- as clearlypracticed by these corporate psychos! It remains, mind, that even though this phony data has, subsequently, been abundantly clarified, MD's still use it to poo- poo the use of antioxidants, and ALL supplements for that matter, without regard to the efficacy of these supplements when used in a conscientiously applied program of general nutrition. The reader must agree how wrong this is.
Yeah, I know doctors will counter with the "logical" gloss that if the petrol "d" chemical formula is the same as the Natural "d" formula, then they are the same "on paper" & will react exactly the same way in your body.
OK, tell that to Mother Nature... AND the Canadian Government research proving the unmistakable difference between the two!
Their study shows that the biopsied tissue in the brain confirms the efficacy of the natural version. Of course, on reflection, it could be that Canada grows a lot of Soy beans and wants to sell same... and they do... but I'm fairly confident they are not lying about the superiority of Natural "E" because the #1 Holistic Doctor on the web, mercola.com, says essentially the same thing! I've never caught him in a lie!
FYI - even the superior "d" alpha tocopherol is not nearly the BEST form of Vit.E, though it is still demonstrably superior to the more cheaply produced (...ding!) artificial "dl" alpha form. One is prodded to imagine the positive results which might have been attained in the above mentioned "bogus studies" had they "knocked it up another notch" by using "Natural Mixed" Tocopherol with the natural beta, gamma, and delta tocopherols used in addition to the alpha tocopherols... ...or, heavenforbid they should use the synergistic effect of ALL 8 forms of Vit.E - the 4 tocopherols plus the 4 tocotrinols. See, that's not money in their pockets...
OK, there are hundreds of Vit.E and antioxidant studies coming up with completely opposite results... mostly determined by he who has an ax to grind; however, myempirical data comes from a large group of ONE...ah, mostly ME. Push passed that. Consider, I just confirm what has been cited elsewhere in credible studies by credible persons without that aforementioned ax to grind.
Changing gears, some of you might remember my paper on rense.com a year or so back called - 20/20 Bowel Disease! ...Or, how Crohn's can improve your eyesight!
(http://www.alienview.net/ALLT1.html#eye)
Anyway, that piece was in regards to my taking large doses of antioxidants, et al, effectively curing my "incurable" Crohn's disease, but in addition discovering that the antioxidant regimen actually improved my eyesight... among other significant improvements!
Reader, before I started taking a very broad spectrum of antioxidants I would have to get slightly stronger glasses about every 18 to 24 months... pretty much like everybody else, but after I started supplementing I went 10 freaking years without new glasses at the time I wrote that paper in 2006.
In the couple of years since then I have managed to add several more big scratches on the now 12 year old lenses plus the writing on my TV seemed to be getting a little fuzzy... so I decided to finally go get an eye test and new lens prescription.
Well folks, it was my TV getting fuzzy, actually, not my eyesight!
The sweet, young, and perky eye doctor -who "laughed" & "smiled" from the moment I sat down in the chair-gushed that it was truly unusual that after so many years I could still read most of the letters BELOW the 20/20 line -I only missed one- with my old glasses! Moreover, she did not have to remotely change my prescription!
I told her about taking a broad spectrum of antioxidants for my Crohn's! The eyes are very susceptible to harmful uV light, oxygen, and the resulting Free-Radicals; the unintended consequences were those antioxidants seemed to have protected my eyes, too, by neutralizing the damaging free-radicals.
I was going to sound-off further, thinking she might be interested (seeing as she's an eye doctor)... Silly me - She stopped smiling immediately & said "I see," curtly ...the friendly perkiness was decidedly over. I guess she'd drunk the Gupta Kool-Aid.
Here's some of what I took :
1).. Lutein & Bilberry - Even though these are classic Eye antioxidants, I took them for my inflamed gut..not my eyes.
2).. Resveratrol - Super powerful antiox. found in red wine. Take the capsule form...one glass of DRY red wine will improve digestion & you will live longer
3).. Grapeseed Extract - Very cheap antiox. that is good for everything but especially good for the gut & it would appear the eyes also...considering I likely took more of this than any other antiox.
FYI : If you believe Regis that SWEET grape juice is a healthful way to get antioxidants then you don't understand that the unhealthful insulin increase -along with a dozen other things wrong with a LARGE BLAST of sugar & fructose not slowed down by any fiber- cannot be negated or justified by the antioxidants in grape juice...ah, in other words, it is STUPID to ever drink sweet grape juice except maybe that tiny amount the priest gives you.
FYI-2 : "Grape-Stuff" that is acceptable in descending order of efficacy : (a)..Grapeseed Extract - (b)..Dry Red Wine - (c)..Dry Red Wine (alcohol-Free) - & lastly, a handful of WHOLE grapes - BUT NO sweet juice & NO Grapeseed Cooking Oil, it is refined, toxic Crap...don't believe the hype.
4).. R-Fraction Alpha Lipoic Acid - this R-Fraction form is superior to regular ALA. - this is the great recycler of other antioxidants.
5).. Turmeric (Curcumin) - The yellow stuff in curry powder.
Powerful antiox. that has been shown to possibly prevent cataracts. I take it in capsules & I cook with it.
6).. Ginkgo Biloba - Protects the retina along with your heart & brain. The data, sponsored by the drug industry a few years ago that showed Ginkgo didn't work was so flawed as to be laughable, so lets move on - but write if you really want it explained.
7).. Selenium - The #1 most powerful trace mineral antioxidant out there. Take a daily total of about 400mcg...there is usually about 100mcg or so in a good multi. The FDA was sued so Supplement makers could openly advertise that supplemental Selenium would reduce cancer significantly. Please only buy Selenomethiodine or Amino-Acid Chelated Selenium...I would never take more than 400mcg daily unless I had cancer, then I would take 600mcg - you see selenium can have toxic effects if you take much over 600mcg for very long.
8).. Astragalas - Especially good liver antiox.
9).. NAC - Another great liver antiox. Remember, anything that is good for your liver is good for digestion which is good for your eyes.
10)..The "Mixed Tocopherol" Vit.E and the very expensive (but probably worth it) Tocotrinols...don't feel bad if you think the tocotrinols seem just a little too expensive...they are too damn expensive, so just get the "Natural Mixed" unless money is not a consideration. No need to take more than a 400iu softgel in addition to the 30 to 60iu in most Multi's.
Seriously, get a team of the most brilliant eye doctors in the world and arm them with an unlimited budget to do everything humanly possible using their Allopathic Medicine (western mainstream medicine). Reader, they will NEVER accomplish anything even close to what I did!
The empirical evidence? I cured my Crohn's, my "hereditary" arthritis, and kept the same corrective eyewear for nearly 12 years... actually, it's gonna be a lot longerthan 12 years because these are brand new lenses... but with the same old prescription!
Oh yeah, I haven't had a cold or taken a flu shot in that same 12 years.
Back to Gupta; what's his angle, really? Are we served by having him in an office with an increasing importance via new health care initiatives coming down the pike from Obama and his posse? The real irony, friends and neighbors, is that a natural approach to illness by way of healthful diet and nutrition is just the kind of cost savings our society should be looking for... but for the wrong kinds of Gupta indorsed people, consider, making the wrong kinds of money... the wrong kinds of way!
Regarding Sanjay's likely appointment (he looks so good on TV), wouldn't it be refreshing & good for the folks to have a SG who actually tried to do something relieving the "stranglehold" the Drug Companies have on Doctors & Dieticians? I bet there are a lot of MD's who might like that... you know, the ones who are not firmly entrenched in the vile "Pharmaceutical Kickback Program"...humm, are there any of those - do you think?
In closing, understand it wasn't Gupta who cured my Crohns, healed my arthritis, or improved my sight. No, that was a product of lay understanding as it pertains to the intrinsic value of diet, nutrition, and supplementation. No more reader, certainly, no less.
Questions?
Alan Graham
alan068@centurytel.net
http://www.alienview.net/ALLTCON.html
Well be.
The experts' view: Twenty questions you were afraid to ask
The experts' view: Twenty questions you were afraid to ask
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/the-experts-view-twenty-questions-you-were-afraid-to-ask-1515312.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/the-experts-view-twenty-questions-you-were-afraid-to-ask-1515312.html
World warned of ‘food crunch’ threat
World warned of ‘food crunch’ threat
By Javier Blas in London
Published: January 25 2009
The world faces “the real risk of a food crunch” if governments do not take immediate action to address the agricultural impact of climate change and water scarcity, according to an authoritative report out on Monday.
Chatham House, the London-based think-tank, suggests that the recent fall in food prices is only a temporary reprieve and that prices are set to resume their upward trend once the world emerges from the current downturn.
“There is therefore a real risk of a ‘food crunch’ at some point in the future, which would fall particularly hard on import-dependent countries and on poor people everywhere,” the report states. “Food prices are poised to rise again,” it adds.
The warning is made as agriculture ministers and United Nations officials gather from Monday in Madrid for a UN meeting on food security likely to conclude that last year’s food crisis, with almost 1bn people hungry, is far from over.
The UN will warn ministers in Madrid that “as the global financial crisis deepens, hunger is likely to increase” under the impact of rising unemployment and lower remittances, according to three officials briefed ahead of the meeting.
The prices of agricultural commodities such as rice and wheat jumped to a record high last year, triggering food riots from Haiti and Egypt to Bangladesh and Cameroon and prompting appeals for food aid for more than 30 countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
The cost of food commodities had fallen since then, but Alex Evans, the Chatham House report’s author and an expert at New York University, said that “even at their somewhat diminished levels current prices remain acutely problematic for low-income import-dependent countries and for poor people all over the world”.
Josette Sheeran, head of the UN’s World Food Programme, said she was expecting that this year would be at least as “challenging” as last year, when the number of undernourished rose by 40m to 963m people. “We are not seeing an alleviation of the hunger pressure,” she told the Financial Times.
In addition, agricultural commodities prices have recovered in the past two months on the back of lower winter plantings in the US and Europe and a severe drought in Brazil and Argentina, two of the largest producers of food commodities.
Since December, wheat prices have risen 15 per cent, corn 17 per cent and soyabean 22 per cent. In contrast with other raw materials such as oil or aluminium which have plunged back to the levels of 2002-05, agricultural commodities are trading higher than they were just 12 to 18 months ago.
Over the medium term, the report states that “long-term resource scarcity trends, notably climate change, energy security and falling water availability” will put pressure on prices and production, together with “competition for land and higher demand resulting from increasing affluence and a growing population”.
The report recommends governments to invest more in agricultural production and an increase in international aid in this sphere, too.
● Containing global warming will require an additional €175bn in annual investment by 2020, according to a European Union draft paper, writes Joshua Chaffin in Brussels.
The paper, which says much of the €175bn ($227bn, £167bn) investment will have to be borne by the developed world, also forecasts that tens of billions of euros in spending will be needed to help poorer countries prepare for even moderate warming.
Some of the ways that the EU proposes to raise those funds include requiring developed nations to pay for their annual carbon emissions, and levying taxes on aviation and maritime transportation. The EU should also expand its emissions trading system into a global carbon market and explore the establishment of a multilateral insurance pool to help deal with natural disasters that result from global warming.
The final paper, to be released by the European Commission, the EU executive body, on Wednesday, sets out the bloc’s position ahead of negotiations in Copenhagen this December aimed at creating a global agreement to fight climate change.
The Commission declined to comment on the draft, and people involved in negotiations said it was still under discussion.
The EU endorsed a plan in December to reduce the 27-nation bloc’s greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020. Member states and other developed countries are urged to increase that figure to 30 per cent.
By Javier Blas in London
Published: January 25 2009
The world faces “the real risk of a food crunch” if governments do not take immediate action to address the agricultural impact of climate change and water scarcity, according to an authoritative report out on Monday.
Chatham House, the London-based think-tank, suggests that the recent fall in food prices is only a temporary reprieve and that prices are set to resume their upward trend once the world emerges from the current downturn.
“There is therefore a real risk of a ‘food crunch’ at some point in the future, which would fall particularly hard on import-dependent countries and on poor people everywhere,” the report states. “Food prices are poised to rise again,” it adds.
The warning is made as agriculture ministers and United Nations officials gather from Monday in Madrid for a UN meeting on food security likely to conclude that last year’s food crisis, with almost 1bn people hungry, is far from over.
The UN will warn ministers in Madrid that “as the global financial crisis deepens, hunger is likely to increase” under the impact of rising unemployment and lower remittances, according to three officials briefed ahead of the meeting.
The prices of agricultural commodities such as rice and wheat jumped to a record high last year, triggering food riots from Haiti and Egypt to Bangladesh and Cameroon and prompting appeals for food aid for more than 30 countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
The cost of food commodities had fallen since then, but Alex Evans, the Chatham House report’s author and an expert at New York University, said that “even at their somewhat diminished levels current prices remain acutely problematic for low-income import-dependent countries and for poor people all over the world”.
Josette Sheeran, head of the UN’s World Food Programme, said she was expecting that this year would be at least as “challenging” as last year, when the number of undernourished rose by 40m to 963m people. “We are not seeing an alleviation of the hunger pressure,” she told the Financial Times.
In addition, agricultural commodities prices have recovered in the past two months on the back of lower winter plantings in the US and Europe and a severe drought in Brazil and Argentina, two of the largest producers of food commodities.
Since December, wheat prices have risen 15 per cent, corn 17 per cent and soyabean 22 per cent. In contrast with other raw materials such as oil or aluminium which have plunged back to the levels of 2002-05, agricultural commodities are trading higher than they were just 12 to 18 months ago.
Over the medium term, the report states that “long-term resource scarcity trends, notably climate change, energy security and falling water availability” will put pressure on prices and production, together with “competition for land and higher demand resulting from increasing affluence and a growing population”.
The report recommends governments to invest more in agricultural production and an increase in international aid in this sphere, too.
● Containing global warming will require an additional €175bn in annual investment by 2020, according to a European Union draft paper, writes Joshua Chaffin in Brussels.
The paper, which says much of the €175bn ($227bn, £167bn) investment will have to be borne by the developed world, also forecasts that tens of billions of euros in spending will be needed to help poorer countries prepare for even moderate warming.
Some of the ways that the EU proposes to raise those funds include requiring developed nations to pay for their annual carbon emissions, and levying taxes on aviation and maritime transportation. The EU should also expand its emissions trading system into a global carbon market and explore the establishment of a multilateral insurance pool to help deal with natural disasters that result from global warming.
The final paper, to be released by the European Commission, the EU executive body, on Wednesday, sets out the bloc’s position ahead of negotiations in Copenhagen this December aimed at creating a global agreement to fight climate change.
The Commission declined to comment on the draft, and people involved in negotiations said it was still under discussion.
The EU endorsed a plan in December to reduce the 27-nation bloc’s greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020. Member states and other developed countries are urged to increase that figure to 30 per cent.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
One Minute Message # 2 : What the Bible Says About Muhammad
One Minute Message # 2 : What the Bible Says About Muhammad?
According to the Bible, God said to Moses, on whom be peace: I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. (The Holy Bible, New International Version, Deuteronomy chapter 18, verse 18). The prophet described in the above verse must have the following three characteristics: 1. He will be like Moses. 2. He will come from the brothers of the Israelites, i.e. the Ishmaelites. 3. God will put His words in the mouth of the prophet and he will declare what God commanded him. Let us see which prophet God was speaking of. 1. The prophet like Moses Some people feel that this prophecy refers to the prophet Jesus, on whom be peace. But, although Jesus (peace be upon him and all of God’s prophets and messengers) was truly a prophet of God, he is not the prophet spoken of here. He was born miraculously, and finally God raised him up miraculously. On the other hand, Muhammad is more like Moses; both were born in a natural way and both died natural deaths. 2. From among the Ishmaelites Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac (Genesis, chapter 21). Ishmael became the grandfather of the Arab nation. And Isaac became the grandfather of Jewish nation. The prophet spoken of was to come not from among the Jews themselves, but from among their brothers, the Ishmaelites. Muhammad a descendant of Ishmael, is indeed that prophet. 3. God will put his words in his mouth ‘Neither the content of the revelation, nor its form, were of Muhammad’s devising. Both were given by the angel, and Muhammad’s task was only to repeat what he heard.’ (Word Religions from Ancient history to the Present, by Geoffrey Parrinder, p. 472). God sent the angel Gabriel to teach Muhammad the exact words that he should repeat to the people. The words are therefore not his own; they did not come from his own thoughts, but were put into his mouth by the angel. These are written down in the Qur’an word for word, exactly as they came from God. Now that we know that prophet we must listen to him, for, according to the Bible, God says: ‘I will punish anyone who refuses to obey him’ (Good News Bible, Deut. 18:19).
http://www.islamland.com/EN/Contents.aspx?AID=49&HL=1&Q=One
According to the Bible, God said to Moses, on whom be peace: I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. (The Holy Bible, New International Version, Deuteronomy chapter 18, verse 18). The prophet described in the above verse must have the following three characteristics: 1. He will be like Moses. 2. He will come from the brothers of the Israelites, i.e. the Ishmaelites. 3. God will put His words in the mouth of the prophet and he will declare what God commanded him. Let us see which prophet God was speaking of. 1. The prophet like Moses Some people feel that this prophecy refers to the prophet Jesus, on whom be peace. But, although Jesus (peace be upon him and all of God’s prophets and messengers) was truly a prophet of God, he is not the prophet spoken of here. He was born miraculously, and finally God raised him up miraculously. On the other hand, Muhammad is more like Moses; both were born in a natural way and both died natural deaths. 2. From among the Ishmaelites Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac (Genesis, chapter 21). Ishmael became the grandfather of the Arab nation. And Isaac became the grandfather of Jewish nation. The prophet spoken of was to come not from among the Jews themselves, but from among their brothers, the Ishmaelites. Muhammad a descendant of Ishmael, is indeed that prophet. 3. God will put his words in his mouth ‘Neither the content of the revelation, nor its form, were of Muhammad’s devising. Both were given by the angel, and Muhammad’s task was only to repeat what he heard.’ (Word Religions from Ancient history to the Present, by Geoffrey Parrinder, p. 472). God sent the angel Gabriel to teach Muhammad the exact words that he should repeat to the people. The words are therefore not his own; they did not come from his own thoughts, but were put into his mouth by the angel. These are written down in the Qur’an word for word, exactly as they came from God. Now that we know that prophet we must listen to him, for, according to the Bible, God says: ‘I will punish anyone who refuses to obey him’ (Good News Bible, Deut. 18:19).
http://www.islamland.com/EN/Contents.aspx?AID=49&HL=1&Q=One
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
