RE: [Biofuel] PR Posing as Science in Crop Biotechnology
Hello All, As the GM foods are not labeled, there is no way that their health impacts on the population can be identified after they are released. The same goes for biofuel. It seems to me that we ought to also be aware of GMO biofuel as much as we are aware of GMO food, though there is surprisingly little awareness in this respect. There is no explicit label for GMO foods, and many people who are buying biofuel as a green alternative to petroleum may not realize that GMO biofuel is actually a contribution to the problem and not the solution (to global warming, corporate control, inefficiency, etc. -- you decide). I am grateful that JtF and this list increases awareness of this fact -- community self-reliance is a real value, we do not simply advocate using biofuel just for the sake of using biofuel, but as a means to a more sane ends. - Dave ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [Biofuel] PR Posing as Science in Crop Biotechnology
Hello All, As the GM foods are not labeled, there is no way that their health impacts on the population can be identified after they are released. The same goes for biofuel. It seems to me that we ought to also be aware of GMO biofuel as much as we are aware of GMO food, though there is surprisingly little awareness in this respect. There is no explicit label for GMO foods, Not in the US anyway, though surveys have shown that most people favour labelling. and many people who are buying biofuel as a green alternative to petroleum may not realize that GMO biofuel is actually a contribution to the problem and not the solution (to global warming, corporate control, inefficiency, etc. -- you decide). I've said this before: If you just swap fuels instead of changing the entire disaster you'll end up with wall-to-wall industrialized monocrops of GMO soy and canola. Big Biofuels may not turn out to be much better than Big Oil. Silly thing about it is that industrialized monocropping of biofuels crops would be (is) just as fossil-fuel-dependent as industrialized monocropping of anything else is. What's the use of finding a cure for cancer if it gives you a heart attack? But is it really that simple? From a couple of recent messages: Something worth saying though, that I've pointed out here before, is that GM still is a very promising technology, but not in the hands of the likes of Monsanto, as is very obvious. With their slant on things and their history, we don't need any more Brave New Worlds brought to us by the Monsanto's and Dow's of this world any more than we need a 21st Century sponsored by Big Oil. It's to be hoped that the fully justifiable public outcry against Monsanto's antics with GMOs aren't going to permanently discredit the technology in the public eye and put it out of bounds. And: I want a Mother Nature engineered soybean and claim this on my biodiesel for my future clean fuel gas station. Very good! Though, whether non-GMO or not, soy might not be the best choice for an oilseed crop. This is a complicated argument. You could argue the GMO stuff shouldn't be growing at all, but life is seldom ideal and the fact is that huge quantities of GMO crops are being grown in the US and elsewhere. With soy, the oil is something of a by-product, the main product being the seedcake, which is fed to livestock (concentrated factory farms). The oil is stored in the world's biggest tank farm, generally with a massive surplus. It's hard to find any aspect of any of this that you can say anything good about. None of it is sustainable, all of it is abhorrent in various ways. It's all heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and extremely wasteful. But, it happens. Resistance is mounting on many fronts, but it'll go on happening until it ends, and go on producing this noxious stuff that oughtn't to be in the food chain. Maybe burning it in diesel motors is about the best thing you can do with it. You could just as well claim that as a public service if you used GMO oil. There was (?) something of a similar discussion over BSE, Mad Cow Disease: it should never have happened, and would never have happened but for the madness of feeding cattle parts to cattle, vegetarian grazing animals specially adapted to eat grass. But rendering the condemned and slaughtered beasts and making biodiesel from the tallow surely would have been a better solution than landfilling them or incinerating them. I am grateful that JtF and this list increases awareness of this fact -- community self-reliance is a real value, we do not simply advocate using biofuel just for the sake of using biofuel, but as a means to a more sane ends. Right, and thankyou. It's become something of a mantra that simply substituting biofuel for fossil-fuels is no answer - a rational energy future requires great reductions in energy use (waste), great improvements in energy efficiency, and probably most important, decentralisation of supply to the local level, along with the use of all available renewable technologies in combination as the local circumstances demand. Best wishes Keith - Dave ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [Biofuel] PR Posing as Science in Crop Biotechnology
Greetings Readers, A question and an opinion from a newbie; What does GMO stand for? The opinion is on recycling - there are huge amounts of waste organics being land filled instead of recycled. May I respectfully suggest that some of you PhD's and entrepreneurs use your resources towards figuring out how to economically recycle more of our waste into energy instead of politicking. Once an activity becomes economically viable it will follow whoever leads into the mainstream. Looks like using used restaurant grease and oils is on the way to stardom. It is used for producing biodiesel and a host of other commercial products. Eh wot? Ed (for Mondays Thursdays-Main Ofc.) | Ed Starr | Star Marketing | 949-496-0050 | FAX 949-388-7828 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Dana Point, CA, USA (for Tue., Wed. Fri-Home Ofc.) | Ed Starr | Star Marketing | 619-749-9647 | FAX 619-749-9648 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello All, As the GM foods are not labeled, there is no way that their health impacts on the population can be identified after they are released. The same goes for biofuel. It seems to me that we ought to also be aware of GMO biofuel as much as we are aware of GMO food, though there is surprisingly little awareness in this respect. There is no explicit label for GMO foods, Not in the US anyway, though surveys have shown that most people favour labelling. and many people who are buying biofuel as a green alternative to petroleum may not realize that GMO biofuel is actually a contribution to the problem and not the solution (to global warming, corporate control, inefficiency, etc. -- you decide). I've said this before: If you just swap fuels instead of changing the entire disaster you'll end up with wall-to-wall industrialized monocrops of GMO soy and canola. Big Biofuels may not turn out to be much better than Big Oil. Silly thing about it is that industrialized monocropping of biofuels crops would be (is) just as fossil-fuel-dependent as industrialized monocropping of anything else is. What's the use of finding a cure for cancer if it gives you a heart attack? But is it really that simple? From a couple of recent messages: Something worth saying though, that I've pointed out here before, is that GM still is a very promising technology, but not in the hands of the likes of Monsanto, as is very obvious. With their slant on things and their history, we don't need any more Brave New Worlds brought to us by the Monsanto's and Dow's of this world any more than we need a 21st Century sponsored by Big Oil. It's to be hoped that the fully justifiable public outcry against Monsanto's antics with GMOs aren't going to permanently discredit the technology in the public eye and put it out of bounds. And: I want a Mother Nature engineered soybean and claim this on my biodiesel for my future clean fuel gas station. Very good! Though, whether non-GMO or not, soy might not be the best choice for an oilseed crop. This is a complicated argument. You could argue the GMO stuff shouldn't be growing at all, but life is seldom ideal and the fact is that huge quantities of GMO crops are being grown in the US and elsewhere. With soy, the oil is something of a by-product, the main product being the seedcake, which is fed to livestock (concentrated factory farms). The oil is stored in the world's biggest tank farm, generally with a massive surplus. It's hard to find any aspect of any of this that you can say anything good about. None of it is sustainable, all of it is abhorrent in various ways. It's all heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and extremely wasteful. But, it happens. Resistance is mounting on many fronts, but it'll go on happening until it ends, and go on producing this noxious stuff that oughtn't to be in the food chain. Maybe burning it in diesel motors is about the best thing you can do with it. You could just as well claim that as a public service if you used GMO oil. There was (?) something of a similar discussion over BSE, Mad Cow Disease: it should never have happened, and would never have happened but for the madness of feeding cattle parts to cattle, vegetarian grazing animals specially adapted to eat grass. But rendering the condemned and slaughtered beasts and making biodiesel from the tallow surely would have been a better solution than landfilling them or incinerating them. I am grateful that JtF and this list increases awareness of this fact -- community self-reliance is a real value, we do not simply advocate using biofuel just for the sake of using biofuel, but as a means to a more sane ends. Right, and thankyou. It's become something of a mantra that simply substituting biofuel for fossil-fuels is no answer - a rational energy future requires great reductions in energy use (waste), great improvements in energy efficiency, and probably most important, decentralisation of supply to the local level, along with the use of all available renewable
RE: [Biofuel] PR Posing as Science in Crop Biotechnology
A question and an opinion from a newbie; What does GMO stand for? Is that a serious question? If so, not being rude, but the best answer is this: if you don't know already then go and find out. The opinion is on recycling - there are huge amounts of waste organics being land filled instead of recycled. May I respectfully suggest that some of you PhD's and entrepreneurs use your resources towards figuring out how to economically recycle more of our waste into energy instead of politicking. Once an activity becomes economically viable it will follow whoever leads into the mainstream. Looks like using used restaurant grease and oils is on the way to stardom. It is used for producing biodiesel and a host of other commercial products. Eh wot? Ed A strange response, Ed. Politicking indeed - ie stuff you don't agree with, no? You think this post from Dave and my response to it is politicking? You're a newbie, yes. You were pointed at a lot of list resources when you joined, maybe you took no notice? This list has been here awhile, and it doesn't just talk. Sensible newbies (not just my opinion, all the Netiquette resources advise it) lurk for awhile, spend time in the archives in an attempt to discover at least something about the type of community they've joined, before leaping in and putting their foot in it. Eh wot? Also, for someone who posted resources and advice about vermicomposting yesterday, do you really think that the best place for waste organics is to recycle them into energy? Have you any concept of how much organic matter your society wastes? Here's the tip of an iceberg for you: http://wwia.org/pipermail/biofuel/Week-of-Mon-20041206/003636.html [Biofuel] Half of US food goes to waste Have you any concept of how much energy your society wastes? The tip of another iceberg - the US has 4% of the world's population and accounts for 25% of the world's energy use. See: http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_404.html#energyuse You think this is your prerogative? It's at other people's expense. Very much of that food you waste is imported, much of that from poor countries where people go hungry. Have a good look at this: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_food.html Biofuels - Food or Fuel? So you want to waste all this waste by wasting it on something else you already waste too much of? And that's what we here should devote all our energy (!) to rather than politicking? Ed, waste is not a concept known to nature, nor to most traditional societies. The *only* place for waste organics is to recycle them back into the soil where they belong, to maintain soil fertility and nurture further growth. There are ways of optimising this process, of which vermicomposting is but one, which then *might* leave an excess for other purposes, energy supply being one of them. BUT it STILL won't be rational, Ed, without a bit of the very politicking you're apparently sneering at. This bit, for starters: Right, and thankyou. It's become something of a mantra that simply substituting biofuel for fossil-fuels is no answer - a rational energy future requires great reductions in energy use (waste), great improvements in energy efficiency, and probably most important, decentralisation of supply to the local level, along with the use of all available renewable technologies in combination as the local circumstances demand. By the way, when you joined the list you were sent a Welcome message, which you're obliged to read. It referred to the List rules, which you're also obliged to read. The List rules are here: http://wwia.org/pipermail/biofuel/Week-of-Mon-20040906/05.html See the first two sections, Rights and obligations and Open discussion, and the Note at the end. Best wishes Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel list owner (for Mondays Thursdays-Main Ofc.) | Ed Starr | Star Marketing | 949-496-0050 | FAX 949-388-7828 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Dana Point, CA, USA (for Tue., Wed. Fri-Home Ofc.) | Ed Starr | Star Marketing | 619-749-9647 | FAX 619-749-9648 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello All, As the GM foods are not labeled, there is no way that their health impacts on the population can be identified after they are released. The same goes for biofuel. It seems to me that we ought to also be aware of GMO biofuel as much as we are aware of GMO food, though there is surprisingly little awareness in this respect. There is no explicit label for GMO foods, Not in the US anyway, though surveys have shown that most people favour labelling. and many people who are buying biofuel as a green alternative to petroleum may not realize that GMO biofuel is actually a contribution to the problem and not the solution (to global warming, corporate control, inefficiency, etc. -- you decide). I've said this before: If you just swap fuels instead of changing the entire disaster you'll end up with
[Biofuel] PR Posing as Science in Crop Biotechnology
Science Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk ISIS Press Release 25/01/05 PR Posing as Science in Crop Biotechnology Prof. Joe Cummins and mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Dr. Mae-Wan Ho expose the corruption of traditional standards in science reporting of GM crops The emergence of genetically modified (GM) foods and crops has profoundly impacted scientific reporting not only in the popular media but also in peer- reviewed scientific journals. Public relations (pr) statements, once confined to the promotion of commercial products, now frequent the pages of scientific journals. Science was built on the foundations of full and truthful reporting of observations and findings; not anymore. If anything, scientific reports that expose the propaganda of corporations, government and academic promoters of GM crops are either rejected for publication outright, or gratuitously attacked when they appear in print; and the scientist(s) involved mercilessly prosecuted and victimized, as in the case of Dr. Arpad Pusztai and his co-workers in the UK, who lost their jobs in 1998 or soon after; and Prof. Ignacio Chapela, researcher from the University of Berkeley, California, currently fighting to regain his tenure (http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0, 7843,1392979,00.html). In contrast, GM proponents are given free license to make pr statements posing as science. No Bt resistance? In the January issue of Nature Biotechnology, Sarah Bates and coworkers observe that transgenic plants expressing insecticidal proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) were first commercialized in 1996 amid concern from some scientists, regulators and environmentalists that the widespread use of Bt crops would inevitably lead to resistance and the loss of a 'public good,' specifically, the susceptibility of insect pests to Bt proteins. But, they continue with apparent self- satisfaction, Eight years later, Bt corn and cotton have been grown on a cumulative area 80 million ha worldwide. Despite dire predictions to the contrary, resistance to a Bt crop has yet to be documented, suggesting that resistance management strategies have been effective thus far. The resistance management strategies include planting non-GM acreage as refuge to slow down the evolution of resistant insect pests and the use of high toxin dosage along with pyramiding more than one toxin genes in a crop. In reality, however, the main reason that insect resistance has not been detected in the United States - not mentioned in the article - is that the US Environment Protection Agency has allowed the GM crop and refuge to be sprayed with chemical insecticides (see No Bt resistance? ISIS Report, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/nobtresistance.php). Spraying with chemical insecticides protects the crops from pest damage in the refuge, and also kills off any insects resistant to the GM crops. The authors also failed to mention other factors that might affect the evolution of resistance - the use of synthetic toxin genes that differ in amino acid sequence from the natural toxin in commercial GM crops, and the variation in toxin production among different GM crops - although these factors are probably not as significant as spraying chemical insecticides in the refuge. Nevertheless, they could lead to underestimating the evolution of resistance by failing to detect resistant insects. Tests for insect resistance are frequently carried out using the toxin proteins isolated from bacteria and not the actual toxin produced in the GM crop. In Canada, chemical insecticides have not been allowed in the refuge of Bt crops until the upcoming growing season, but there does not appear to have been any effort to screen for resistance in that country. That paper is just the latest in a string of misleading reports that have been deliberately selective and incomplete in order to serve pr purposes. PR by misrepresentation, permissive substitution and surrogate testing Advocates have persistently maintained that GM crops are a simple extension of plant breeding and selection carried on for thousands of years. That fiction ignores the basic fact that GM crops are produced in the laboratory by illegitimate recombination รถ a process whereby pieces of foreign DNA break the host genome to insert themselves at unpredictable places - while traditional plant breeding and selection depending largely on homologous (legitimate) recombination during reproduction. What is seldom stated is that GM crops are produced using synthetic approximations of natural bacterial genes, whether it is in conferring resistance to herbicides or to insect pests. The synthetic approximations of natural genes are used because the bacterial genes function poorly in plants, which use different codes for the same amino acids. Hence, synthetic genes could be 60% homologous with the bacterial genes in DNA sequence and
