Yeah, except raw milk is illegal here in the land of the free. Cigarettes, no. Milk from the cow? Yes.
Keith Addison wrote: >>Hi Keith, >>Last year I saw video footage of these cows with their poor infected udders >>that was EXTREMELY convincing never to drink milk again... We do get the >>organic butter and coffee cream but whew, is it really much better. Jesse >> >> > >Hi Jesse > >Well, that's the same mistake militant vegetarian cultists make when >they point at factory farms as the reason for not eating meat, as if >there's no good way of doing it. > >Yes, real milk really is much better - in fact it's not the same >thing, they're both white and that's about where it ends. Raw milk >from a healthy cow on fertile pasture is great food! >http://www.realmilk.com/why.html >Campaign for Real Milk > >Best > >Keith > > > >>>From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org >>>Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 18:30:45 +0900 >>>To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org >>>Subject: [Biofuel] Got A Little More Than Milk? >>> >>>http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/prn_a_little_more_than_milk.060616.htm >>> >>>Rethinking Schools Online, June 1, 2006 >>> >>>Got A Little More Than Milk? >>> >>>Students get a glimpse into the corporate-controlled food system by >>>looking at the politics of food >>> >>>[Rachel's introduction: After several days of discussion, the 11th- >>>grade global studies class decided to follow the "precautionary >>>principle," http://www.precaution.org/lib/pp_def.htm which guides >>>policy in many European nations, and institute a worldwide moratorium >>>on genetically modified (GM) foods until they could be proven safe, >>>and to require labeling of any GM foods that were approved for >>>consumption. Furthermore, the summit voted to take away the right of >>>any person or corporation to patent food.] >>> >>>By Tim Swinehart >>> >>>"Got milk? Want strong bones? Drink milk. Want healthy teeth? Drink >>>milk. Want big muscles? Drink milk." >>> >>>"The glass of milk looks nice and cold and refreshing. If I had a >>>warm, homemade chocolate chip cookie, it would make my day. They go >>>perfect together." >>> >>>Ari and Colin could have been writing radio spots for the Oregon >>>Dairyman's Association, but instead they were writing about the glass >>>of milk I had set out moments earlier in the middle of the classroom. >>>My instructions to the students were simple: "Describe the glass of >>>milk sitting before you. What does it make you think of? Does it >>>bring back memories? Do you have any questions about the milk? An ode >>>to milk?" >>> >>>From the front row, Carl said, "Mmmmm... I'm thirsty. Can I drink it?" >>> >>>"Why don't you wait until the end of the period and then I'll check >>>back with you on that, Carl," I responded. >>> >>>We had spent the last couple weeks discussing the politics of food in >>>my untracked 11th grade global studies classes. And while students -- >>>mostly working class and European American -- were beginning to show >>>signs of an increased awareness about the implications of their own >>>food choices, I wanted to find an issue that they would be sure to >>>relate to on a personal level. One of my goals in designing a unit >>>about food was to give students the opportunity to make some intimate >>>connections between the social and cultural politics of globalization >>>and the choices we make as individual consumers and as a society as a >>>whole. A central organizing theme of the unit was choice, which we >>>examined from multiple perspectives: How much choice do you have >>>about the food that you eat? Do these choices matter? Does knowledge >>>about the source/history of our food affect our ability to make true >>>choices about our food? How does corporate control of the global food >>>supply affect our choices and the choices of people around the world? >>> >>>I wanted to encourage my students to continue asking critical >>>questions about the social and environmental issues surrounding food, >>>even outside the confines of the classroom. I wanted to develop a >>>lesson that would stick with them when they grabbed their afternoon >>>snack or sat down for their next meal, something they might even feel >>>compelled to tell their friends or family about. >>> >>>Milk turned out to have the sort of appeal I was looking for. For >>>almost all my students, milk embodies a sort of wholesome, pure >>>"goodness," an image propped up by millions of dollars of advertising >>>targeted especially toward children. My students had been ingrained >>>with the message that "milk does a body good" for most of their lives >>>and had been persuaded by parents, teachers, celebrities, and >>>cafeteria workers to include milk as a healthy part of their day. But >>>I believe that my students, along with the vast majority of the >>>American public, hasn't been getting the whole story about milk. I >>>wanted to introduce them to the idea that corporate interests -- >>>oftentimes at odds with their own personal health -- hid behind the >>>image of purity and health. >>> >>>Growth Hormones and Milk >>> >>>I wanted to help my students reexamine the images of purity and >>>health that milk evoked by presenting them with some unsettling >>>information about the Monsanto corporation's artificial growth >>>hormone, rBGH. Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH -- also known >>>as Bovine Somatrotropin, bST, or rBST) is a genetically engineered >>>version of the growth hormone naturally produced by cows, and was >>>approved by the federal Food and Drug Administra-tion (FDA) in 1993 >>>for the purpose of increasing a cow's milk production by an estimated >>>5 to 15 percent. Monsanto markets rBGH, under the trade name Posilac, >>>as a way "for dairy farmers to produce more milk with fewer cows, >>>thereby providing dairy farmers with additional economic security" >>>(see www.monsantodairy.com). But with an increased risk of health >>>problems for cows stressed from producing milk at unnaturally >>>enhanced levels -- including more udder infections and reproductive >>>problems -- critics argue that the only true economic security >>>resulting from the sale of Posilac (rBGH) is the $300-500 million a >>>year that Monsanto makes from the product. >>> >>>The human health risks posed by rBGH-treated milk have been an issue >>>of intense controversy since rBGH was introduced more than a decade >>>ago. Monsanto and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) say that >>>milk and meat from cows supplemented with bST are safe. On the other >>>hand, a number of peer-reviewed studies, most notably those of >>>University of Illinois School of Public Health Professor Samuel >>>Epstein, MD, have shown that rBGH-treated milk contains higher than >>>normal levels of Insulin-Like Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1). Although IGF-1 >>>is a naturally occurring hormone-protein in cows and humans, when >>>increased above normal levels it has been linked to an increased risk >>>of breast, prostate, and colon cancers. Monsanto itself, in 1993, >>>admitted that rBGH milk often contains higher levels of IGF-1. The >>>uncertainty surrounding these health risks has led citizens and >>>governments in Canada, all 25 countries of the European Union, >>>Australia, New Zealand, and Japan to ban rBGH. >>> >>>The continued use of rBGH in the United States points to the >>>political influence of large corporations on the FDA's regulatory >>>process. When, in 1994, concerned dairy retailers responded to the >>>introduction of rBGH with labels indicating untreated milk as "rBGH >>>free," the FDA argued that there was no "significant" difference >>>between rBGH-treated milk and ordinary milk and warned retailers that >>>such labels were illegal. The FDA has since changed its position and >>>now allows producers to label rBGH-free milk. Paul Kingsnorth, >>>writing in The Ecologist magazine, offers one explanation for the >>>FDA's protection of rBGH: "The FDA official responsible for >>>developing this labeling policy was one Michael R. Taylor. Before >>>moving to the FDA, he was a partner in the law firm that represented >>>Monsanto as it applied for FDA approval for Posilac. He has since >>>moved back to work for Monsanto." Not an isolated incident, this >>>example illustrates what critics often refer to as the "revolving >>>door" between U.S. biotechnology corporations and the government >>>agencies responsible for regulating biotech products and the safety >>>of the nation's food. >>> >>>The story of rBGH in the United States encapsulates many of the worst >>>elements of today's corporate-controlled, industrial food system. >>>Despite the illusion of choice created by the thousands of items >>>available at the supermarket, consumers have little knowledge about >>>where food comes from and how it is produced. By uncovering the story >>>behind rBGH, I hoped students would begin asking questions about the >>>ways corporate consolidation and control of the world's food supply >>>has drastically limited the real choices and knowledge we have as >>>food consumers. >>> >>>To familiarize ourselves with Mon-santo's point of view, we spent a >>>day in the computer lab exploring the corporation's website >>>(www.monsanto.com). I asked students to look for arguments made in >>>favor of biotechnology and genetically modified foods: Why does >>>Monsanto argue that these technologies are important? What benefits >>>do they offer to humans and the environment? Some students were >>>impressed with a genetically engineered soybean designed to reduce >>>trans fats in processed food, others mentioned drought-resistant >>>crops that require less water. >>> >>>Drew, however, was skeptical of the language Monsanto used to >>>describe its research and products. "Why don't they ever use the >>>terms 'genetically modified' or 'genetically engineered' and always >>>use 'biotechnology product' instead? I find it ironic that Monsanto's >>>'pledge' is to uphold integrity in all that they do, even though >>>genetically modified foods threaten the integrity of people and the >>>environment." >>> >>>The Corporation >>> >>>Carl's request to drink the milk we had used as a writing prompt made >>>a nice segue into showing students a short clip about rBGH from the >>>documentary film The Corporation (from 29:15 to 32:30 on the DVD). As >>>we viewed the clip, which includes powerful images of cows with >>>swollen udders and compelling testimony from Dr. Samuel Epstein that >>>links rBGH to cancer, students reacted. "Is that a real cow?" >>>"Gross!" "Is that in our milk?" and "That's messed up, dude!" came >>>from various corners of the room. But while sick cows and potential >>>cancers risks are important, I was hoping to impress upon students >>>how the risks of rBGH have been ignored and hidden from public >>>knowledge by Monsanto and by those who license its use at the FDA. >>> >>>I showed the clip from The Corporation as a pre-reading strategy for >>>Paul Kingsnorth's article "Bovine Growth Hormones." The article is >>>technical and can be a difficult read for some students, so I hoped >>>to encourage their interest and give students a purpose for reading >>>before I passed it out. I asked students to list questions or >>>concerns as I paused the DVD. I was encouraged by their curiosity: >>>"Do hormones get into the milk and how do they affect us?" "Is there >>>pus in our milk?" "Is milk truly healthy for us?" "Why is rBGH >>>necessary, if we already have too much milk?" "If they knew that the >>>drug made cows sick, why do they still use it?" "What can we do about >>>it?" >>> >>>Then I passed out highlighters and told students to choose five >>>questions from our list and to read "Bovine Growth Hormones" with >>>those five questions in mind, highlighting as they come across >>>important information. The article is quite comprehensive, and >>>students were able to find answers to the majority of their >>>questions, including everyone's favorite: "Is there pus in our milk?" >>>Truth be told, all milk, including organic milk, has small amounts of >>>somatic cells or "pus" in it, but the FDA has strict quality >>>standards for the somatic cell count (SCC) above which milk may not >>>be sold to consumers. What students learn from the article -- and >>>what Monsanto's warning label accompanying all Posilac reads -- is >>>that cows treated with rBGH are more likely to produce milk with >>>increased SCCs due to the heightened risk for udder infections. >>> >>>With the information from the website, film, and article to draw >>>from, I wanted to give students another chance to respond to the >>>glass of milk still sitting at the center of the room. I asked them >>>each to draw a line under their initial descriptions and to write a >>>second response: "Do you feel any differently about the glass of >>>milk?" >>> >>>Ari had initially extolled the many health virtues of milk but now >>>seemed equally concerned about possible health risks: "Apparently, I >>>get calcium, pus, and an increased risk of uterine, breast, and >>>various kinds of cancers. Now, when I look at that glass half full of >>>milk, I see cancer in a glass with a thin layer of pus as a topping. >>>Now I don't think I can look at milk in the same way." >>> >>>Ari's comment brings up a legitimate concern that by teaching >>>students about rBGH, I am scaring them away from milk and toward less >>>attractive alternatives, including soda. Such risks were a constant >>>source of concern while teaching students about the myriad problems >>>associated with industrially produced foods. After learning about the >>>health and environmental risks of pesticides, herbicides, hormones, >>>and genetically modified food, I had more than one student ask in >>>exasperation: "But Mr. Swinehart, what can I eat?" >>> >>>We are fortunate in Portland, Ore., to have a vibrant local food >>>system that makes healthy, safe, and affordable food readily >>>available. Several Portland-area dairies, including Sunshine, >>>Alpenrose, and the nation's second largest producer of natural chunk >>>cheese, Tillamook, have all committed to producing only rBGH-free >>>milk products. Because these are not organic dairies, their rBGH-free >>>milk tends to be less expensive and a more reasonable alternative for >>>students than certified "organic" milk. Dairies in many other parts >>>of the country have made similar pledges (see >>>www.themeatrix.com/getinvolved/statepdfs/rbgh_list.html for an >>>interactive map to find rBGH-free products in your area). Being able >>>to recommend these local dairies not only presented students with a >>>viable alternative to giving up milk completely, but also gave them a >>>chance to apply their knowledge of controversial rBGH labeling during >>>the next trip to the grocery store. >>> >>>Compared to Ari, Eron wasn't too worried about rBGH's health risks, >>>but did express a willingness to rethink his decisions as a consumer: >>>"I still love milk and will drink it, but maybe I will make a change >>>and buy organic milk instead so that I don't get all of the health >>>risks. It seems this might benefit me the most and I will be happy >>>about the choices I made." Of course, many students will choose to >>>continue drinking milk regardless of where it comes from or what it >>>has in it, but their knowledge of rBGH and the corporate politics >>>behind unlabeled milk cartons, makes this a considerably more >>>informed choice than most U.S. consumers have. >>> >>>Eron's comment also raises one of my primary concerns in trying to >>>teach students about the global politics of food. I was confident >>>going into the unit that students would react strongly to issues >>>surrounding the health of animals and their own personal health, but >>>my goals for the unit were larger than this. While I was encouraged >>>to see Eron thinking about the effects of rBGH on his own personal >>>health, I also wanted students to make broader connections to ways >>>the corporate control of the food system takes knowledge and power >>>out of the hands of small food producers and consumers around the >>>world. Do some countries and corporations benefit more from a global >>>industrial food system than others? Do the environmental costs of >>>this same food system pose a substantially greater risk for the >>>world's poor, who still depend on a direct connection to the earth >>>for their means of sustenance? >>> >>>Patents on Life? >>> >>>Since students' comments during the milk lesson seemed to focus on >>>personal choices, I realized that we needed to broaden our focus from >>>the politics of health surrounding rBGH to include an exploration of >>>how a global food system, increasingly controlled by a few >>>multinational agribusiness corporations, is affecting lives and >>>cultures around the world. I wanted students to look at how >>>corporations are changing the nature of food. Through the science of >>>genetic engineering, biotechnology companies are experimenting with >>>the biological foundations of what is arguably the world's most >>>important life form: the seed. Biotech companies tend to downplay the >>>revolutionary nature of this new science by suggesting that humans >>>have influenced plant genetics, through selective breeding and >>>hybridization, since the dawn of agriculture. >>> >>>But because genetic engineering allows for the DNA of one organism, >>>including animal and virus DNA, to be placed in a completely >>>unrelated plant species, it crosses natural barriers that were never >>>breached by traditional plant breeding. Without adequate testing or >>>knowledge of long-term consequences, genetically modified (GM) crops >>>are now grown around the world, posing what many argue is a serious >>>threat to global food security. Through the natural and highly >>>uncontrollable process of cross-pollination, GM crops have the >>>potential to contaminate the genetic code of the traditional crops >>>that have provided people with food for thousands of years. >>> >>>It is not, however, just the seed itself that is changed through the >>>process of genetic engineering, but the very idea of the seed is >>>transformed as well. By altering the DNA of traditional seeds, >>>biotech companies are able to claim the new seed as an "invention" >>>and secure their right to ownership through the legal system of >>>patents. Global production of biotech crops and the number of >>>corporate-owned patents on seed have increased dramatically over the >>>last two decades. Monsanto alone owns more than 11,000 seed patents. >>> >>>To help students grapple with the international politics of seed >>>patenting and GM foods, I designed a role play that would encourage >>>them to confront the often unequal effects of the global food system >>>and the global economy in which it operates. I set up the role play >>>as a special meeting of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the >>>primary governing body for international trade law. I asked students >>>to debate how GM foods should be regulated internationally by taking >>>on the following roles: farmers from India, U.S. Trade >>>representatives, European Union commissioners, U.S. consumers, >>>Greenpeace, and Monsanto. I asked them to reconsider WTO rules that >>>set U.S. patent law as the de facto international standard for >>>determining who has "ownership" of certain foods. In the introduction >>>to the role play handout, I explained the following: >>> >>>You are delegates to a special summit of the World Trade Organization >>>(WTO). This meeting has been called to debate genetic engineering and >>>patenting of foods. Due to worldwide resistance to genetically >>>modified (GM) foods and the patenting of seeds, the WTO has been >>>forced to reconsider its position on patents and the rights of >>>multinational corporations to trade GM foods and seeds.... >>> >>>Your task for this summit is to determine to what extent GM foods >>>deserve regulation, who should be responsible for any regulations >>>that are necessary, and what these rules should look like. >>> >>>This "special" meeting included voices that would never be heard at >>>the actual, much-more-exclusive meetings of the WTO, but I wanted >>>students to make their decisions in the role play based on a fuller >>>representation of international perspectives. >>> >>>To encourage students to begin thinking about the issues at stake in >>>the role play, I asked them to write interior monologues -- >>>statements where they imagined details about family, background, >>>hopes, dreams, and fears, all from the perspective of their roles. I >>>wanted to give students the opportunity to create personal >>>connections to the characters they would embody during the role play, >>>while also engaging with the critical issues surrounding GM foods and >>>seed patenting. >>> >>>Julia's monologue from the perspective of an Indian Farmer was >>>particularly insightful: >>> >>>I don't have the heart to tell my mother about TRIPS (Trade Related >>>Intellectual Property Rights), because I don't think her body could >>>handle the stress. TRIPS is an agreement of the World Trade >>>Organization, an organization I could have cared less about until a >>>few years ago. TRIPS requires member countries to protect patents on >>>all kinds of life. This means that if someone was to put a patent on >>>the type of rice that I am growing, I would be unable to grow and >>>sell my crop without a payment to the patent holder. In addition, I >>>wouldn't be able to save my seeds from one year to another -- >>>something every generation in my family has done as far back as >>>anyone can remember.... By saving our seed, we become acquainted with >>>every plant on our field. I know that some of the seeds that I have >>>stored away date back to my father's time. When I plant my saved >>>seed, I plant not only rice, but my heritage. >>> >>>Of course, not all my students displayed such a sophisticated >>>understanding of something as abstract and complex as international >>>patent law. Looking back on it, I may have taken on a little too much >>>with the content of the role play. Many students struggled to >>>understand exactly how the specific concerns of their characters >>>should translate to recommendations at the WTO meeting. There were >>>times when I felt ill-prepared to answer students' questions about >>>the international debate surrounding genetically modified foods or >>>the current status of WTO trade laws. I found myself struggling to >>>stay a step ahead of them. But when it came time to discuss the >>>issues at our meeting, I was encouraged by the students' ability to >>>not only articulate the perspective of their own roles, but to ask >>>the sort of questions of one another that showed a solid grasp of the >>>various concerns represented around the room. >>> >>>Will, speaking as the U.S. trade representative, said: >>> >>>It's our belief that the companies that create GM foods are the most >>>capable of testing them for safety. Companies like Monsanto spend >>>millions of dollars each year on research, so they have an expertise >>>that an international testing body wouldn't. And as far as saying >>>that people may have allergic reactions to GM foods -- well, we just >>>don't feel that this is a sufficient reason for banning them >>>completely. I mean, look at how many people are allergic to peanuts, >>>but we don't ban peanut butter, do we? >>> >>>Amber chimed in as the Monsanto representative: >>> >>>Yeah, if you think about it, it's in our interest to produce safe >>>foods. I mean, we want people to keep eating them, right? And I'd >>>like to remind you that the FDA fully approves all of the GMOs that >>>are used in food in the United States. >>> >>>Colin, representing Greenpeace, said: >>> >>>But isn't it true that there are some GMOs that are not approved for >>>use in food for humans? Mix-ups occur. How can we be sure what we are >>>eating? If GM foods aren't labeled, how can consumers protect >>>themselves? >>> >>>And Julia, as an Indian farmer, said: >>> >>>It's not just allergies that we're worried about. There are countries >>>in Africa that have refused GM food from the United States because >>>they are afraid that it will mix with native crops and contaminate >>>them. Farmers from my country are worried about the same thing. You >>>tell us that these things are safe, but you're the same people that >>>made Agent Orange into a pesticide to use on food. How can we trust >>>you? >>> >>>Although we finished the role play with a long list of ideas for how >>>it could be improved next time, the discussion showed me that my >>>students were leaving with an understanding of the politics of food. >>>They had gained knowledge of the issues of GM foods and patenting and >>>how they can play out on a global scale, privileging a few powerful >>>agribusiness corporations at the expense of the world's food >>>consumers and small, local farmers. >>> >>>After several days of discussion, the class decided to follow the >>>"precautionary principle," which guides policy in many European >>>nations, and institute a worldwide moratorium on GM foods until they >>>could be proven safe, and to require labeling of any GM foods that >>>were approved for consumption. Furthermore, the summit voted to take >>>away the right of any person or corporation to patent food. >>> >>>Of course, in the real world, the voices of traditional Indian >>>farmers are not heard in the same conference room as those >>>representing the world's largest corporations. Furthermore, the WTO >>>is not likely to institute a ban on GMOs or radically reform patent >>>laws any time in the near future. In this respect, the role play >>>failed to result in any truly practical solutions to the problems >>>facing farmers and consumers of food around the world. Part of me >>>worries that this does a disservice to students. But after spending >>>close to a month studying the crises of our global food system, I >>>believe that I would be doing students a greater disservice if I >>>didn't prompt them to consider what a more equitable and sustainable >>>food economy could look like. >>> >>>When starting the unit several weeks earlier, most students had been >>>unable to see beyond how the choices we make about food affect >>>anything other than personal health. The milk lesson was intended as >>>a hook to reach students through their concerns about personal health >>>with the hope of transforming this concern into a broader >>>appreciation for our fundamental right to know and control where our >>>food comes from and how it is produced. The current state of the >>>industrial food economy, as Julia wrote in her final paper, "results >>>in a public denied of their right to knowledge and proper choices >>>about their food." Changing this economy will require the sort of >>>resistance embodied in the role play by the farmers of India and the >>>advocacy of groups like Greenpeace. >>> >>>One of my greatest hopes in teaching students about food is to foster >>>an understanding of the important role food plays in today's global >>>economy and the even more important role it will play in creating >>>more local, more democratic, and more sustainable economies of the >>>future. >>> >>>Tim Swinehart ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) was a student teacher at >>>Franklin High School in Portland, Ore., when he taught this unit. He >>>currently teaches at Evergreen High School in Vancouver, Wash. In >>>2002, Swinehart and his wife, Emily Lethenstrom, founded the >>>Flagstaff Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) project in Arizona. >>> >>>Additional Teaching Resources "Just a Cup of Coffee?" by Alan Thein >>>Durning. A short piece available in Rethinking Globalization that >>>encourages students to think about the long, complex path our food >>>follows before getting to us and the environmental costs along the >>>way. >>> >>>The True Cost of Food. An entertaining short (15 min.) cartoon >>>produced by the Sierra Club (available at www.truecostoffood.org) >>>that presents the hidden social and environmental costs of >>>factory-farmed, industrialy produced food. >>> >>>Resources for Teaching About rBGH and Genetically Modified Food >>>Physicians for Social Responsibility, Oregon chapter >>>www.oregonpsr.org/programs/campaignSafeFood.html "Monsanto vs. the >>>Milkman" www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2004/01/12_401.html >>>Monsanto's Posilac (rBST/rBGH) Homepage www.monsantodairy.com Center >>>for Food Safety www.centerforfoodsafety.org Organic Consumers >>>Association www.organicconsumers.org >>> >>>Copyright 2002 Rethinking Schools * 1001 E. Keefe Avenue, Milwaukee, >>>WI 53212 * Phone(414) 964-9646, or (800) 669-4192, FAX: (414) >>>964-7220 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> > > >_______________________________________________ >Biofuel mailing list >Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): >http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > > > _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
