After being approved by the national governments in the EU, Thrombin has now found it’s way into the parliament, by way of the environmental committee, which – not surprisingly – found a majority for proposing a ban.

Thrombin is also, more popularly, known as “Meat Glue”, creating connotations that set off a lot of alarm clocks. As a matter of fact, it is a perfectly natural product; a coagulation protein which together with the fibrous protein fibrin can be developed into an enzyme, that can be used for sticking together different pieces of meat.

In other words, a ban would be highly symbolical. The Thrombin doesn’t show and doesn’ t taste, and above all, is not dangerous. The glued steaks however, are often built with meat that otherwise would have been thrown away. Something to contemplate for those who argue that eating steak contributes to climate change.

A general misunderstanding is that this process is misleading the consumer. Of course it would be, if most consumers were not aware of what they consume. On top, there areother regulations concerning the display of information, something which is probably unnecessary, as the market pressure on the producers is so strong anyhow.

But, maybe some days, some people just want a cheaper piece of meat to fry up, instead of carefully selecting among the delicacies. People have different preferences, and these also tend to change from time to time.

I’m not a big beefeater myself, but a favourite restaurant in Brussels is a small Serbian place, run by a family of butchers who buy a fresh animal every morning and then adjust the menu during the course of the day. Sometimes I enjoy paying a premium at the few European restaurants that offer Argentinian steak. It’s often worth it. Some people only want locally produced food, others only meat from their home countries. Some only go to the local butcher, whom they know, others visit supermarkets.

Why politicians, and in particular EU parliamentarians should have anything to do with this is a mystery. Or maybe it’s not. Politicians want to act, and especially appear responsible. The meat eaters foot the bill.

On March 21, incidentally my birthday, a friend from Iceland called me and said she had organized some fireworks for me. What a pity she could not set off the second eruption one week ago. With all airline traffic closed down in most of  Europe, as today, the Climate conference in Bonn would have been more eventful. Or less.

But I don’t blame her. Or anyone else. I also have a solid alibi myself.

To my knowledge, honestly, no alarmist has yet tried to pin volcano eruptions on human activity. Nothing surprises me these days, so in case someone would try that over the next few days, it’s interesting to look at the statistics. It’s not Armageddon – non man made - either. Reliable, reported data on eruptions has developed mainly over the past century (though, naturally, there are plenty of earlier accounts). This compiled data shows no significant changes from then to now (though, also naturally, the cycles between eruptions are rather long). Except for the decrease in the early 40’s. I presume you can draw your own conclusions from that. But it also makes you think about the validity of different climate data. The infamous hockey stick, now not accepted by hardly any scientists for example, takes of upwards around 1990. A lot of things happened, including to observation stations, in huge parts of the world those years.

Human action – and design – can, however be valuable. The eruption might go on for days or even years, but so far there are no casualties on Iceland. According to friends there, the worst problem is that the evacuation from the area is getting disrupted by, particularly domestic, tourists, wanting to see it for real.

In 1783, another volcano erupted on Iceland. This led to bad harvests in large parts of Europe, and is generally believed to have been a major source behind the famine and subsequent turmoil in France in 1789. The world, and Iceland in particular, is just trying to recover from a major financial crisis. So far no one – in this part of the world – is talking about a revolution. Once again, draw your own conclusions!

I might get my asthma back, and I can’t fly for a while, but hey! There is a civil society out there, in case of emergency. People are now taking cab rides across half of Europe. You certainly could not do that before the car was invented, the taxi market privatized and the border controls were taken away.

On top, if the eruption continues, the average temperature will drop. Maybe as much as two degrees Celsius, It’s just a theory, but if I were the IPCC, I would at least take a little break.

It seems obvious then to assume that risk is the opposite of safety. But it isn’t: as inaction also entails risks, we need instead to properly assess the benefits of risk-taking, such as accepting new technologies, medicines or – yes even – accepting that a global government will not avert all risks.

The key in this respect is opportunity costs. By definition we cannot know fully know the results of our actions beforehand. Consider GMO crops: these are largely shunned and condemned in Europe, despite their documented benefits and the absence of any adverse event since they were first put into practice some 20 years ago.

As brilliantly expressed by the director of EuropaBio, it is not GMO products that should bear special labels, but rather the much praised “bio”products; the former have been extensively tested, especially for allergies; the latter have not. It would be reasonable then to have these marked “Warning: does not contain GMO ingredients”.

Monsanto is a prime target in this respect. It has produced numerous seeds capable of resisting insects, droughts, water-poor soils and related problems. Yet the company is constantly attacked – no good deed goes unpunished – for market domination and for defending its patents.

A simple question to the green lobby: how do you propose to feed the world’s starving people once you have eliminated GM crops, fossil fuels and economic development? Nobody can eat CO2 offsets (except perhaps Al Gore).

Photos: freedigitalphotos

In the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt asked his administration to undertake a vast exploratory study of future technologies. A group of researchers eventually produced a voluminous report with fascinating insights. There was only one little glitch: the document did not foresee television, plastics, jet planes, organ transplants, laser technology, or even ballpoint pens.

As Ludwig von Mises stated, petrol is good for many things, but not for slaking your thirst. Similarly, government may be useful in some instances but not in others. The precautionary principle is good, provided it is used appropriately. We should first apply it to politics: our elected leaders should be required to produce impact studies, showing, ex ante, that their planned interventions will have a positive effect. Thus the scope of government would spontaneously be reduced to its congruent portion.

Here is a formidable source of data on climate change, courtesy of prof. Lindzen (MIT) from a CEI presentation a couple of weeks ago. Once more, he reminds us that many statements bandied about and accepted as gospel truths are in fact serious distortions and sometimes outright contrary even to authorities such as the IPCC.

Try this one for size:

“The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer (…) Reports all point to a radical change in climate conditions. (…) Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, while at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.”

Sounds familiar? Sure, must have read it in the paper last week. Fact: the Arctic variations are notorious and the report above was issued by the US Weather Bureau in … 1922.

“Warming is accelerating and sea levels will rise more than expected.” The IPCC mid-range 10 year projection is 1.26 inches and may not clearly be distinguished from the change registered since the ice age ended, ie for some 10,000 years.

Yes, but what about the “consensus”? The IPCC states that it is likely that most of the warming over the past 50 years is due to man’s emissions. How did it come about? Large models which could not simulate human behaviour supposedly described natural climate variations. According to the author, “the fact that these models could not replicate the warming episode from the mid-seventies through the mid-nineties (was used) to argue that forcing was necessary and that the forcing must have been due to man.”

This makes “arguments in support of intelligent design sound rigorous by comparison”.

How unfortunate that this is not required reading in the schoolroom. Meanwhile, please do have a look.

Photos: freedigitalphotos

On April 17th and 18th members of the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) gathered at Humboldt University in Berlin for their annual meeting and to discuss the latest developments in climate research and policy. Participants agreed that the current climate debate serves the interests of energy companies and the makers of solar panel and wind turbines, but neglects sound science.

“It is very encouraging to see the positive response from taxpayers, business people and a growing number of scientists to what we do,” said EIKE President Dr. Holger Thuss. “If the science is bogus and the economics don’t work, sooner or later policy makers will be forced to develop an exit strategy from their doom-and-gloom scenarios. I don’t see how they can reach any of their objectives at the upcoming UN climate conference in Copenhagen.”

Dr. Horst Borchert of Mainz University presented an evaluation of a huge sample of measurements of atmospheric gases. He concludes that, “there can be no doubt about a link between solar activity and global temperatures. All the data points in this direction.” Dr. Borchert’s evaluation will be be published soon.

Dr. Werner Köster, Professor of Agriculture at the University of Duisberg, Essen, concurred with the findings of Craig and Keith Idso that carbon increases in the atmosphere improve crop yields. Dr. Koester pointed out that increased carbon dioxide leads to increased food production. “Carbon dioxide is the most ignored fertilizer of the 20th century,” Dr. Köster said.

The institute chose its 2009-2011 board, electing Dr. Holger Thuss President, Michael Limburg, Vice-president and Wolfgang Mueller, Secretary General. They discussed membership, rules and the upcoming COP 15 conference in Copenhagen.

The European Institute for Climate and Energy was founded in 2007 by scientists, economists and organizations and citizens from all walks of life to independently reassess current climate science. CFACT Europe is proud to be a founding member. EIKE’s advisory board has grown to include renowned scientists from throughout the world.

By PAUL DRIESSEN (Washington)

Norman Borlaug just turned 94 – and is still going strong

During the “Eat This” segment of their docu-comedy series BS, Penn Jillette beat Teller in a round of their “Greatest Person in History” card game. Penn needed just one card: Norman Borlaug.

Nobel Prize Laureat Norman Borlaug

This Iowa farm boy and University of Minnesota agriculture graduate lived Thomas Edison’s maxim to the fullest. “Invention,” Edison once remarked, “is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.” Dr. Borlaug did most of his 99% in the sweltering fields of Africa, India, Mexico and Pakistan.

At 94, and despite having cancer, the “Father of the Green Revolution” is still “an Energizer Bunny,” his daughter Jeanie says. He serves as a consultant, attends occasional conferences, and graciously let my daughter interview him for a high school paper.

Decades ago, while neo-Malthusians were predicting mass famine, Borlaug used Rockefeller Foundation grants to unlock hidden (recessive) genes and crossbreed different wheat strains, to create new “dwarf” varieties that were resistant to destructive “rust” fungi. The shorter plants were also sturdier, put less energy into growing leaves and stalks, and thus had higher yields.

He also taught modern farming methods to Third World farmers and persuaded governments to lift price controls and permit the use of chemical fertilizers, thereby generating unprecedented harvests. Mexico became self-sufficient in wheat by 1960, India and Pakistan soon did likewise, and Borlaug next helped China, Indonesia, the Philippines and other countries achieve great success with wheat, corn and rice.

When the Nobel committee awarded him the 1970 Peace Prize, it said his work had saved a billion lives. Borlaug simply observed that “you can’t build a peaceful world on empty stomachs and human misery.” He later won the Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal.

In 1985, he began working with former President Jimmy Carter to bring a Green Revolution to Sub-Saharan Africa, emphasizing intensive modern farming methods with new hybrid and biotech seeds on existing fields, to reduce the need to slash and burn wildlife habitat, as soil nutrients are exhausted.

Unfortunately, their progress may be undermined by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and his misleadingly named Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa. Annan says biotech crops are unsafe, untested, and likely to enslave poor farmers to mega-corporations and expensive seeds. He wants to battle Africa’s chronic poverty and malnutrition with “traditional seeds” and methods.

Dr. Borlaug fears that would be a devastating failure. As he said during a 2005 biotechnology conference, sponsored by the Congress of Racial Equality at the United Nations, he sees no way the world can feed its hungry population without genetically engineered (GE) crops, especially if it relies more on biofuels.

He has little patience for “well-fed utopians who live on Cloud Nine but come into the Third World to cause all kinds of negative impacts,” by scaring people and blocking the use of biotechnology. These callous activists even persuaded Zambia to let people starve, rather than let them eat biotech corn donated by the USA. They also oppose insecticides to combat malaria – and fossil fuels, hydroelectric dams and nuclear power to generate abundant, reliable, affordable electricity for poor nations.

“Our planet has 6.5 billion people, says Borlaug. “By all means, use manure. You can’t let it sit around. But if we use only organic fertilizers and methods on existing farmland, we can only feed 4 billion. I don’t see 2.5 billion people volunteering to disappear.” To feed everyone with organic and traditional farming, we would have to plow millions of acres of forests and other wildlife habitat, he calculates. If, instead, we continue to use commercial fertilizer and hybrids, and have strong public support for both biotech and traditional research, “the Earth can provide sufficient food for 10 billion people.”

Producing 7 billion gallons of ethanol in 2007 required corn grown on an area the size of Indiana – plus vast amounts of water, insecticides, fertilizers and petroleum. It’s a primary reason World Food Program operating costs rose 40% since June 2007, forcing the WFP to ration food aid, and millions to go to bed hungry. That is unsustainable – morally, economically and ecologically.

Biotech crops have higher yields; provide enhanced nutrition; are more resistant to insects, fungi and disease; and require less water and insecticides. New varieties are being developed that grow better in drought and flood conditions, and even supply vaccines and anti-diarrhea nutrients (as in Ventria Bioscience’s GE-rice-based oral rehydration solution). Ongoing research will ensure that genes that once protected crop plants will be replaced by new ones, as plant pathogens continue mutating.

Genetically engineered crops are more stringently regulated and tested than any others – unnecessarily so, say many scientists. Americans have eaten well over a trillion servings of food containing genetically engineered ingredients, without a single instance of harm to people or habitats, notes former FDA biotech director Henry Miller – whereas organic spinach sickened and killed a number of people in 2007.

Biotechnology actually frees poor farmers from the shackles of Nature’s destructive forces. They pay more for seeds, but less for insecticides and water, get higher yields and make more money. South African farmers who’ve switched to GE crops attest to this.

Elizabeth Ajele: “The old plants would be destroyed by insects, but not the new biotech plants. With the profits I get from the new Bt maize (corn), I can grow onions, spinach and tomatoes, and sell them for extra money to buy fertilizer. We were struggling to keep hunger out of our house. Now the future looks good. If someone came and said we should stop using the new maize, I would cry.”

Richard Sithole: “With the old maize, I got 100 bags from my 15 hectares. With Bt maize I get 1,000.” Thandi Myeni: “The new Bt cotton means I only spray two times, instead of six. At the end of the day, we know the crop won’t be destroyed and we will have a harvest and money.”

Bethuel Gumede: “By planting the new Bt cotton on my six hectares [15 acres], I was able to build a house and give it a solar panel. I also bought a TV and fridge. My wife can buy healthy food and we can afford to send the kids to school.”

Farmers in Brazil, China, India, the Philippines and other countries share similar stories.

His accomplishments have made Norman Borlaug a household name in parts of Africa, though not in America. That’s partly because he did most of his work overseas. But it also reflects the fact that his favorable views on chemical fertilizers and biotechnology put him at odds with environmentalists and journalists who don’t share his perspectives on these issues.

Leon Hesser’s fascinating and inspiring account of Dr. Borlaug’s life and successes may finally bring him the fame he deserves. “The Man Who Fed the World” does what I’ve always loved about biographies: it shows how one person can change the world. Now out in paperback, the book will ensure that Norman Borlaug’s incredible legacy will live on – as will the billion-plus people whose lives he saved.

Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for CFACT and the Congress of Racial Equality.  His Eco-Imperialism: Green power · Black death is available in German and English from CFACT Europe.
© Paul Driessen April 2008

HOLGER J. THUSS (Jena)

“ production may go down as one of the biggest blunders in history. An unholy alliance of environmentalists, agribusiness, biofuel corporations and politicians has been touting ethanol as the cure to all our environmental ills, when in fact it may be doing more harm than good. An array of unintended consequences is wreaking havoc on the economy, food production and, perhaps most ironically, the environment.“

Cinnamon Stillwell, San Francisco Chronicle
April 2, 2008

Berlin — The German government officially reversed plans to impose controversial legislation that would have increased the mandatory ethanol and renewable additives content of gasoline and diesel to 10 percent, a law similar to the US Energy Policy Act of 2005. The government’s rescission was based on fears that imposing the new requirement would boost fuel prices substantially and provoke the ire of some 3 million German motorists.

Under the proposed plan, German car drivers would be prohibited from filling their gas tanks with the new E10 blend fuel mix, forcing them to switch to a more expensive “super plus” gasoline. Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel, a Social-Democrat, told a news conference in Berlin recently, “We don’t want to take responsibility for several million people, [many of] whom drive old cars only because they live on lower wages, to have to use expensive fuel.”

Gabriel came under pressure from members of his own party, Chancellor Merkel’s Christian Democrats, and various environmental organizations who do not support the new legislation. Markus Soeder, a senior Christian Democrat from Bavaria also said he is “basically skeptical” about the use of biofuel. “In general, the views on biofuel have changed worldwide,” he said, “because the ecological expectations were not fulfilled to an extent that was expected before. One has to address this.”

Interestingly enough, BUND, one of the largest green organizations in Germany, not only blamed so-called “dirty” industries, but also its allies in the former Red-Green government, for its poor handling of this legislation.

Hubert Weigert, president of the organization, viewed Minister Gabriel as “victim” of a policy that “was initiated by the [previous] red-green” coalition and continued to be carried out without any opposition from the present government – a coalition which still attempts to preserve many of the policies of the preceding red-green government. Weigert also asserts, “all warnings by conservationist and environmentalist organizations were more or less trivialized or ignored by Red-Green.” In fact, as much as 70 percent of all biofuels imported to Germany came from countries where precious rain forests had been cleared away.

Other aspects regarding the use of biofuels routinely criticized by environmentalists are its creation of monocultures and its increased pesticide and water use. However, BUND-president Weigert did offer some support for the use of biofuel energy if the fuel was produced in a region that met his organization’s “organic cultivation criteria.”

Also of note, few German politicians and activists seem to raise concern about the impact of biofuel production on global food prices – which in the last several months have risen dramatically. Unlike environmentalists elsewhere in the world, the German greens are more focused on the debate as it impacts the alleged global warming crisis. Despite its many press releases covering the topic, the German Green Party (initiator of the tax privileges for biofuels in 2002) has rarely, if ever, mentioned the link between hunger and diminished use of cropland caused by the production of biofuels.

Only last Wednesday did World Bank President Robert Zoellick mention biofuels as one of the driving forces “that will keep food prices high for years.” According to Zoellick, prices of staples rose to new highs — which is a blow to vulnerable groups, including children. In some developing nations, “prices have gone up 80 percent for staple food” confirms Josette Sheeran, executive director of the U. N. World Food Program.

Moreover, prices of meat and dairy products are rising as well as land once used for growing cattle feed is now devoted to corn and other “energy plants.” According to AP’s Stevenson Jacobs, worldwide demand for corn to feed livestock and those living in cold and wet weather parts of the US will add further pressure to global supply.

According to UPI, several governments have already introduced food rationing measures, Pakistan and Egypt among them. Other governments are imposing price controls and further undermining the global market. Kazakhstan has announced a freeze on grain exports.

Due to the international dimensions of the problem, one key to the solution is the response of the European Union. On the one hand, Slovenian PM Janez Jansa, currently the EU-President, said “We’re not excluding the possibility that we’ll have to amend or revise our goals” to raise the share of biofuels in transport. But only in January, the EU-Commission had presented legislative proposals to address concerns over rising oil prices, energy security and climate change by introducing the E 10 blend.

According to EurActiv, the European Commission is even likely to resist any move to amend the target. It believes that the inclusion of “sustainablility criteria” in the legislation will be sufficient to ensure that only “good” biofuels – those which enable significant CO2 savings compared to fossil fuels and do not menace biodiversity – are utilized. Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer-Boėl even said “price increases are not always a bad thing. European farmers have been waiting for prices to stop declining in real terms for two decades or more! And higher prices can be good news for the between 70-80% of the world’s poorest people who live in rural areas and rely on farming for their livelihood.”

This is, of course, bad news for consumers. Once more, green subsidies ( this time for biofuels)  introduced with the best of intentions, have severe consequences: the government manipulation of food prices at the expense of the world’s poor.

CFACT is proud to offer its German translation of Alex A. Avery’s The Truth About Organic Foods

Two years ago, the the most talked about book on organic foods in over a decade was issued in English – now, with the support of CFACT Europe, it is available to the 100 Million or so German speaking consumers: Alex Avery’s The Truth About Organic Foods.

If you wonder if organic foods are worth their high price, if the marketing claims of organic advocates are true, or if the organic foods are really more nutritious, safer, and better for the environment – this book will answer these and many other questions on organic or “biological” food.

However, “The Truth About Organic Foods” is not polemic, but a science-based book written for the average consumer that gets past the endless marketing hype. In plain, non-technical language, Avery strips bare organic myths.

Instead of platitudes and promises, Avery gives you the facts – from independent university studies and neutral government sources. He even quotes extensively from organic activists, revealing in their own words the substance of their claims that the benefits of organic farming outweigh those of conventional farming.

German title:
Alex Avery: Die Wahrheit über Bio-Lebensmittel.
Dt. Erstauflage. Aus dem Amerikanischen.
ISBN 978-3-940431-01-1. Jena 2008. 256 S. 24,50 Euro (D, A).

Order direct from CFACT Europe’s publishing partner: bestellung@tvrgroup.de ]]> http://cfact.eu/2008/02/05/the-truth-about-organic-foods/feed/ 0 http://cfact.eu/2007/01/02/biotech-transgenic-potatoes-supply-polymer-for-sustainable-diapers/ http://cfact.eu/2007/01/02/biotech-transgenic-potatoes-supply-polymer-for-sustainable-diapers/#comments Tue, 02 Jan 2007 17:50:17 +0000 Holger Thuss http://cfact.zoeinc.com/?p=776 Transgenic Potatoes Yield Sustainable Diapers

HOLGER THUSS (Jena)

A simple way to kill small talk (or exit a Christmas card list) is to declare that you’ll serve your guests genetically modified food and then explain your affection for biotechnologists work with transgenic plants.

Many have heard that “dangerous” “gm” crops will allow killer tomatoes to escape Frankenstein’s laboratory to take over the earth. Some Christians even insist that biotech causes plants to resist inects, interfering with God’s creation which they believe is a sin.  What they might not have heard yet, besides the fact that the Bible considers locusts a plague and a menace, is the ability of many newly developed transgenic plants to produce renewable resources, an approach that is an environmentally friendly and economically competitive way to supply raw materials to industry.

Researchers at the University of Rostock developed a potato that allows production of biodegradable polymers.  Polymers are usually made from fossil fuels and used in the production of washing powder, cement, or diapers (to name just a few).  Even better: the potato polymer comes from the leftovers of potatoes that were already used to produce industrial starch.

Senior researcher Prof. Inge Broer of Rostock University says that during the last few years her team succeeded in increasing the polymer production of the potatoes to such an extent, that industrial production of the substance could be imminent.   Best of all, the new bio-polymer is biodegradable once the diapers or washing powder are used.  If we can get past our childlike fears of being conquered by franken-potatoes, this new technology will greatly contribute to a cleaner environment.

Not convinced? Here’s the summary of Prof. Broer’s report:

“The production of biodegradable polymers in transgenic plants in order to replace petrochemical compounds is an important challenge for plant biotechnology. Polyaspartate, a biodegradable substitute for polycarboxylates, is the backbone of the cyanobacterial storage material cyanophycin. Cyanophycin, a copolymer of L-aspartic acid and L-arginine, is produced via non-ribosomal polypeptide biosynthesis by the enzyme cyanophycin synthetase. A gene from Thermosynechococcus elongatus BP-1 encoding cyanophycin synthetase has been expressed constitutively in tobacco and potato. The presence of the transgene-encoded messenger RNA (mRNA) correlated with changes in leaf morphology and decelerated growth. Such transgenic plants were found to produce up to 1.1% dry weight of a polymer with cyanophycin-like properties. Aggregated material, able to bind a specific cyanophycin antibody, was detected in the cytoplasm and the nucleus of the transgenic plants.”

The full report appeared in: Plant Biotechnological Journal (2005) 3, pp. 249-258. Prof. Inge Broer’s website: http://www.auf.uni-rostock.de/iln/bt/