Blog @ MoreWhat.com

With going green going crazy and global warming fear monger, Al Gore, the failed Presidential contender fanning the flames of doom, one of the strongest criticisms of biofuels like ethanol made from corn was two-fold. It takes more energy to produce corn-based ethanol than can be derived from it and using the amount of corn required to have any significant impact in moving from fossil fuels places extreme pricing pressures on the food supply.

With most of the ‘alternative’ sources of energy years off in the future in terms of practical application, the flames the likes of Al Gore, et al, are fanning are not producing a solution rather a panic of catastrophic proportions. And the far left loves this strategy. Create new victims, attack manufactured villains and the lines of people trying to get taxpayer funding to ‘research’ alternatives may eventually reach around the globe. That is about the only connection between the globe and the term, global economy.

But while the opposing sides, of which there may be more than two, sort out the energy future in this country, one report indicates we should take a more reasoned approach to any major shifts in widespread use of alternative energy sources. According to the report below, “The process yields about eight times more energy than it consumes so it is a much more energy efficient way to produce ethanol.”

If that statement is true, the case for sorghum as an alternative energy source is probably one of the more promising developments in this crazy pursuit. The pursuit is not crazy because it is intended to find non-fossil fuel alternatives but because of the total abandon excercised by most proponents. The Chicken Little posture demonstrated by the most fanatical fans does more damage than good. A little care and a reasoned approach to solutions will minimize mistakes and speed any postive results.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Sorghum: A Biofuel Alternative?

By Paul Sisco
Washington
Biofuel Sorghum report / Broadband - Download (WM)
Biofuel Sorghum report / Broadband - Watch (WM)

International research scientists are meeting in Houston, Texas August 19-22 to discuss various biofuel alternatives to corn, especially sorghum. Some scientists say sorghum - cultivated for food and fodder in various parts of the world - might one day help power our vehicles. VOA’s Paul Sisco has today’s Searching for Solutions report.

In the United States, sweet sorghum is grown for livestock feed and also used as a sweetener in the form of a syrup. In India, the sweet juice inside the plant’s stalk is turned into ethanol and used as a fuel.

This has spurred William Rooney and his team at Texas A & M to work with sorghum. They say it grows faster than corn and can produce more ethanol per plant. “In the near future as we move forward you will see these types of crops become more and more prominent,” Rooney said.

Today, nearly all the ethanol in the US comes from corn. It is widely used as a gasoline additive. But using corn-based ethanol has not stopped gasoline prices from rising, and researchers are experimenting with algae, grasses, and plant stalks as biofuels.

Gene Stevens, at the College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources at the University of Missouri, works with sorghum.

“We produced as much ethanol with the corn as we did with the sweet sorghum but the only advantage was that we used less fertilizer with the sweet sorghum,” he explains. “It may be that sweet sorghum may have a niche in some of those soils that are not so productive.”

Also, producing ethanol from sorghum uses less energy than corn — says Mark Winslow with the non-profit International Crops Research Institute.

“The process yields about eight times more energy than it consumes so it is a much more energy efficient way to produce ethanol,” Winslow says.

Critics of corn based ethanol production say it has contributed to rising food prices because of the amount of grain used to make the fuel. That explains, in part, why the search is on to find other biofuel sources.

“I think you are going to hear more about the crops that are starting to make sense,” Rooney says.

Among them sorghum, says Rooney, a proven source of ethanol with more potential than corn.

House Could Have Implemented Meaningful Farm Reform
By Rep. Ron Kind
July 27th, 2007
By changing this Farm Bill debate, our reform coalition was able to push the Agriculture Committee to make additional investments in conservation and nutrition, and make some modest inroads on limiting subsidies to the largest and wealthiest farmers. On the very morning of the vote, the Chairman included additional funding for the Grassland Reserve Program and McGovern/Dole, and made needed reforms to the federal crop insurance program — all a direct result of the pressure our amendment created.

Imagine that. Pork in a farm bill sounds like a match made in heaven. Congressman Kind represents Wisconsin. Do you suppose agriculture is important in Wisconsin, in terms of the state economy? Likewise the excerpt below from a agricultural publication features an opinion summing up their view of the booty offered.

House passes Farm Bill
By Dairy Herd news source (Monday, July 30, 2007)
The House of Representatives approved a new Farm Bill on Friday that contains all of the major elements that the National Milk Producers Federation had sought for the dairy industry.

Price supports, loss contracts, import limits, product protections, price regulations, export incentives and two funding sources to pay for environmental and energy related improvements for agricultural interests at taxpayer’s expense. Front end, back end and all the way through the taxpayer gets stiffed. If not already, sympathy for those involved in agriculture may diminish as the farm bill limits risk and competition for the farmer but either way the consumer pays.

There is something basically wrong with that. Trade association, interest group, special interest group or lobbyist, no matter what you call it that is pandering, bribery, corruption or some equally dishonest method for passing legislation. Bring all the arguments you want. To say this type of process is to save the family farm and the American dream or way of life is a massive load of fertilizer. Those messages have been carefully crafted from a time when they may have been honest and sincere but those days are long gone.

Scrap the whole bill and start over or fo gedda bau dit.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Democrats Would Penalize Companies for Employing Americans
By Rep. Paul Gillmor
July 27th, 2007

Although I am not on the Agriculture Committee, I have been following the debate on the Farm Bill for sometime now and I was looking forward to voting for the bill that unanimously passed out of the Committee last week. Unfortunately, in only a week’s time, the Democrat Leadership added a massive tax increase on companies which in-source jobs into America

The statement in the excerpt above from Congressman Gillmor is a good example of ‘who the hell knows?’ While the Congressman attributes tax disincentives for hiring American workers to the Democrats, the question that might be reasonable to ask is why does the US government allow foreign ownership of domestic companies? Or why have so many American companies been allowed to merge with or be bought by foreign interests? It was not that long ago the excuse to forbid China from buying domestic energy companies was the strategic nature of the product and its vital importance to national security. With each event comes a new argument. But the events are similar and when placed side by side all of the excuses do not add up properly.

The main thrust of the farm bill has been reported as limiting farm subsidies and other assistance to farms producing revenue on the lower end of the spectrum and not allowing wealthy farmers or large successful commercial operations to participate. Providing assistance only for those who really need assistance is a good thing. Stopping abuse of such offers by restricting its application is also a good thing. With Congressman Gillmor’s complaint it is safe to assume this legislation is not free from lobbyist and politician abuse before everyone else gets involved.

What this post by the Congressman emphasizes is the need for ethics and oversight that Congress continuously refuses to address. Contrary to Speaker Pelosi’s opinion, there has been no improvement in Washington politics as regards ethics and oversight in at least several decades.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The plight of agriculture and the family farm in this country has been a sad story for decades. That it has not been satisfactorily solved in all that time can be explained by public indifference, a sustained corporate trend to dominate agriculture and failed government policies over many years. In a nutshell, we’re all to blame.

The story featured in this post is an honest assessment by a successful individual and another reference to the flip-flop charge. Mitt Romney explains his current appraisal of agriculture against earlier considerations on flawed government. It relates to an earlier post here on the WTO and UN and their campaigns against the G4 protecting their agricultural interests against price undercutting by third world entrants to global trade. This earlier post agrees with Mitt Romney’s appraisal. There is agreement here with his earlier appraisal in that flawed government policies maintained by various departments in government damaged US agriculture.

It is interesting to note that the famous flip-flop allegations of the GOP toward John Kerry in 2004 are now being applied to Mitt Romney regularly. Funny how the same people applying this criticism of Mitt Romney want President Bush to flip-flop on his stand on the Iraq war. As well as any one else who supports victory in Iraq. Just another example of cherry picking issues and positions to camouflage political opposition as valid.

When circumstances change it is prudent to reevaluate positions and potential solutions. Who can truthfully say they never changed their mind in response to changing conditions? Not changing to accommodate new information can produce failure or at least miss the desired outcome. Careful consideration should be employed before using the flip-flop tag.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Romney views changed on USDA, farm subsidies

Monday, July 2, 2007, 11:14 AM
By O.Kay Henderson

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney says he no longer advocates the “virtual elimination” of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

According to Romney, additional reductions in farm subsidies at this time would not be wise. “Europe and other nations continue to protect their farmers with a heavy subsidization program and we’re not going to take action which would put us at a competitive disadvantage for our farmers,” Romney says.

crossposted at:
Reject the UN

It is not hard to believe that the only purpose of the UN is to provide a politically correct appearance for the selfish interests of all member nations. Nothing more than the same politically driven motives that smother any real progress on issues in the US Congress or similar government bodies in countries around the world. It is the international face of polarized agendas in every country on the planet.

A current example is the Doha round of trade negotiations of the WTO. You have the typical subgroups and silly names like the Group of Four (G4) and G10, Bulgaria, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Korea, Republic of Liechtenstein, Mauritius, Norway, Switzerland and Chinese Taipei, G6, G20, G33 and on it goes. The G4, the US, EU, India and Brazil as well as China are not interested in ending ag subsidies to protect their farmers. The 3rd world countries are interested in our markets as well as other industrialized countries and want to take advantage of their abilities to undercut the competition.

President Bush and President Putin had a meeting this week and it surely was not only about nukes and radar. President Bush’s ‘fast track’ trade authority expired at the end of June. That, together with all the aforementioned subgroups within the WTO and the failing Doha round and attempts to revive it by the APEC 21 nations meeting in Australia highlight the ‘my country first attitudes’ of so-called free trade agreements.

And of course the UN is involved.

WTO, UN chiefs say fate of billions hangs on global trade deal

Mon Jul 2, 1:25 PM ET

The heads of the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation on Monday both urged a successful conclusion to long-stalled global trade talks in order to lift billions of people out of poverty.

“The world desperately needs a successful conclusion to the Doha trade negotiations,” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told a meeting of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in Geneva.

“Existing trade barriers, agricultural subsidies, and restrictive rules on intellectual property rights reinforce global inequities — and they make a mockery of our tall claims to eliminate hunger and poverty from the world,” he said.

It is always done. Use concern over humanitarian interests to promote the selfish goals of member countries. And the other common characteristic is present in all conflicts between two or more adversaries. That is to focus your strategy against the largest or most successful competitors or opponents. The common theme in announcements about the trade talks focus on the G4 their protective policies against unfair trade practices of international competitors. Not a strategy that is lost on any other of the 150 member nations in the WTO. It is simply more common to attack the kings of the hill in seeking global sympathy for one’s mission or goals, right or wrong..

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Part of the problem with public affairs rests with the public. A topic like agriculture usually receives a reaction like “ya, whatever.” Maybe that is why we have seen the decline of the family farm, the dominance of corporate food processing, Ecoli outbreaks and trade agreements that grow much of what we eat in other countries.

So when Collin C. Peterson (D-MN) and Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) are in a press release today discussing a farm bill, it might be something to which y’all might wanna pay attention. The current bill language was written in 2002 and has expirations for later this year. The tone of the press release could make you salute and begin singing the national anthem. Reason enough to investigate people who affect what we eat, not to mention the fate of any family farms that may still exist.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

U.S. lawmakers: EU dragging heels on biotech trade

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States must pressure the
European Union to stop dragging its feet on approving new imports
of bioengineered food, senior U.S. lawmakers said in a letter
released on Wednesday.

Biotech Rice Saga Yields Bushel of Questions for Feds
USDA Approval Shortcut Emerges as Issue
By Rick Weiss, Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 6, 2006; A03
When the biotech company Bayer CropScience AG requested
federal permission in August to market a variety of gene-altered
rice, it assured itself a small, unwanted place in history: the first
to seek approval for a genetically engineered food that was
already — illegally — on the market.

GMO ban ordinance eyed
Visayan Daily Star, Philippines - Nov 12, 2006
Oriental Negros Vice Gov. Jose Baldado said he will work for
the passage of an ordinance banning genetically-modified
organisms in the province. …

Cognis launches 3 natural, non-GMO health ingredients …
SpiritIndia, India - Oct 30, 2006
… West trade show is expected to be brisk as dietary supplement
and functional food manufacturers discover the benefits of three
new, non-GMO natural health …

Seems to be a great deal of quiet discussion on GMO foods. What
is the upside? What do we really know about GMO foods? Is it
reasonable to blindly accept GMO as healthy without valid data on
long term probability or potential of future health problems? What
about causing unexpected changes in natural food sources? Is the
United States the only country promoting GMO foods? There is a
large enough reference to reports around the world that suggest an
uneasy climate toward these foods. Why is it the job of government
officials to influence or intimidate other countries to comply with the
US government’s agenda? Especially when it appears to merely be
on behalf of corporate America and not based on the well-being or
benefit of all affected parties.

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com

Some of the people pushing for the EU to accept US GMO:

Tom Harkin

Collin Peterson

Saxby Chambliss

Bob Goodlatte

Susan Schwab USTR

Canice Nolan

It is bipartisan. It is international. And it is suspicious. There are too many countries opposed to believe that accepting GMO without proof of concept is not right.

Genetically modified organisms or GMO do not seem to be making
much noise in the mainstream media. Some may find it boring or
inconsequential. At least one point raised by environmental types
is not knowing the ultimate consequence to the biosphere if we are
to modify organisms without benefit of understanding the results.

So much flack was generated not long ago on cloning or stem cell
research methods that you might expect more controversy in the
press over similar activities with other living things. The ethics of
it may not be at issue but certainly food safety and the effects of the
modifications should at least provoke questions. You could make the
case that if the WTO is involved it is worth a look. When has the
WTO not caused controversy in most of what they do?

>

EU set to decide on compulsory tests for GMO rice
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Oct 16
EU regulators will decide this week whether to force testing of
all U.S. long-grain rice imports to prove the absence of a
genetically modified (GMO) strain not allowed in Europe, an
official said on Monday.

USDA verifies 2nd test for unapproved GMO rice
Reuters - Sep 15, 2006
Dr. Manfred Schneider is a former Chairman of the Management Board,
Bayer AG. Full Bio. WASHINGTON, Sept 15 (Reuters) - The US Agriculture …

Consumer group urges USDA not to approve GMO rice
Truth about Trade & Technology, IA - Sep 18, 2006
Washington (Reuters) - A controversial genetically modified rice strain found
in commercial supplies last month should not be approved by the US Agriculture …

WTO Sides With US in GMO Dispute With EU
AgWeb - Sep 29, 2006
The World Trade Organization (WTO) has ruled in favor of the United States,
Argentina, and Canada in their WTO case against the European Union (EU) over its …

EuropaBio welcomes ’science-based’ hearing on GM food
FoodNavigator.com, France - Oct 10, 2006
… Furthermore, the WTO ruled earlier this year that the EU and six member … United
States, Argentina and Canada that an effective moratorium on GMO imports between …

Lettuce grower says tests come back negative for E. coli

San Francisco Chronicle - (10-10) 17:37 PDT SALINAS — Samples of tainted irrigation water that prompted a Salinas grower to recall more than 8,500 cartons of green leaf lettuce Sunday tested negative for a feared strain of E. coli, the produce company said today.

from MoreWhat.com staff:
So that’s it? Funny how all the recent E.coli problems are originating in Salinas County California and not reported as anywhere else. If the problem truly is just in Salinas County, why not concentrate efforts there and solve the problem? Oh no! Economic disaster for the county would be unacceptable. But for a problem that resulted in death, it seems criminal. Where are the blame game players now? Everyday you can read about blame in politics. Where is the blame game in agriculture?

C. Harris

U.S. food supply safer than before, regulators say

Tue Oct 10, 2006 6:50 PM ET By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Recent food recalls, including the case of E. coli-contaminated spinach that killed three and sickened 200 people, raise questions about the safety of U.S. food, but regulators said on Tuesday the U.S. food supply is becoming safer. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 76 million Americans get sick every year from foodborne illnesses, 5,000 of them die and 300,000 are hospitalized.

from MoreWhat.com staff:
In this article a lawmaker wants to do guess what? That’s right, make another law to fix something where a law likely already exists. Wonder if the executive ever considered enforcing the laws.

Here’s a novel idea. Check the law books boyz, locate the ones you need to prosecute negligence on the part of the producers of the tainted food and then proceed. Oh no!!! Hold those who provided the tainted food responsible? That’s not fair. No one could prevent this. It’s just bad luck.

If those who produced the food are not responsible, then who is? The people who ate it? Instead of more legislation why don’t we try holding those responsible, I don’t know, responsible. With severe enough penalties the neglectful or intentional misdeed would be less likely to occur for fear of disaster for not preventing such a tragedy. The lives of those lost cannot be fixed.

C. Harris