Murdoch wrote: > >One has to note that new chemicals, drugs, GM crops, iffy stuff > >promoted by the big guys does not exactly receive the same treatment. > >What do they call it? - substantive equivalence, or something. > >But, if this is what it sounds like.... the idea that new substances >may be taken as somewhat safe and not to be prohibited while some >verification takes place, based on past testing of similar substances,
What substance of the past would be similar to a GMO? >then why doesn't this biodiesel board get testing of some sort of >standardized biodiesel done, and then all makers can make it, so long >as they conform to some standards. You ask rather a lot of us. This board has only a virtual existence, its membership is worldwide, not confined to the US, it has no resources, it's dedicated to small-scale and home-production, it's run by a small NGO devoted to Third World rural development issues. And anyway, that wheel has already been invented, in many countries. It is not our role at all. >If we are to maintain credibility and show some good solid adherence >to the Precautionary Principle (oft ignored by many strident >activists) The Precautionary Principle is not ignored here. Presuming "substantive equivalence" of, say, GMOs to not-transgenic crops and foods certainly ignores it. Corporate interest groups and their buddies in government are definitely the major culprits when it comes to ignoring the Precautionary Principle, activists in only a very minor way. >there are certainly ways in which new fuels including >biodiesel might turn out to have unexpected or unintended unhealthful >effects. I think not with biodiesel, which now has many millions of miles and a large amount of research behind it. It's not exactly new, it's been in use for more than 70 years. In Germany more than 1,200 filling stations sell it at the pump, and it's cheaper than dino-diesel. How many pumps in the US now? Has it reached 10 yet? Biodiesel is pretty much a known quantity now - there could still be unexpected effects, as with everything, but the chances would be very small. The chances of unexpected effects with such as GMOs are rather high, and in fact emerging all the time, in spite of industry denials and very heavy-duty spin to the contrary. So no, it doesn't exactly receive the same treatment at all, and that's not at all justified. >But while this may be true, I don't think it's right for testing or >production to get held up on pretext of caution (not out of real >caution). In any case, surely some sorts of testing have already been >done. Indeed. Best Keith ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> FREE COLLEGE MONEY CLICK HERE to search 600,000 scholarships! http://us.click.yahoo.com/DlIU9C/4m7CAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
