. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Rachel's Precaution Reporter #117"Foresight and Precaution, in the News and in the World"Wednesday, November 21, 2007.........Printer-friendly versionwww.rachel.org -- To make a secure donation, click here. |
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Featured stories in this issue... Dangerous Beauty: Taming Toxics in Everyday Cosmetics In 2003, the European Union passed legislation outlawing the use of known carcinogens, mutagens, and teratogens in cosmetics -- more than 1,000 chemicals in all. Their regulatory approach is similar to the "precautionary principle" -- the idea that we should err on the side of caution when regulating products (or, more often, technologies) with potential for negative repercussions. Faster, Taller, Stronger, Smarter... Better? Harris seems to forget that the genetic enhancements he enthusiastically welcomes will be brought to us by the same industry which (in the 1950s) sold women thalidomide 'for stronger, healthier babies' and, more recently, Vioxx for arthritic pain. When we remember that the power of man over nature is often, in practice, the power of one man to exploit another, then the maxim, "First of all, do no harm," seems eminently sensible. Military Nanotechnology: Preventive Arms Control On the face of it, preventive arms control makes sense -- aiming to prevent wars rather than fight them. However, using nanotechnology for preventive arms control complicates things considerably. An Issue for the Center-right The European emphasis on environmentalism is imbedded in the legal foundation of the European Union. The precautionary principle, codified in the European Union's 1992 Maastricht Treaty, states that if an action or policy may have negative effects on the environment, even if these effects are not fully scientifically proven, the burden of proof falls on the advocates of the risky action. Can We Save the Planet The precautionary principle for action on climate change: 'It's like Pascal's wager. The consequences if we worry and take action about global warming will be minor if we are wrong. If we do not take action and we are wrong, the consequences will be devastating'." New Bid To Save Scottish Salmon "With marine survival such a lottery, the precautionary principle must prevail -- and this means drastically reducing indiscriminate exploitation." Precaution Drives Innovation in European Food Industry "Consumer demands for low-fat products, the precautionary principle in the new EC [European Commission] law to achieve the demanded high level of health protection, and market competition are all driving forces for the meat industry to launch new products." :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: From: WorldChanging, Nov. 13, 2007 [Printer-friendly version] DANGEROUS BEAUTY: TAMING TOXICS IN EVERYDAY COSMETICS By Erica Barnett As someone who's used cosmetics since early adolescence (I'm from Texas, okay?), I'm particularly horrified by the awful stuff in ordinary makeup -- chemicals that cause infertility, birth defects, learning disabilities, and even cancer. (We've written before about the growing concerns around -- and awareness of -- the toxic substances that lurk in everyday household products.) I've long wished that someone would create a one-stop resource detailing what's safe, what's not, and why. That's why I'm eagerly awaiting my copy of Stacy Malkan's new book "Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry." Malkan, communications director for the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, explores the health risks that are inflicted on women by the beauty industry. In an interview with Alternet, Malkin explained her motivation for writing the book: I think cosmetics is something that we're all intimately connected to. They're products that we use every day, and so I think it's a good first place to start asking questions. What kinds of products are we bringing into our homes? What kinds of companies are we giving our money to?... I think of it as global poisoning. I think that the ubiquitous contamination of the human species with toxic chemicals is a symptom of the same problem (as global warming), which is an economy that's based on outdated technologies of petrochemicals -- petroleum. So many of the products we're applying to our faces and putting in our hair come from oil. They're byproducts of oil. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics got its start in 2002, when a coalition of women's, public health, labor, environmental health and consumer-rights nonprofits got together and tested 72 beauty products for phthalates, chemicals that act as plasticizers and hormone disrupters and cause birth defects, particularly in males. They discovered the chemicals were nearly ubiquitous, although none of the products they tested listed phthalates on their labels. In fact, Malkan says, the typical American woman uses 12 products containing about 180 chemicals every single day. Nonetheless, the cosmetics industry remains virtually unregulated, with minimal oversight from the Food and Drug Administration, which must prove in court that a product is harmful before it can take any action. In 2003, the European Union passed legislation outlawing the use of known carcinogens, mutagens, and teratogens in cosmetics -- more than 1,000 chemicals in all. Their regulatory approach is similar to the "precautionary principle" -- the idea that we should err on the side of caution when regulating products (or, more often, technologies) with potential for negative repercussions. In the US, only California has followed in the EU's footsteps. In her interview with Alternet, Malkan said the most surprising toxin her organization has discovered in cosmetics is lead in lipstick; last month, the Campaign issued a controversial report claiming to have found lead in nearly a dozen brand-name lipsticks. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics offers a guide to "safer" companies that have signed its Compact for Safe Cosmetics, pledging not to use chemicals that are known or strongly suspected of causing cancer, mutation or birth defects in their products. Skin Deep, a cosmetic database that's searchable by name, is another useful resource, while Teens for Safe Cosmetics offers not only resources but grassroots youth action to tackle the problem (like Operation Beauty Drop -- which places large bins in malls for teens to drop their unsafe cosmetics -- and a successful campaign to pass a California law requiring cosmetics manufacturers to notify the Department of Health Services about any toxic or carcinogenic components in their makeup). Return to Table of Contents :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: From: Toronto Globe and Mail, Nov. 17, 2007 [Printer-friendly version] FASTER, TALLER, STRONGER, SMARTER... BETTER? Book review of Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People, By John Harris; Princeton University Press, 242 pages, $26.35 By Arthur Schafer It is a commonly observed fact that, as we age, telephone directory print comes to seem microscopically tiny. People cope with this inconvenience by resorting to reading glasses. Although we don't usually think of them in this way, reading glasses, along with hearing aids and anti-wrinkle creams, are enhancement technologies, as are anti-inflammatory drugs that help us to cope with arthritic pain, and coffee, which improves our concentration. It's natural that our physical and mental abilities deteriorate in old age. Thus, all of the above-mentioned technologies could be described as "unnatural." They are unnatural but not, on that account, morally objectionable. It's fallacious to equate what's natural with what's good. Sometimes they coincide; often they diverge. For example, painless childbirth was regularly denounced as a blasphemy against God until, in 1853, Queen Victoria set an example by delivering a child under chloroform. Only then did religious opposition fall silent. Today, no one worries much about the ethics of analgesics or eyeglasses. Quite the opposite: You'd seem a complete idiot if you rejected all artificial aids to better living. So why is there so much fear and fretting about the present and future use of biotechnology to make ourselves healthier, stronger, smarter and longer-lived? John Harris, a leading British bioethicist, believes that the ethical controversy swirling around such new technologies as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, embryonic stem cell cloning and regenerative medicine is mostly the product of ignorance, prejudice and bad reasoning. Much of his book is given over to exposing the anti-enhancement arguments of prominent philosophers, such as Francis Fukuyama, Michael Sandel and Jurgen Habermas. By the time Harris has finished his demolition job, there are more defunct arguments littering the page than there are dead bodies in the last scene of Hamlet. Those who like their philosophy dark-roasted, robust and slightly bitter will find his combativeness very good fun. Those who favour a weaker brew may find themselves awake in the middle of the night. You've been warned. The primary goal of Enhancing Evolution is, in the words of the subtitle, to present "the ethical case for making better people." Harris offers a powerful and, incidentally, powerfully entertaining case in favour of using medical science to enhance both ourselves and our children. As he points out, the quest to improve ourselves is as old as human history. We should welcome enthusiastically the possibility that regenerative medicine might soon be able to make our bodies resistant to heart disease, cancer and senile dementia. This would, of course, dramatically expand both the quality and the length of human lives. That's something else we should welcome. More than this, however, Harris defends the individual's right to use biotechnology in order to improve memory, intelligence and physical strength. He wants us to move from chance to choice, from Darwinian evolution to enhancement evolution. Instead of blindly accepting our fate in the natural lottery of life, we should opt to enhance ourselves and our children, both physically and cognitively. In short, he urges us to become Wonderwoman and Superman (the title of an earlier Harris book). Accept for the sake of argument that these are worthwhile goals. They are certainly the goals for which many of us aim, both as individuals and as parents: We want the best possible education and health care for our children and for ourselves. So why not, also, the best genes, when technology offers this possibility? If we strive to eliminate genetic impairments, the critics say, we are thereby expressing contempt for people who must live with physical and cognitive disabilities. Harris responds by asking: When the orthopedic surgeon resets a broken leg, does she thereby show disrespect for people born with an incurable limp? The objection is often raised that we should beware of "playing God" or falling victim to "hubris." Harris dismisses such arguments as quasi-religious claptrap, and insists that striving to better ourselves is part of what defines us as human and humane. Some claim that deliberately to modify the genes of our children is to deny these children their autonomy as human beings. He replies that choosing better genes for one's children does not in any way impair their autonomy. Moreover, the genetic lottery can be deeply cruel and unfair. Almost everything we do in life is an attempt to avoid the worst effects of fate. Another argument claims that Harris's enhancement agenda would, if adopted, lead ultimately to the creation of a new species: "post- humans." Critics worry that such enhanced human beings might feel little or no sense of common humanity with those of us who are unenhanced. He replies, in essence: So what? The wealthy and privileged are already healthier, longer-lived and better-educated than the poor and unprivileged. Harris agrees that equality of life opportunity is an important ideal, but insists that we shouldn't promote human equality by reducing the advantages of the privileged. Instead, we should strive to make genetic enhancements available to everyone. Initially, these technologies will be priced out of the range of most people, even in wealthy countries. Eventually, however, the enhancements enjoyed first by the rich will become available to the poor. In the long run, everyone will benefit. I'm not entirely persuaded by this trickle-down argument. As British economist John Maynard Keynes famously observed: In the long run, we'll all be dead. Pace Professor Harris, it seems entirely reasonable to worry that the technology he favours might dramatically and, perhaps permanently, aggravate the already worrying gap between Haves and Have-Nots. Harris is also too dismissive of the precautionary principle. He concedes that before tampering with the genes of healthy people, we need to ensure a favourable risk-benefit ratio. He seems to forget, however, that the enhancements he enthusiastically welcomes will be brought to us by the same industry which (in the 1950s) sold women thalidomide "for stronger, healthier babies" and, more recently, Vioxx for arthritic pain. When we remember that the power of man over nature is often, in practice, the power of one man to exploit another, then the maxim, "First of all, do no harm," seems eminently sensible. Caveats aside, Enhancing Evolution makes a fine contribution to clear thinking and cogent argument in a field where these commodities have been in short supply. It should be on the must-read list for citizens and politicians alike. ============== Arthur Schafer eagerly awaits the genetic enhancement of his tennis skills. He is professor of philosophy and director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba. Copyright Copyright 2007 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. Return to Table of Contents :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: From: Foresight Nanotech Update 58, Nov. 17, 2007 [Printer-friendly version] MILITARY NANOTECHNOLOGY: PREVENTIVE ARMS CONTROL Book Review of Jurgen Altmann, Military Nanotechnology: Potential applications and preventive arms control (Routledge, 2006. Paperback, 238 + xvi pages) By James Lewis, PhD Jurgen Altmann holds a PhD in physics, has been studying disarmament- related issues since 1985, and has been actively investigating nanotechnology (NT) since 2002. The goal of Military Nanotechnology: Potential Applications and Preventive Arms Control "is to do a first assessment of the implications that NT weapons and other military NT systems could entail, and to present first considerations on preventive limitations." This goal is decisively achieved. Altmann uses the term NT to cover the wide range of (mostly short-term and medium-term) research and development activities that are currently the focus of major government funding initiatives (such as the US National Nanotechnology Initiative) and commercial development. For the vision of long-term advanced nanotechnology first elaborated by K. Eric Drexler and Foresight during the 1980s he uses the term MNT (for molecular NT). This book addresses the military implications of both NT and MNT, but with most emphasis on NT. Military Nanotechnology is the fruit of a thorough scholarly effort, supplemented by abundant notes and bibliographic references. The notes and references do not extend past 2004. Accordingly, Altmann's characterization of MNT as having to do with "universal molecular assemblers" and "self-replicating nano-robots" does not reflect the consensus developed within the MNT community during 2003 to de- emphasize self-replicating nanomachines in favor of desktop nanofactories, culminating in the 2004 publication by Chris Phoenix and Eric Drexler of "Safe exponential manufacturing" (Nanotechnology 15 869-872) Altmann's introduction includes a concise (12 pages) but thorough summary of previous writing on the potential military use of nanotechnology -- from Engines of Creation in 1986 through two 2002 articles in the journal Disarmament Diplomacy. Chapter 2 is an overview of nanotechnology (through 2003) that manages to be simultaneously concise, comprehensive, easy to follow for someone with modest technical background, and of sufficient depth to enable understanding the key ideas. The coverage of MNT includes distinct but associated futuristic concepts, including super-human artificial intelligence, eradication of disease and aging, and merging of humans and robots. The approach that Altmann takes toward MNT "is guided by the precautionary principle: those concepts that do not obviously run counter to the laws of nature will be taken seriously as principal possibilities." Altmann's overview also includes the visionary concepts associated with the convergence of nano-, bio-, information, and cognitive sciences and technology (see Update 49 article) championed by the US National Science Foundation and Dept. of Commerce. Military R&D efforts in NT are the topic of chapter 3. US DoD efforts are covered in considerable detail, illustrating the immense depth and breath of current US military NT. Several tables list the titles of numerous specific projects. The military NT R&D efforts of other countries are sketched very briefly, either because they are much smaller than the US effort, or much less open, or both. Altmann estimates that US investment in military NT R&D currently (2003) exceeds that of the rest of the world combined by a factor of 4 to 10. However, several nations, particularly China and Russia, have the capacity to rapidly develop military NT R&D applications. Altmann identifies factors that could enhance mutual suspicion and thus, in the absence of international constraints, lead to an NT arms race. Potential military applications of nanotechnology (both NT and MNT) are described in chapter 4. Numerous specific NT applications (including devices for computation and communication, software and artificial intelligence, nanostructured materials for vehicles and improved armor, autonomous combat vehicles, sensors, incremental improvements in conventional weapons, etc.) are identified in time frames ranging from 5 to 20 years. Altmann's consideration of the potential military uses of MNT draws on Mark Gubrud's work, presented at the 1997 Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology. First of all, a mature molecular manufacturing base, perhaps including advanced artificial intelligence systems for engineering design, would provide for rapid, inexpensive stockpiling of the highest quality conventional weapons. Further, the potential for self-replicating weapons and for full automation of weapons production and deployment by artificial intelligence adds qualitatively new dimensions to warfare. Swarms of microscopic vehicles could attack infrastructure and weapons. Such machines could certainly also attack human beings, either with extreme precision or as non-specific weapons of mass destruction. The production of nuclear weapons would be greatly facilitated. Perhaps the most troubling danger is strategic instability caused by arms races, weakening conventional deterrence, and enhancing first strike advantage. The remainder of the book focuses on preventive arms control, beginning with the precedents provided by conventional arms control treaties, and by limitations on civilian R&D for the sake of health, safety, environmental, and ethical considerations. Altmann's philosophy on regulation derives from the "precautionary principle", which maintains that "limits should not have to wait for full indisputable evidence, but should already be applied if there are reasonable grounds for concerns about potential dangers to environmental, human, animal or plant health". Altmann also points out that "in general adequately verified arms limitations are much cheaper than military preparations for mutual armed conflict." Ideally regulations and verification would prohibit dangerous military applications but not impede useful applications. Reasons why this distinction might be difficult to make in practice are surveyed. Applying these general considerations to NT and MNT, Altmann is particularly concerned about the development by the military of distributed sensors for use on the battlefield. Specifically he advocates complete bans on self-contained sensor systems smaller than 3 to 5 cm, small arms and munitions that contain no metal, and missiles smaller than 20 to 50 cm. Likely to arouse objections is Altmann's "demand for a moratorium on implants and other body manipulations that are not directly medically motivated." This moratorium would include civilian as well as military use and would last at least 10 years. Altmann also wants to prohibit "armed, mobile, systems without crew", which would prohibit not only military robots but the current US Predator drone Hellfire missile combination. Both military and civilian use of mini- and micro-robots would also be banned. For MNT Altmann advocates first determining feasibility and time frames, and then studying appropriate limits and verification means for both civilian and military applications. In his conclusion, Altmann offers the hope that the rapid advance of technology, especially NT and MNT, may lead nations to conclude that "security can no longer be reliably ensured by national armed forces," and this realization would be a catalyst for strengthening international institutions and international law. Military Nanotechnology provides an excellent beginning to addressing a very difficult problem -- avoiding a nanotechnology arms race. However, it is likely that much more work remains to be done before the outline of a workable solution becomes visible. Because nanotechnology is deeply anchored in molecular technology essential to the civilian economy and has many far-reaching implications, it is not clear to what extent military applications can be limited without unacceptable restrictions on core technologies. Altmann makes reasonable proposals for how to draw this line with respect to NT, but does not address this crucial issue with respect to MNT. As one example Altmann explicitly rejects the position taken in the Foresight Guidelines on Molecular Nanotechnology [he references version 3.7 (June 2000); current version (April 2006)] that "While a 100% effective ban [of core MNT technologies] could, in theory, avoid the potential risks of certain forms of molecular nanotechnology, a 99.99% effective ban could result in development and deployment by the 0.01% that evaded and ignored the ban." Altmann labels this approach "clearly flawed" (p. 11). His reasons for this judgment make sense with respect to military applications of MNT but do not address the fact that the Foresight Guidelines concern the core MNT technologies that are already aggressively being developed in thousands of laboratories in dozens of nations. Perhaps the most debatable aspect of Altmann's analysis is his dismissal of effective nanotechnology-enabled countermeasures to nanotechnology-enabled threats. Compare his conclusion with the argument advanced by J. Storrs Hall in Nanofuture that open development by mainstream populations will provide defenses against nanotechnology-based threats (see "Anticipating advanced nanotechnology" in this issue). For an initial discussion of the issues raised by Military Nanotechnology, see the Nanodot post "Facing up to military nanotechnology." Copyright 1986-2007 Foresight Institute Return to Table of Contents :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: From: Harvard Political Review Online, Nov. 16, 2007 [Printer-friendly version] AN ISSUE FOR THE CENTER-RIGHT European conservatives take the lead in environmental policy By Abigail Schiff If European countries are any guide, the next big thing in conservative politics may well be environmentalism. As Europe becomes more environmentally conscious, its center-right politicians have adapted environmentalism and have made it conform to the logic of capitalism. Conservative leaders from England's David Cameron to France's Nicolas Sarkozy have followed German Chancellor Angela Merkel's lead to make environmental protection a priority of the center-right. Market-based environmental policy has become a hallmark of the new Europe, and an important part of its leaders' success, both at home and internationally. Proceed With Caution The European emphasis on environmentalism is imbedded in the legal foundation of the European Union. The precautionary principle, codified in the European Union's 1992 Maastricht Treaty, states that if an action or policy may have negative effects on the environment, even if these effects are not fully scientifically proven, the burden of proof falls on the advocates of the risky action. Recent environmental disasters such as flooding in England and widespread fires in Greece this past summer have heightened public consciousness of the fragility of the natural environment. As the Maastricht Treaty indicates, the European Union has made environmental issues a greater priority in an effort to secure the future of its bloc and establish its leadership on an important global issue. New Conservatism for the New Europe Market environmentalism is gaining ground in Europe, as conservative politicians realize that environmental consciousness can be the key to the economic and popular success of their governments. Many European governments have adapted a market-based system of environmentalism based on the Kyoto "cap and trade" policy, culminating in the 2005 EU emissions trading scheme, which allows companies to buy and sell permits to produce greenhouse gases. Daniele Cesano, a fellow at the Kennedy School of Government, said in an interview with the HPR that the market-based model is attractive for two reasons: "Based on the United States's experience, it has proved to be more cost-effective to have carbon trade, and it is also easier to be sold to voters, although it results in the same cost to taxpayers in the form of increases in costs of energy." European leaders have also found that action on green issues can be parlayed into political and diplomatic capital. According to Sheila Jasanoff, the Pforzheimer professor of science and technology studies at Harvard, a government's increased attention to environmental policy shows "what kind of world citizen you're going to be," and brings international goodwill. This, in turn, affects everything from trading relationships to interactions between heads of state. At least since Margaret Thatcher took a pioneering interest in the environment, politicians have used environmental policy to strengthen their popular image. Following Merkel's Lead Leading the current movement of center-right environmentalism is German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has won acclaim for her strong environmental advocacy. The German minister for the environment from 1994 to 1998, she was only narrowly elected as Chancellor on a platform of conservative reform. Once in office, working with an unsteady coalition government, she turned her energies towards environmental policy. She advocated for the European carbon-trading scheme, made diplomatic advances to the United States, and became a spokeswoman for the European environmental movement. She has since benefited from approval ratings over 70 percent. Germany has likewise benefited from international goodwill and from economic success based on environmentally friendly products, which now make up 19 percent of German exports. Other European governments have followed her example and leveraged environmentalism as a policy issue. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair developed an image of environmental leadership in order to differentiate himself from his allies in the United States. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has continued his country's established energy policy by focusing on nuclear power, and has also used calls for environmental action to offset his pro-American slant. All of these politicians have used environmentalism for their own ends, but also for the good of their country's economy and international standing. Politicians elsewhere might do well to learn from the leaders of Europe. As environmental challenges increasingly dominate the global political agenda, conservatives worldwide may not be able to cede this issue to the left. Moving forward, the center-right could find that promotion of the precautionary principle will save more than the global environment -- it could also save their jobs.¨ Copyright Harvard Political Review, 2007. Return to Table of Contents :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: From: The Australian, Nov. 16, 2007 [Printer-friendly version] CAN WE SAVE THE PLANET By Henry Thornton "Australia has a significant role in the development of a future East Asian community as a "major resources power" and "responsible actor" in the region, Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda said yesterday. "I believe it is important that Japan and Australia play a leading role in such areas as energy security and climate change in order to build up the momentum for the formation of an East Asian community of the future," Mr Fukuda told The Australian. These are topics to be discussed in Singapore at next week's Third East Asia Summit. A prominent economist whose judgment Henry trusts implicitly said recently that: "Every scientific report on the subject of greenhouse gas emissions looks worse. Solving the problem is going to be excruciatingly hard, as it will require co-ordinated global action. We may only have 10 or 15 years to take the necessary corrective action." Here at HenryThornton.com we have embraced the precautionary principle as our guide to action on climate change. Henry's editor wrote in mid 2006. "A highly respected Australian scientist said recently of global warming: 'It's like Pascal's wager. The consequences if we worry and take action about global warming will be minor if we are wrong. If we do not take action and we are wrong, the consequences will be devastating'." Thinking about the problem Jonson mused about the future of Australian politics. "I imagined bipartisan agreement on monetary and fiscal policy, virtual agreement about health and education and on the desirability of running a lean government with all activities that could be provided by private contractors so provided. The big future political divide is about the environment -- one party wanting a greener, quieter, cleaner and if necessary materially poorer future and the other effectively advocating an Australia that is browner, noisier, dirtier but materially richer". Perhaps this choice is upon us faster than could be imagined even 18 months ago. This election has seen the opposition endorse the government's position on monetary policy, take a marginally tougher line on fiscal policy -- so far only symbolic but important, as Treasury briefings after the election will show -- and competition to improve health and education within a generally agreed framework. Both sides are being very careful on climate change -- Labor being careful not to rock the boat by hinting at more radical remedies, and the Coalition by attempting to show serious new concern for the subject. It is worth considering what explicit and effective action would entail. The hard choices would include imposing much higher taxes on petrol and aviation fuel, taxing pollution (but allowing a market in carbon credits), encouraging through education and dissemination of information about the healthiest life-style -- plenty of exercise, a Mediterranean diet and moderate consumption of red wine. Open wood fires might be banned, or there could be a chimney tax to discourage such activities. Buildings would be required to be environmentally friendly with clever use of solar panels to provide shade while generating electricity. Tanks would capture and store water in the backyards of the nation, and run-off from city buildings. Waste water would be recycled. All of this would readily be agreed by sensible and well-informed citizens. The big debate should be about nuclear power. Some would argue passionately that nuclear power is expensive, dangerous, leads to the production of nuclear weapons and produces long-lived radio- active waste. The more scientific amongst us would argue that nuclear fission is indeed a dangerous technology, and mankind should use all its ingenuity to handle pollutants from conventional power stations, as well as developing renewable power sources while spending a lot of money to develop unlimited 'free' power from nuclear fusion plants. How to get the emerging but less developed nations -- crucially China and India -- to sign on will be the thorniest international issue. To Henry, it is clear that the more developed nations must take the lead and be prepared to impose radical changes -- involving tough restrictions in the short term -- on themselves as a sign of good intent. Lasting solutions will come from technological innovation based on sustainable price signals involving appropriate taxes on greenhouse gas emissions. With the right price signals, cleaner technologies would already be competitive, and technology would develop even better solutions very fast. Henry is by no means convinced that global growth would need to be slower except perhaps in the next decade while rapid adjustments to energy sources are made. New technologies make old technologies worth less, often literally worthless. This is natural implication of human progress -- but the corollary is that new technologies involve exciting new money-making opportunities. Visit HenryThornton.com. Copyright 2007 News Limited. All times AEST (GMT +10). Return to Table of Contents :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: From: The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland), Nov. 20, 2007 [Printer-friendly version] NEW BID TO SAVE SCOTTISH SALMON By Graeme Smith A major campaign aimed at conserving wild salmon stocks in Scotland's rivers by trying to close coastal netting stations was launched yesterday. The Salmon and Trout Association (S&TA) is spearheading the campaign under the slogan "The Net Loss" and says the existence of this type of fishery is indefensible at a time of such uncertain marine survival because of factors related to climate change. Scotland banned salmon drift netting more than 40 years ago but still allows a declared average annual catch of some 25,000 salmon to be killed in almost 60 mixed stock fisheries around Scotland's coastline. S&TA wants to facilitate their negotiated closure through buying or leasing the associated heritable rights. Paul Knight, executive director of S&TA, said: "The Atlantic salmon is one of the truly great iconic species of Scotland. It is too valuable a resource to the rural economy for its long-term future to be put at risk by unrestrained and non-selective coastal netting. "With marine survival such a lottery, the precautionary principle must prevail -- and this means drastically reducing indiscriminate exploitation." He said the fact mixed stock netting catch was allowed to kill as many returning adults as they can catch made a mockery of attempts to maintain and restore fish numbers. George Holdsworth, Scottish policy director for S&TA, commented: "We hope that the new Scottish Government will build its conservation credentials by adopting a far more robust line on mixed stocks salmon netting." S&TA has opened discussions with the owners of two netting stations. Copyright Return to Table of Contents :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: From: NutraIngredients.com, Nov. 15, 2007 [Printer-friendly version] SCIENTISTS DEVELOP PREBIOTIC, LOW-FAT SAUSAGES By Stephen Daniells Inulin, the prebiotic fibre associated with improved gut and bone health, can be used as a fat replacer in sausages to cut energy by over 20 per cent without affecting the flavour profile, suggests new research from Germany. Inulin is already extensively used as a fat and sugar replacer, but according to background information in the article, its use in sausages has only been the subject of very limited study. "Consumer demands for low-fat products, the precautionary principle in the new EC law to achieve the demanded high level of health protection, and market competition are all driving forces for the meat industry to launch new products," wrote lead author Bernhard Nowak in the Journal of Food Science. "Therefore, in addition to dealing with traditional meat production problems such as hygiene and quality, it is also necessary to consider preventive, prebiotic aspects." The researchers, from the University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, and Leibniz University Hannover, investigated the feasibility of incorporating between three and 12 per cent inulin as a fat replacer into bologna-type sausages in order to reduce the energy content by nine to 48 per cent. "In our experiment, the added inulin was applied as a gel (inulin diluted with water 1:1), and added in gradually increasing amounts to replace some of the back fat in the bologna formula; thus fat reduction was achieved by really replacing fat and not by increasing the amount of muscle meat in the formula, as has been done in many other experiments," they explained. Nowak and co-workers report that the highest inulin incorporation was associated with a 47.5 per cent reduction in energy, but at all levels of fat replacement negative physicochemical effects. These included a darker colour, increased hardness, and a reduction in 'fracturability'. Subsequent re-formulation by the researchers to substitute citrate for the phosphate in the recipe led to significant reduction in these negative effects. The best results, in terms of both physicochemical properties and sensory attributes, were obtained for sausage formulations containing sic per cent inulin as a fat replacer. Such sausages offered 22 per cent less energy than normal sausages. The sensory attributes (texture, colour) were assessed by four trained tasters, and states to be comparable to the control sausages. Furthermore, the inulin sausages were found to be microbiologically stable for 23 days of storage. "It is possible to add up to six per cent inulin as a gel to bologna- type sausages with citrate in the formula and achieve a significant reduction of the energy content (22 per cent) without negatively affecting sensory quality," wrote Nowak. The researchers do state that the production costs of the reduced fat sausages with the potentially prebiotic activity are higher than normal sausages. "However, these new and beneficial aspects of innovative products must be properly communicated to the consumer in an easily comprehensible manner and then the higher production costs of almost one-third to a standard sausage will be paid by many people," they concluded. Source: Journal of Food Science "Energy Content, Sensory Properties, and Microbiological Shelf Life of German Bologna-Type Sausages Produced with Citrate or Phosphate and with Inulin as Fat Replacer" Authors: B. Nowak, T. von Mueffling, J. Grotheer, G. Klein, B.-M. Watkinson Copyright 2001/2007 -- Decision News Media SAS - Return to Table of Contents ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Rachel's Precaution Reporter offers news, views and practical examples of the Precautionary Principle, or Foresight Principle, in action. The Precautionary Principle is a modern way of making decisions, to minimize harm. Rachel's Precaution Reporter tries to answer such questions as, Why do we need the precautionary principle? Who is using precaution? Who is opposing precaution? We often include attacks on the precautionary principle because we believe it is essential for advocates of precaution to know what their adversaries are saying, just as abolitionists in 1830 needed to know the arguments used by slaveholders. Rachel's Precaution Reporter is published as often as necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject. As you come across stories that illustrate the precautionary principle -- or the need for the precautionary principle -- please Email them to us at rpr@rachel.org. Editors: Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org Tim Montague - tim@rachel.org ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Precaution Reporter send any Email to one of these addresses: Full HTML edition: rpr-subscribe@pplist.net Table of Contents (TOC) edition: rpr-toc-subscribe@pplist.net In response, you will receive an Email asking you to confirm that you want to subscribe. To unsubscribe, send any email to rpr-unsubscribe@pplist.net or to rpr-toc-unsubscribe@pplist.net, as appropriate. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: |
Environmental Research Foundation P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J. 08903 rpr@rachel.org ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: |