When Did Tree Huggers Become Tree Haters?

Posted under agriculture, Benefits of biotech crops, biofuel, Biofuel Technology, biofuels, Blog, Companies, Diagnostics, Farmer Gene, Food And Agriculture, Funding, global food crisis, Medical Devices, Medical Supply, Pharmaceuticals, Plant biotechnology, Startups, Sustainability, Universities, Videos by biotechnow@bio.org (Biotechnology Industry Organization)

As we celebrate Arbor Day 2012, I want to personally chew out any of the “activist” ilk whose agendas are so extreme, it results in destruction.  I’m talking about eco-terrorism, agri-terrorism, crop vandalism, etc. – basically, killing trees and plants.

This destruction becomes especially horrific when it kills not only the plants and trees themselves, but holds back research and scientific progress aimed and healing, fueling and feeding the world.

In recent weeks, The New Zealand Herald reported on the senseless destruction of hundreds of genetically-engineered pine trees.  Scion, a New Zealand Crown Research Institute (CRI), planted 375 radiata pines last year to test herbicide resistance and study reproductive development.

Scion Chief Executive Dr. Warren Parker describes this as a blatant act of vandalism designed to end Scion’s genetic modification research program. The company said damage to the trees, which occurred over the Easter Weekend, will cost around $400,000.

“As a Crown Research Institute, Scion has a responsibility to pursue areas of science and technology that offer opportunities for the forestry sector in New Zealand, including gene technologies. While this is a big blow to us and has set back our work some 12 months, we will not be deterred in carrying out our lawful research,” said Dr. Parker.

“The field trial was approved under one of the strictest regulatory regimes in the world, and our team has fully complied with the containment controls. Despite this, our research opponents were determined to stop us and used criminal means to do so,” Dr. Parker said.

Most of the trees were less than 1m high, and were part of two experiments due to run for two to three years.

Last fall, eco-terrorists targeted Hawaiian papaya farmers.  Fortunately, these attacks got some wide- spread attention by Fox News and the Huffington Post.

Anti-biotech activists chopped down hundreds of papaya trees that were genetically engineered to resist the ringspot virus.  The ringspot virus all but wiped out Hawaii’s papaya industry in the 1990s, and the genetically modified fruit is credited with saving the state’s $11 million papaya production industry.

“It’s hard to imagine anybody putting that much effort into doing something like that,” said Delan Perry, vice president of the Hawaii Papaya Industry Association. “It means somebody has to have passionate reason.”

Papaya grower Erlinda Bernardo says her family will plant again in another area after 3,000 trees worth tens of thousands of dollars were destroyed. “We’re afraid to plant in that area, so we’re giving up the lease there.  When you start all over again, you have to wait a year for the papaya to bear fruit.”

Last summer in Australia, three Greenpeace activists broke into a scientific farm near Canberra and destroyed a crop of genetically modified wheat. The farm belongs to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), the Australian national science agency, and the crop was part of research into developing genetically modified crop plants with enhanced nutritional value.

Suzanne Cory, president of the Australian Academy of Sciences, issued a statement in which she condemned the attack. “For an organization that claims to be dedicated to the protection of the environment, this is an unconscionable act,” she said.

The same week, The Farmers Guardian reported that masked attackers overpowered guards at two GM trial sites in the German state of Saxony-Anhalt, destroyed potato and wheat plants and caused damage worth hundreds of thousands of euros.

Vandalism of biotech crop trials became such a problem in the UK in recent years, that the government mandated that the trials be conducted in secret locations.

In the United States, many state legislatures have passed bills increasing the penalties for destruction of field trials.  “In addition to the cost of the property damage itself, state legislatures say the real damage is in the destruction of the research,” says Ab Basu, BIO’s Managing Director of State Governmental Relations.

There’s been a lot written about these types of ag research attacks, and I have to agree with some who liken these efforts to the book burnings of the 1930s.   These fanatics say they are following some kind of guiding ideological principle, but what is principled about preventing new information and new science from seeing the light of day?

British professor Anthony Trewavas told The Economist that today’s global-food problems demand agricultural pragmatism and flexibility, not ideology. “If the crop trashers are so convinced they are right and have public support, they should identify themselves – and face a new trial. There, in front of the world, they can air their complaints and defend the need to destroy a trial that aims to put food in the mouths of hungry people.”

Biofuels Digest/BIO Business Outlook Survey Shows Steady Confidence

Posted under BigGovernment.com, Bioenergy Business Outlook Survey, biofuel, Biofuels & Climate Change, Blog, business confidence index, Companies, confidence index, Democrat, Derek Hunter, Diagnostics, Environmental & Industrial, EPA, Frontiers 4 Freedom, Fuels4Freedom, Funding, Gallup Poll, Hoosier Ag, Medical Devices, Medical Supply, Orlando, Pharmaceuticals, Republican, Richard Mourdock, Sen. Richard Lugar, Startups, Universities, Videos by biotechnow@bio.org (Biotechnology Industry Organization)

Biofuels Digest this week reported results from a quarterly Bioenergy Business Outlook Survey, an index of the biofuels industry’s confidence. The survey showed an ongoing trend of increased responses from new and overseas companies.

The industry’s confidence remains high, with 78 percent of bioenergy executives reporting they feel more optimistic about their organization’s prospects for growth than they remember feeling 12 months earlier. A similarly high percentage, 72 percent, report feeling more optimistic about the industry’s prospects than they recall feeling a year ago. That reported high level of confidence has remained steady in the survey since the second quarter of 2011.

Industry executives also reported slightly higher expectations of revenue growth, raising the median expectation to 9 percent. At the same time, there were slightly lower expectations of new IPOs, merger and acquisitions – these expectations were significantly lower than those reported in the second quarter of 2011. But the industry continues to report expectations of rising demand for bioenergy.

How Others See the Industry

A Gallup Poll released on Monday April 9 reported that Americans continue to support a wide-range of energy solutions, with two-thirds or 66 percent supporting spending government money to develop biofuels. However, the level of support has declined since the last such poll in 2007 and become polarized along party lines. While 81 percent of Democrats support government spending for biofuels, only 51 percent of Republicans would support that effort.

A few conservatives continue to speak out in favor of biofuels. Derek Hunter last month published an editorial on BigGovernment.com, saying essentially that we’ve set out on this national project to make biofuels a cost-competitive alternative to foreign oil and we’ve achieved progress, so let’s see it through. More recently, the group Frontiers 4 Freedom launched the Fuels4Freedom project. The petition, as reported by DomesticFuel.com, asks the EPA to “strongly support the development of advanced biofuels and oppose any effort to reduce their use in our nation’s fuel supply.” The group’s press release succinctly made the argument for energy security:

“American innovation will create energy which is cheaper and more plentiful than oil. The only way we are going to get there is if the US remains committed to investing in advanced biofuel technology, exploring other viable energy sources and decreasing our reliance on foreign oil.”

At the same time, however, some Republicans rabidly oppose biofuels. Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, running to unseat Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Indiana), on a number of occasions has made the assertion that ethanol increases the price of gasoline at the pump. Numerous studies prove the exact opposite. Hoosier Ag Today called Mourdock on the claim, adding: “Senator Richard Lugar has been a steadfast supporter of Indiana’s ethanol and agricultural industries. As a farmer, Senator Lugar acutely understands its importance to working families and rural communities.”

Some of the arguments made by opponents of biofuels are lifted straight from the 1970s, when the petroleum industry opposed the switch to unleaded fuels. If you listen carefully to this recent interview with an Orlando, Florida, lady about a car she’s owned since 1964, you’ll hear her complain about the reduced gas mileage after switching from leaded to unleaded gas. It took more than 20 years for the fuel industry to phase lead completely out of gasoline, but it was worthwhile – it cut lead poisoning in the United States by half.
Just like the switch to unleaded gas, we need to switch to biofuels. We’ve started to make progress toward energy independence and need to finish the job.

Flying Planes with Biofuels

Posted under Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, aviation biofuels, biofuel, biofuels, Biofuels & Climate Change, Blog, Companies, Diagnostics, Funding, Medical Devices, Medical Supply, military biofuel, Pharmaceuticals, Startups, Universities, Videos by biotechnow@bio.org (Biotechnology Industry Organization)

By Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack

Not everyone knows it, but most Americans use biofuels to help power their car or truck every day.  Using biofuels we produce here at home creates jobs, raises incomes for farmers, and saves us all money.  The ethanol mixed into the gas we buy at the pump saved American drivers almost 90 cents per gallon last year.
Moving forward, we’ll see Americans running their cars with more biofuels mixed into the gas – like E85, a mix with 85 percent ethanol.  And USDA will help install thousands of new pumps at gas stations so drivers can pick the sort of fuel they want.
And it’s not just car and truck owners who can benefit from renewable biofuels.  Biofuels can be used in all sorts of engines and planes are getting into the act as well.
This month, two major U.S. airlines flew the first commercial passenger flights powered by biofuels, including a cross country flight from Seattle to Washington DC.  Airlines are looking for reliable, affordably-priced fuel.  They hope that using biofuels will limit the impact that unpredictable gas prices have on their bottom-line, making them more profitable while also limiting their impact on global climate change.
Passenger and cargo airlines in America spend about $50 billion on fuel each year.  If just a fraction of those billions are used to purchase American-produced aviation biofuels, we’ll create thousands of good-paying jobs, particularly in our rural communities.  That’s why, earlier this month, USDA announced support for a facility that will begin the process of turning algae into jet fuel and create 60 jobs.
What’s more, USDA has made important investments on aviation biofuels research and development to help universities and private firms expand and improve production.  And we are partnered with the Department of Energy and the U.S. Navy to work towards using biofuels in our military planes and strengthen our national security.
In the years to come using new sources of renewable energy to fuel our cars, trucks and even our planes will be a game-changer: reducing the influence that foreign nations have in setting our fuel prices, driving economic growth, and creating jobs across the country.

Vilsack Biofuels for Aviation