In a setback for global industry, a European Parliament panel strengthened a landmark bill that would more tightly regulate chemicals in the European Union before sending it toward final passage.

The petrochemical industry had been trying to reduce the estimated $6.3 billion cost of complying with the new law over the next decade by asking the EU to accept chemical-safety and environmental data already submitted to other regulatory bodies. That would have reduced the number of expensive new tests.

The EU Parliament's environmental committee rejected an amendment from a conservative Dutch lawmaker that would have required the EU to accept data prepared for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, of Paris, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other chemical regulators.

The text of the law - dubbed Reach for &ldquo registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals&rdquo - already encourages the EU to make use of OECD data. The National Petrochemical Refiners Association, based in Washington, had lobbied in Brussels to remove any ambiguity about whether such data would meet EU standards.

Nineteen of the 25 EU countries already participate in a detailed chemical evaluation program run by the OECD. &ldquo We don't think it's necessary t reinvent the wheel&rdquo and require the submission of more data, said Alexander Lambsdorff, a German parliamentarian who backed the unsuccessful measure.

Justin Wilkes, an analyst for WWF (formerly known as the World Wildlife Fund), an environmental organization that is lobbying hard for the proposed law, said the parliamentary amendment would have gutted it. &ldquo What the OECD requires is not enough information,&rdquo he said. &ldquo It undermines a key tenet of Reach, which is supposed to put the burden on companies to produce higher-quality information.&rdquo

On one of the most hard-fought points, the environmental panel also voted to require companies to substitute safer chemicals whenever possible in manufacturing process. &ldquo It is an incentive [for companies] to look at more possible substitutes and eco-friendly alternatives,&rdquo said Guido Sacconi, the Italian Socialist shepherding the legislation through Parliament.

While the panel's actions aren't final, they will be tough for industry to reverse at this stage. After three years of debate, final details of the chemical legislation will likely be hammered out in negotiations between Parliament and individual EU governments before coming back to the full EU Parliament for a final vote. Finland's government, which holds the rotating EU presidency, has said it would like to pass a final version before its term expires at the end of this year.

Flexibility is range of motion around your joints. There are two types of flexibility. Static flexibility - how far you can stretch and hold a body part and dynamic flexibility - how much range of motion you have when you move. Both are important and you need a flexibility program that incorporates slow dynamic movements like Tai Chi, as well as static stretches like Yoga or Stretching routines.

Muscle fibers can become misaligned during normal movement. Our muscles produce chemical waste products when they work. These chemicals need to be eliminated so they don't build up and cause aches and soreness.

Also, as we age, are connective tissues tendons and ligaments tend to shorten and become stiffer. That's why we become shorter and less flexible as we grow older. These connective tissues require as much maintenance as our muscles do. Stretching helps maintain them.

Muscles can't stretch themselves they only know how to contract and relax.

In a perfect world that would be enough but the fact is relaxed muscles never completely relax because there are neurological receptors in our muscles and connective tissues that keep them poised for action like a racecar at the starting line.

This is a good thing because it keeps us upright while standing and our heads from falling into our plates when we eat our dinner.

Muscles are bundles of protein fibers sort of like bunches of elastic celery. They are attached to bones on both ends by a network of tough connective tissues called tendons. Tendons are neither bone nor muscle. Although tendons are somewhat elastic, they can only be stretched about 4%. Muscles on the other hand are capable of stretching over 50% of their normal length.

When we stretch a muscle and deliberately hold it for a few seconds, proprioceptors in the tendons, called gogi tendon organs, tell the muscle to relax, not contract and we are able to hold the stretch and even stretch out a little further.

So start your stretching with a little Tai Chi -like movement to lubricate your joints and raise your core body temperature then do static stretches. Hold the stretch for a few seconds to allow those gogi tendon organs to kick in and then try to stretch and hold a bit further.

There's more to stretching than just flexibility. Stretching is a form of meditation that creates a sense of well-being and promotes peace of mind. One finishes a routine with a more positive outlook as well as the feeling that your body is more alive, more accessible to you.

Stretching can slow down your aging clock and help you stay fabulous forever.
------


Mirabai Holland M.F.A. is one of the leading authorities in the Health and Fitness industry. She is Director of Fitness and Wellness Programs at the 92nd Street Y in NYC. Her practice specializes in preventive and rehabilitative exercise for women. Her Moving Free approach to exercise is designed to provide a movement experience so pleasant it doesn't feel like work.
------

Moving Free Longevity Solution Flexibility Level 1 is a NEW RELEASE.
Moving Free Longevity Solution Flexibility Level 1 will introduce you to Mirabai's signature Moving Free Technique. You'll enjoy the deep relaxation and feeling of well-being of full body stretching.
You'll feel that youthful flexibility return to you as you melt stress and gain core strength. This is the third in Mirabai's Moving Free Longevity Solution Series.
Retail Price: $19.95
Be sure to consider Moving Free Longevity Solution Cardio Dance Level 1 by Mirabai Holland.

Ken Caldeira has a big idea. Really big. At a grim Washington conference on the melting Arctic, the acclaimed global ecologist took the stage not to spell out the effects of global warming but to prescribe a way of " fixing" them.

Caldeira says it's possible to halt the Arctic melt by regularly spraying sulfates into the stratosphere over the North Pole that would deflect anywhere from 10 to 20 percent of the sun's rays over the region-enough to cool the polar cap down so that ice could rebuild to preindustrial levels. " This is the kind of thing that is technically feasible," Caldeira announced.

Really? Once dismissed as wacky, dangerous, or outright impossible, radical geoengineering schemes like Caldeira's are garnering serious consideration from many of the world's most eminent scientists. The impetus: " predictions that we are heading toward catastrophe," says John Latham of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Latham and others say " sci-fi" -sounding solutions shouldn't replace efforts to cut harmful emissions. But scientists increasingly believe that transforming the world's energy system from fossil fuels to clean energy is a staggering task that will require decades of work and trillions of dollars. The idea behind geoengineering " is to hold the Earth's temperature constant as kind of a stopgap to buy us some time," Latham says.

Crisis. The concept got a boost in August when Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, published an essay supporting research, noting that the demand for geoengineering ideas will grow as the global warming crisis deepens. Research now will allow " dangerous ideas to be seen as such and meritorious ones to develop further."

The hubbub over geoengineering comes as the Bush administration released a report last month outlining the White House's principal strategy in the fight against global warming: research on new technology. Three years overdue, the 244-page " Climate Change Technology Program Strategic Plan" touts $29 billion in government programs that include tax credits for hybrid vehicles, energy efficiency mandates for appliances, support for renewable fuels, capturing and storing carbon in geologic formations, and $1 billion for the FutureGen program-a government-industry collaboration to build the world's first coal-fired power plant that is nearly emission free. In testimony before the House Subcommittee on Energy, the program's director, Stephen Eule, hailed the report as a key element of President Bush's " robust and flexible climate change policy."

But upon its release, the report was widely derided by critics, including many congressional Republicans, as being too little, too late. " What we essentially got was an inventory of things as they are now rather than a strategic plan for the future," says Republican Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, chair of the House Science Committee. Rep. Tom Davis, who heads the House Government Reform Committee, blasted the program as a paper tiger, saying it lacks a full-time director or any budgetary authority, noting that nearly all of the billions of dollars cited in the report are controlled by other agencies, like the Department of Energy. So the program has little power, Davis says, to coordinate and implement plans to bring technologies to market. In his opening statement at a CCTP hearing last month, Davis also noted, " Climate solutions that lie outside of existing technology, such as geoengineering ... remain unaddressed."

A number of scientists are practically knocking down the door with geoengineering solutions. Advancing an idea once worked on by the father of the hydrogen bomb, Edward Teller, atmospheric scientist and Nobel Prize-winner Paul Crutzen believes Earth's temperature could be quickly brought down by spraying pollution into the atmosphere on a global scale. He issued a paper earlier this year pointing out that heavy artillery could fire rockets into the stratosphere. Once there, emissions from a special fuel would convert into sunlight-reflecting sulfate particles.

Latham has his own plan: a fleet of unmanned vessels, powered mostly by wind, that skim the ocean surface spraying salt water into clouds to enhance their reflectivity. Another suggestion is a balloon-suspended tube, or chimney, perhaps 10 miles long, that blows particulate pollution from factories or utility plants directly into the stratosphere that pollution would also reflect sunlight. Roger Angel, a professor of optical sciences and astronomy at the University of Arizona, is studying an idea that's been around for more than 20 years: hanging a sunshade in space at the point where the gravitational pull is balanced between the Earth and the sun. Angel proposes using thin, transparent ceramic film that would hang as a cloud in space, deflecting enough solar radiation to keep global warming in check. Sound expensive? Try a few trillion dollars. " We'd have to get down launch costs," Angel admits. If only they gave Nobel Prizes for understatement.

Risks. In fact, every geoengineering design comes with significant pitfalls. Launching sulfate, a form of sulfur, into the stratosphere could cause ozone depletion and acid rain. Critics say Latham's plan would work on a regional level but might not provide the needed global benefits. Both would cost billions of dollars. More important, many scientists, including those who are cooking up geoengineering ideas, fear that such quick fixes would reduce the incentive to cut greenhouse gas emissions, which will continue to have adverse effects, such as ocean acidification. Alan Robock, a climatologist at Rutgers University, also points out that once these projects ended, global temperatures would skyrocket. " To keep the world's environment hostage [to these projects] is scary."

Maybe so, but don't expect them to be dismissed out of hand. Davis is promising more hearings on climate change technology, which will probably include further discussion of geoengineering schemes. There are signs that the executive branch is also getting interested in these controversial ideas. NASA is holding a closed-door conference on geoengineering in November, and Crutzen says he has received an inquiry about his proposal from the Department of Energy. " You know in science somewhere there are answers," Davis says. " But the clock is running."

Washington seems to be nearing a boiling point on global warming. In the past several weeks, Congress has held six hearings dealing with climate change, and rumors are percolating that the Bush White House is contemplating an emissions-reduction master plan of its own.

Scientists have been sounding alarms for years, so why the sudden push? One reason is the growing support of big business, which sees a chance for civic duty as well as big profits. Chief among them is chemical company DuPont, which has gone from environmental boogeyman to darling of the green movement by voluntarily slashing energy usage as well as greenhouse gas emissions-now 72 percent below 1990 levels.

In the process, DuPont has saved $3 billion and has increased business more than 30 percent. Guiding DuPont's green agenda is former Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Linda Fisher. As DuPont's chief sustainability officer, Fisher represented the company in its second consecutive appearance at the Clinton Global Initiative in September in New York, where she promoted the future of biofuels and energy conservation.

DuPont committed to reducing its energy consumption long before it was fashionable. Why?

It wasn't just energy. We focused on climate change back in the early '90s. DuPont was a primary manufacturer of CFCs [chlorofluorocarbons], so when it became clear they were having an impact on the ozone layer, DuPont got thrown in the middle of the discussion of phasing them out. The company learned two things: One was an awful lot about atmospheric science-we even hired an atmospheric scientist, which gave us a leading edge on understanding greenhouse gases-and secondly, we realized the impacts that these issues can have on your bottom line. Understanding this led us to take action on climate change earlier than a lot of other companies. We started the process of inventorying our emissions around 1990.

How did you reduce?

There wasn't one big, sexy thing. It was a plant-by-plant, process-by-process assessment of becoming more efficient. We use cogeneration when we can, where you produce energy from one source, like waste steam, and use it to power another. Another goal is to get 10 percent of our energy from renewable resources-like methane gas from landfills-to process our plants.

Your plants are located on landfills?

To make it cost effective you've got to be close. But it doesn't create any odor problems that I'm familiar with. If anything, we have found a lot of enthusiasm around our company for our greenhouse gas goals.

There's a lot of debate about whether you can really grow the economy and protect the Earth at the same time.

We've saved about $3 billion over the past 15 years from our conservation steps. That's important, serious money. We see growth opportunities because new products, new fuels, new materials are going to be needed for our society to make it more energy efficient. DuPont sees that opportunity as an exciting one for the company.

Your company is introducing a new fuel called biobutanol. Does this mean DuPont is getting into the energy business?

Yes, we absolutely see the biofuels market as an important one to play in. We've been doing a lot of RandD, and we've partnered with [oil company] BP. We think the growth of alternative fuels-biofuels particularly-is going to be big. [Biobutanol] can be transported through a pipeline, it can be mixed with ethanol, and it can be mixed with diesel. We also see growth opportunities in photovoltaics, materials for solar panels.

Big players like DuPont, Goldman Sachs, and BP are all calling for action on climate change. What role will business play in prodding Washington on this issue?

I think the challenges of developing a workable policy in a way that will lead to economic growth and deal with environmental issues will require the best minds in government and industry. It is unlike any other environmental challenge that we have tackled because it is so multifaceted.

By pouring money into solar panels, biofuels, and energy efficiency products, is DuPont betting on a change in the world's main energy resources?

Absolutely. We need to change our fuel mix, but we also need to become more fuel efficient, more energy efficient. Our new biofuels business is a good example. And next year we will begin to operate a plant where we will make a polymer from corn as opposed to petroleum. It can be used in carpets and fabrics.

Is the world ready to start wearing corn-based clothing?

Well, there used to be natural fabric people, and there used to be synthetic fiber people. Now we're going to have something for everyone. We've taken it full circle.

Ultralow-sulfur diesel fuel will start hitting U.S. fuel pumps this month, opening the door for auto makers to expand the use of European diesel technology in U.S. cars and light trucks.

The Bush administration and the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, yesterday hailed the expected arrival Sunday of ultralow-sulfur diesel fuels and the potential for modern diesel engines to use such fuels to help the U.S. reduce its oil consumption. The new diesel contains 97% less sulfur than the old version, officials said, emitting only 15 parts per million of sulfur, compared with 500 parts per million.

Auto makers -- particularly those that have made substantial investments in diesel-engine technology for Europe -- are gearing up to try to take advantage of the arrival of ultralow-sulfur diesel fuel in the U.S., the world's largest single auto market. The exhaust-scrubbing technology that auto makers have developed to attack the soot and other pollutants that tarnished diesel's reputation in the U.S. needs almost sulfur-free fuel to work properly.

Strict State Rules
DaimlerChrysler AG's Mercedes-Benz brand will start selling its diesel-powered E320 Bluetec sedan in 45 states starting next week. The current model bests the stringent federal emissions standard but falls short of the standard in five states. Mercedes says it will offer further Bluetec models that will meet standards in all 50 states as early as 2008.

" Fuel that's cleaner initially, that's the key to getting more diesels on the road and also meeting emissions requirements," said Mercedes spokesman Rob Moran.

Volkswagen AG, currently the top seller of diesel-engine passenger cars in the U.S., plans to offer new diesel models in 2008 that will meet emissions standards in all states. Other auto makers, including Japan's Honda Motor Co. and U.S. market leader General Motors Corp., have recently announced plans to offer clean-running light-vehicle diesels for the U.S. market over the next two to three years.

Under the rollout, 80% of diesel pumped at U.S. retail stations must be the new ultralow-sulfur type. Officials said they expect as much as 90% of new diesel deliveries to be of the new variety. Ultralow-sulfur diesel will be the only diesel fuel allowed beginning in 2010.

" Diesel is the invisible force that moves the American economy, but until now it has also been a big polluter," said Richard Kassel, head of the NRDC's clean fuels and vehicles project. " Combining the new fuel with cleaner and more energy-efficient engines will mean healthier air and reduce our dependence on oil."

Environmental Protection Agency officials also predicted significant long-term health benefits, including $150 billion in annual health-care and welfare-related savings and 20,000 fewer premature deaths each year.

Until now, diesel has primarily powered trucks and buses in the U.S. Diesel trucks move more than 18 million tons of the nation's freight a day, according to the NRDC. About 14 million Americans ride half a million diesel buses to work and school, the group says.

Pollution vs. Mileage
Diesel has historically been viewed as an environmental problem because burning it produces more pollutants than gasoline. But diesel engines get better mileage than gasoline engines.

Now, Americans could see more diesel engines in passenger cars. Researchers at J.D. Power and Associates predict diesel sales will nearly triple in the next 10 years because of the engine's fuel efficiency -- typically 20% to 40% more miles per gallon than gasoline engines.

In Europe, diesel cars account for nearly half of the car market. In the U.S., diesel-powered passenger cars and light trucks are a niche market, despite recent efforts by VW and DaimlerChrysler to reignite interest in their European diesel engines.

Cost is an issue. In North America, diesel engines could add $2,000 to passenger-car prices, and possibly more, said Charles Freese, GM's executive director of diesel engineering. In addition, after-treatment technology to address nitrous oxide and particulate emissions can run thousands of dollars, he said.

Large markets such as California and New York have tough emissions standards that many auto makers cannot yet meet. That will remain a major hurdle for production of new diesel-engine vehicles. Toyota, for example, doesn't plan any diesel rollouts in the near future because of those strict standards and will instead stick to its well-selling hybrid vehicles, said Wade Hoyt, a spokesman for Toyota Motor Corp. Toyota does sell diesel-powered passenger cars in Europe.

WASHINGTON -- The Food and Drug Administration released proposed guidelines on how to regulate genetically engineered animals, in a move that is expected to pave the way for them to enter the food supply.

The biotech industry has long sought to use such technology on fish, pigs, cattle and other animals to produce ones that grow faster or possess desirable traits, such as high fiber content or resistance to illnesses such as mad-cow disease.

According to BIO, a biotechnology trade group, there could be as many as two dozen applications to sell genetically engineered animals already pending before the FDA. One submitted by a Massachusetts developer is for an Atlantic salmon.

Under the proposal, the FDA would require regulatory approval before any genetically engineered animals could be sold as food. The FDA would seek to ensure that any genetic modification was safe for the animal, did what the producer claims, and didn't pose any risk for human consumption. Regulators said they won't require human trials to test the safety of eating genetically modified animals.

" This is a cutting-edge technology that has significant implications, including real benefits, not just for human health, but also for animal health, such as developing disease-resistant animals," said Bernadette Dunham, director of the agency's Center for Veterinary Medicine.

The public has 60 days to comment on the proposal.

Genetically engineered animals are created by inserting a desired gene into the DNA of an animal, or otherwise manipulating relevant genes, to add new traits. The technology is already used in other areas, such as the production of insulin and the development of pest-resistant crops. The food industry uses some genetically engineered microorganisms to aid in baking, brewing and cheese making.

The FDA said it isn't planning to require food makers to notify consumers if products contain ingredients from genetically engineered animals or their offspring. Companies would be required to tell consumers about any changes in food composition, such as when pork from genetically engineered pigs contains higher level of the heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids.

The biotech industry, which has worked with the FDA for a decade on the issue, welcomed the proposed guidelines. Barbara Glenn, managing director of animal biotechnology at BIO, said the " extremely strict" approval process will help boost consumer confidence and standardize the process. " We hope this spurs the approval of the first product in the United States," she said.

Consumer groups said the guidelines don't go far enough to address possible safety, environmental or other risks, such as if an animal escapes and breeds with nonmodified animals.

" This is a first step for the federal government, but the new guidelines won't address all the problems it poses," said Gregory Jaffe, biotechnology director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer group in Washington.

Jaydee Hanson, policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety, another consumer group, said he is worried that, as with drug trials, consumers may be kept in the dark until a food animal is approved. He suggested that at least in the first cases, the FDA should subject the applications to peer review. He also took issue with the agency's plan not to require special labeling on food with ingredients from genetically engineered animals.

FDA officials said they will review each application, hold advisory-committee meetings and monitor the new food animals for safety after they are approved.

The FDA expects to waive premarket approval for certain animals used in research, or not as food, such as it did with a genetically engineered fish that glows in the dark. Officials said they intend to regulate separately such animals used to produce drugs for humans or animals.

Before the ceremony&hellip

The Ketubah
The Jewish tradition of the ketubah (the marriage contract) is over two thousand years old. Before the ceremony, the ketubah is signed in the presence of witnesses. The text of out ketubah describes our commitment to each other and our promises for our future life in family.

The Ceremony&hellip

The Kippah
The kippah (yarmulke) is the Jewish head covering. It is worn as a sign of respect during ceremonies.

The Chuppah
The chuppah (wedding canopy) is intended to create an intimate, sanctified space symbolizing the home that the bride and groom will share together. The sides are left open to signify that all friends and family are welcome into their new life and home.

The Wine
During our ceremony we share a glass of wine from a Kiddush cup (ceremonial cup). The sweetness of the wine represents the sweetness of our love for each other.

The Rings
In the Jewish religion, it is customary to get married in plain wedding bands without any ornate detail. For purposes of exchanging our vows, the groom will be getting married the bride's grandpa's wedding band and the bride will getting married in the groom's grandma's wedding band.

The Breaking of the Glass
A broken glass cannot be mended. Like wise, marriage is irrevocable. It is a transforming experience that leaves individuals forever changed. While there are many other interpretations of this practice, it signals an end to the ceremony with shouts of &ldquo Mazel Tov!&rdquo (Congratulations!)

Step outside and discover how to make your grass greener--without chemical pesticides, fertilizers, and a gazillion gallons of water. Natural pesticides and herbicides keep chemicals off your lawn, making it safer for kids, pets, and even earthworms. Where pesticides are regularly applied, 60% to 90% of earthworms, whose job is to keep the soil healthy, are killed. Fifty to seventy percent of water in the average home goes to lawn-and-garden care, so consider using native plants or ones that are specially chosen for your local climate and soil types, combined with savvy irrigation techniques. The result is a low-stress but lush landscape that can reduce outdoor water use by up to 60%.

+ Three to grow on

§ High Country Gardens
highcountrygardens.com
Nursery specializing in xeriscape-friendly plants for dry climates.

§ Safety Source for Pest Management
beyondpesticides.org/safetysource
A 40-state directory of non- or least-toxic pest-control providers.

§ Companion Planting
ghorganics.com/page2.html
Golden Harvest Organics' Web site provides a guide to plants that naturally repel specific pests.

Eco-Impact
If 10,000 people switch to nontoxic pest control, we'd get rid of the weight of 1,708 plastic pink flamingos a year in synthetic pesticides.

Potential Problem at Two Baltimore Pharmacies.
http://www.fda.gov/consumer/updates/baltimorepharmacies081108.html

Living with Fibromyalgia, Drugs Approved to Manage Pain.
http://www.fda.gov/consumer/updates/fibromyalgia062107.html

Stronger Warnings Requested for Fluoroquinolones.
http://www.fda.gov/consumer/updates/fluoroquinolone070908.html

No one with any scientific sense now disagrees about the severity of the climate crisis. But some people &mdash and some magazines &mdash believe that climate change trumps every other problem. If we take this argument to its extreme, we should ignore any environmental concern that gets in the way of reducing emissions. And that's just plain wrong.
Make no mistake: Tackling climate change is vital. But to see everything through the lens of short-term CO2 reductions, letting our obsession with carbon blind us to the bigger picture, is to court catastrophe.
Climate change is not a discrete issue it's a symptom of larger problems. Fundamentally, our society as currently designed has no future. We're chewing up the planet so fast, in so many different ways, that we could solve the climate problem tomorrow and still find that environmental collapse is imminent. Myopic responses will only hasten its arrival.
Take the proposal that we cut down old trees in favor of new ones. First, I don't buy the carbon accounting presented to advance this procrustean plan: Older trees can absorb CO2 for centuries after reaching maturity, while replanted forests can emit more CO2 than they sequester until the new trees are as much as 20 years old.
But even if wired's math were correct, this would still be a crap fix for climate change. Chopping down forests causes massive soil erosion and leads to desertification, making repeated tree plantings a dodgy prospect. As monocultures, tree farms are far more vulnerable to pest infestations. And batches of trees planted at the same time are more susceptible to wildfires, causing the carbon they're supposed to be sequestering to go up in smoke.
Old-growth forests, coupled with a broad program of woodlands restoration and sustainable forestry, can provide not only climate relief and ecologically responsible wood and biomass harvests but a slew of other essential ecological services, from salmon habitats to flood prevention. It's a heck of a lot more costly &mdash in both money and emissions &mdash to build massive dams and fish farms than to simply protect the forests we already have.
Another example of how carbon blindness leads to counterproductive policies: embracing nuclear power as a clean energy source. This argument assumes that other clean alternatives will not improve in efficiency or affordability during the 10 years it would take to implement a nuclear program. That's short-term thinking. If we invested the money that we would spend on new nuclear facilities more wisely (and eliminated subsidies on fossil fuels), alternatives like wind, solar, hydroelectric, and wave power could deliver a clean-energy future more cheaply and probably sooner, without any of the security or health risks of nuclear plants. Nuclear power may have a role to play, but it would be far better to create a flexible energy system that draws on many clean sources, instead of on a single panacea. Again, a cut-carbon-at-all-costs approach blinds us to more-sustainable, and ultimately more-promising, solutions.
To have any hope of staving off collapse, we need to move forward with measures that address many interrelated problems at once. We're not going to persuade people in the developing world to go without, but neither can we afford a planet on which everyone lives like an American. Billions more people living in suburbs and driving SUVs to shopping malls is a recipe for planetary suicide. We can't even afford to continue that way of life ourselves.
We don't need a War on Carbon. We need a new prosperity that can be shared by all while still respecting a multitude of real ecological limits &mdash not just atmospheric gas concentrations, but topsoil depth, water supplies, toxic chemical concentrations, and the health of ecosystems, including the diversity of life they depend upon.
We can build a future in which technology, design, smart incentives, and wise policies make it possible to deliver a high quality of life at lower ecological cost. But that brighter, greener future is attainable only if we embrace the problems we face in all their complexity. To do otherwise is tantamount to clear-cutting the very future we're trying to secure.

Inconvenient Truth

Here we have an environmental article that the major news outlets and science cable shows will never show the public. Why? Because this truth is truly inconvenient. The world is being fed a daily dose of global warming hog wash, controlled by radical environmentalist, Hollywood and who else, Al Gore.

We at www.infinitehealthresources.com strongly support organic foods and agree global warming is an issue. However, a common sense approach is rarely discussed.

The Kyoto Treaty, ethanol and Chemtrails are all disastrous results of poor or suppressed reasearch led by fanatics.

I may not agree with some of what is mentioned in Wired's article, but it is refreshing to see another viewpoint.

Maybe this is the beginning of some real discussion.

Please read on.

Inconvenient Truths
In the age of climate change, what matters most is cutting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. That means rethinking everything you evr learned about being green. The war on greenhouse gases is too important to be left to the environmentalists. There, We Said It.

The environmental movement has never been short on noble goals. Preserving wild spaces, cleaning up the oceans, protecting watersheds, neutralizing acid rain, saving endangered species &mdash all laudable. But today, one ecological problem outweighs all others: global warming. Restoring the Everglades, protecting the Headwaters redwoods, or saving the Illinois mud turtle won't matter if climate change plunges the planet into chaos. It's high time for greens to unite around the urgent need to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
Just one problem. Winning the war on global warming requires slaughtering some of environmentalism's sacred cows. We can afford to ignore neither the carbon-free electricity supplied by nuclear energy nor the transformational potential of genetic engineering. We need to take advantage of the energy efficiencies offered by urban density. We must accept that the world's fastest-growing economies won't forgo a higher standard of living in the name of climate science &mdash and that, on the way up, countries like India and China might actually help devise the solutions the planet so desperately needs.
Some will reject this approach as dangerously single-minded: The environment is threatened on many fronts, and all of them need attention. So argues Alex Steffen. That may be true, but global warming threatens to overwhelm any progress made on other issues. The planet is already heating up, and the point of no return may be only decades away. So combating greenhouse gases must be our top priority, even if that means embracing the unthinkable. Here, then, are 10 tenets of the new environmental apostasy.

Live in Cities:
To many Americans, ecological nirvana is a bucolic existence surrounded by wilderness. But the Thoreauvian desire for more elbow room has led to sprawl, malls, and cougar attacks. The edge-city upshot is a national cadre of 3.5 million " extreme commuters," who spend more than three hours a day in transit, many of them spewing carbon dioxide between exurb home and city office. Automobile exhaust in the US contributes roughly 1.9 billion tons a year to the global carbon cloud, more than the emissions of India, Japan, or Russia. Even worse are the 40 million lawn mowers used to tame the suburban backcountry: Each spews 11 cars' worth of pollutants per hour.
The fact is, urban living is kinder to the planet, and Manhattan is perhaps the greenest place in the US. A Manhattanite's carbon footprint is 30 percent smaller than the average American's. The rate of car ownership is among the lowest in the country 65 percent of the population walks, bikes, or rides mass transit to work. Large apartment buildings are the most efficient dwellings to heat and cool.
And guess what high-speed means of transportation emits less atmospheric carbon than trains, planes, and automobiles? The humble counterweight elevator put into service in 1857, which has made vertical density possible from Dubai to Taipei.
A/C is OK:
As a symbol of American profligacy, the air conditioner may rank second only to the automobile. Energy-sucking AC props up an unsustainable lifestyle in scorching desert cities like Phoenix, while the cheerful New Englander splitting wood and tending his potbelly stove is the epitome of ecological harmony MDASH so goes the green cant. But this stereotype gets it wrong. When it's 0 degrees outside, you've got to raise the indoor thermometer to 70 degrees. In 110-degree weather, you need to change the temperature by only 40 degrees to achieve the same comfort level. Since air-conditioning is inherently more efficient than heating (that is, it takes less energy to cool a given space by 1 degree than to heat it by the same amount), the difference has big implications for greenhouse gases.
In the Northeast, a typical house heated by fuel oil emits 13,000 pounds of CO2 annually. Cooling a similar dwelling in Phoenix produces only 900 pounds of CO2 a year. Air-conditioning wins on a national scale as well. Salving the summer swelter in the US produces 110 million metric tons of CO2 annually. Heating the country releases nearly eight times more carbon over the same period. Meanwhile, chilly Northeasterners can at least take heart in one thing: With global warming you can turn the heat down.

Organics Are Not the Answer:
The path to virtue, we all know, begins with organics. Meat, milk, fruit, veggies &mdash organic products are good for our bodies and good for the planet. Except when they're not good for the planet. Because while there may be sound health reasons to avoid eating pesticide-laden food, and perhaps personal arguments for favoring the organic-farmers' collective, the truth is that when it comes to greenhouse gases, organics can be part of the problem.
Take milk. Dairy cows raised on organic feed aren't pumped full of hormones. That means they produce less milk per Holstein &mdash about 8 percent less than conventionally raised cattle. So it takes 25 organic cows to make as much milk as 23 industrial ones. More cows, more cow emissions. But that's just the beginning. A single organically raised cow puts out 16 percent more greenhouse gases than its counterpart. That double whammy &mdash more cows and more emissions per cow &mdash makes organic dairies a cog in the global warming machine.
How about that burger? Organic beef steers take longer to achieve slaughter weight, which gives them more time to emit polluting methane. And if you're eating hamburgers made from grass-fed cattle, don't award yourself any prizes just yet. While pastured beef offers some environmental benefit &mdash these cows don't require carbon-intensive corn for feed, and the land they graze stores carbon more efficiently than land used for crops or left alone &mdash they're burping up nearly twice as much methane as cattle fed grain diets, according to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization. If you really want to adopt a climate-friendly diet, cut out meat entirely. Researchers at the University of Chicago showed that the meat-intensive diet of the average American generates 1.5 more tons of greenhouse gases per year than the diet of a vegetarian.
But even organic fruits and veggies are a mixed bushel: Organic fertilizers deliver lower-than-average yields, so those crops require more land per unit of food. And then there's the misplaced romanticism. Organic isn't just Farmer John it's Big Ag. Plenty of pesticide-free foods are produced by industrial-scale farms and then shipped thousands of miles to their final destination. The result: refrigerator trucks belching carbon dioxide.
Organic produce can be good for the climate, but not if it's grown in energy-dependent hothouses and travels long distances to get to your fridge. What matters is eating food that's locally grown and in season. So skip the prewashed bag of organic greens trucked from two time zones away &mdash the real virtue may come from that conventionally farmed head of lettuce grown in the next county.

Farm the Forests:
Ronald Reagan's infamous claim that " trees cause more pollution than automobiles" contained a grain of truth. In warm weather, trees release volatile chemicals that act as catalysts for smog. But the Gipper didn't mention another point that's even more likely to make nature lovers blanch. When it comes to fighting climate change, it's more effective to treat forests like crops than like majestic monuments to nature.
Over its lifetime, a tree shifts from being a vacuum cleaner for atmospheric carbon to an emitter. A tree absorbs roughly 1,500 pounds of CO2 in its first 55 years. After that, its growth slows, and it takes in less carbon. Left untouched, it ultimately rots or burns and all that CO2 gets released.
Last year, the Canadian government commissioned a study to determine the quantity of carbon sequestered by the country's woodlands, which account for a tenth of global forests. It hoped to use the CO2-gathering power of 583 million acres of woods to offset its Kyoto Protocol-mandated responsibility to cut greenhouse gas emissions. No such luck. The report found that during many years, Canadian forests actually give up more carbon from decomposing wood than they lock down in new growth.
A well-managed tree farm acts like a factory for sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere, so the most climate-friendly policy is to continually cut down trees and plant new ones. Lots of them. A few simple steps: Clear the oldest trees and then take out dead trunks and branches to prevent fires landfill the scrap. Plant seedlings and harvest them as soon as their powers of carbon sequestration begin to flag, and use the wood to produce only high-quality durable goods like furniture and houses. It won't make a glossy photo for the Sierra Club's annual report, but it will take huge amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere.

China is the Solution Not the Problem:
Pop quiz: Who's the volume dealer in alternative-energy hardware? If you said choking, smoking, coal-toking China, give yourself a carbon credit.
Consider solar cells, the least carbon-intensive option after nuclear, wind, and biomass, according to an analysis by the International Atomic Energy Agency. In 2007, photovoltaic factories in the People's Republic tripled production, grabbing 35 percent of the global market and making China the world's number one producer. How about rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, critical for superefficient electric vehicles? Chinese manufacturers will soon rule that world, too. Windmills? " Prepare for the onslaught of relatively inexpensive Chinese turbines," says Steve Sawyer, head of the Global Wind Energy Council. His forecast: China will produce enough gear to generate 10 gigawatts of power annually by 2010 &mdash more than half the capacity that the whole world installed in 2007.
China has three big reasons for jumping feetfirst into the carbon fight. Obviously, there's the threat of climate change &mdash flooding in China's coastal cities, drought in the country's interior. Second, there's political instability: Air and water pollution is already a flash point for public protests. And then there's the burgeoning export market for green products stamped made in china.
Will renovating the planet spur the first wave of homegrown Chinese tech innovation? Jeff Immelt, CEO of General Electric, thinks so. " China has as much or more at stake than anyone," he said at a recent corporate summit. " Solar energy, carbon sequestration &mdash we're going to be blown away by China's progress over the next couple of decades." If only they could clean up Beijing's air in time for the summer Olympics.

Accept Genetic Engineering:
Keeping 6 billion people fed boosts global warming more than all the world's cars, trucks, trains, ships, and planes put together. Agriculture accounts for almost 14 percent of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, according to the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. One response is to eat fewer of the two- and four-legged greenhouse gas factories known as animals. Before you send back that T-bone, though, call in the bioengineers.
Genomics experts have been optimizing food crops for decades, punching in traits for lower herbicide use, less tilling, and higher yields &mdash carbon cutters, all. But the fountainhead of agricultural emissions is nitrogen-based fertilizer, whose manufacture (mainly from natural gas) and poor take-up rates add up to nearly one-third of agriculture's contribution to global warming. Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta, along with a flotilla of venture-backed startups, are trying to change that. California-based Arcadia Biosciences is already peddling genes for nitrogen-efficient rice that the company reckons could save the equivalent of 50 million tons of carbon dioxide a year. Arcadia's CEO, a lifelong Sierra Club member, is working to get carbon credits for Chinese farmers who make the switch.
What some greens deride as Frankencrops are also the only serious hope for biofuels. Right now, their net carbon benefit is negligible. Corn engineered for high yields and low fertilizer will help, but even better will be plants under development whose stalks and leaves can easily be turned into fuel.
The plunging cost of gene synthesis should help bio geeks deliver on another big promise: a new economy in which biochemical reactions replace industrial processes. J. Craig Venter's Synthetic Genomics is working with BP on microorganisms that produce cleaner alternatives to gasoline. Rival Amyris Biotechnologies is working on bugs that make jet fuel. Meanwhile, the genetic engineers are cooking up climate-friendly meat without feet: The first symposium on lab-grown animal flesh met in Norway in April.

Carbon Trading Doesn't Work:
What a cool idea: Instead of reducing our own carbon emissions, we'll pay other people to reduce theirs. Win-win!
Not so fast. Carbon offsets &mdash and emissions-trading schemes, their industrial-scale siblings &mdash are the environmental version of subprime mortgages. They both started from some admirable premises. Developing countries like China and India need to be recruited into the fight against greenhouse gases. And markets are a better mechanism for change than command and control. But when those big ideas collide with the real world, the result is hand-waving at best, outright scams at worst. Moreover, they give the illusion that something constructive is being done.
A few fun facts: All the so-called clean development mechanisms authorized by the Kyoto Protocol, designed to keep 175 million tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere by 2012, will slow the rise of carbon emissions by ... 6.5 days. (That's according to Roger Pielke at the University of Colorado.) Depressed yet? Kyoto also forces companies in developed countries to pay China for destroying HFC-23 gas, even though Western manufacturers have been scrubbing this industrial byproduct for years without compensation. And where's the guarantee that the tree planted in Bolivia to offset $10 worth of air travel, for instance, won't be chopped down long before it absorbs the requisite carbon?
Nationally managed emissions-trading schemes could do a better job than Kyoto's we-are-the-world approach by adding legal enforcement and serious oversight. But many economists favor a simpler way: a tax on fossil fuels. A carbon tax would eliminate three classes of parasites that have evolved to fill niches created by the global climate protocol: cynical marketers intent on greenwashing, blinkered bureaucrats shoveling indulgences to powerful incumbents, and deal-happy Wall Streeters looking for a shiny new billion-dollar trading toy. Back to the drawing board, please.

Embrace Nuclear Power:
Look at the environmental protection agency's CO2-per-kilowatt-hour map of the US and two bright patches of low-carbon happiness jump out. One is the hydro-powered Pacific Northwest. The other is Vermont, where a 30-year-old nuclear reactor, Vermont Yankee, keeps the Ben and Jerry's cold. The darkest area corresponds to Washington, DC, where coal-fired power plants release 520 times more atmospheric carbon per megawatt-hour than their Vermont counterpart. That's right: 520 times. Jimmy Carter was right to turn down the heat in the White House.
There's no question that nuclear power is the most climate-friendly industrial-scale energy source. You can worry about radioactive waste or proliferating weapons. You can complain about the high cost of construction and decommissioning. But the reality is that every serious effort at carbon accounting reaches the same conclusion: Nukes win. Only wind comes close &mdash and that's when it's blowing. A UK government white paper last year factored in everything from uranium mining to plant decommissioning and determined that nuclear power emits 2 to 6 percent of the carbon per kilowatt-hour as natural gas, the cleanest of the fossil fuels.
Embracing the atom is key to winning the war on warming: Electric power generates 26 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions and 39 percent of the United States' &mdash it's the biggest contributor to global warming.1 One of the Kyoto Protocol's worst features is a sop to greens that denies carbon credits to power-starved developing countries that build nukes &mdash thereby ensuring they'll continue to depend on filthy coal.

Used Cars Not Hybrids:
In 2006, an Oregon market research firm released an incendiary 500-page report. Its claim: A Humvee (13 miles per gallon city, 16 highway) uses less energy than a Prius (48 city, 45 highway). Scientists quickly debunked the study, but the Hummer lovers got one thing right. Pound for pound, making a Prius contributes more carbon to the atmosphere than making a Hummer, largely due to the environmental cost of the 30 pounds of nickel in the hybrid's battery. Of course, the hybrid quickly erases that carbon deficit on the road, thanks to its vastly superior fuel economy.
Still, the comparison suggests a more sensible question. If a new Prius were placed head-to-head with a used car, would the Prius win? Don't bet on it. Making a Prius consumes 113 million BTUs, according to sustainability engineer Pablo Pä ster. A single gallon of gas contains about 113,000 Btus, so Toyota's green wonder guzzles the equivalent of 1,000 gallons before it clocks its first mile. A used car, on the other hand, starts with a significant advantage: The first owner has already paid off its carbon debt. Buy a decade-old Toyota Tercel, which gets a respectable 35 mpg, and the Prius will have to drive 100,000 miles to catch up.
Better yet, buy a three-cylinder, 49-horsepower 1994 Geo Metro XFi, one of the most fuel-efficient cars ever built. It gets the same average mileage as a 2008 Prius, so a new hybrid would never close the carbon gap. Sure, the XFi has no AC or airbags &mdash but nobody said saving the planet would be comfortable, or even safe.

Prepare for the Worst:
The awful truth is that some amount of climate change is a foregone conclusion. The Electric Power Research Institute in Palo Alto, California, calculates that even if the US, Europe, and Japan turned off every power plant and mothballed every car today, atmospheric CO2 would still climb from the current 380 parts per million to a perilous 450 ppm by 2070, thanks to contributions from China and India. (Do nothing and we'll get there by 2040.) In short, we're already at least lightly browned toast. It's time to think about adapting to a warmer planet.
This notion is one of the great green taboos: Climate change is a specter to be fought, not accommodated.Still, our ability to cope with global warming is far greater than our chances of stopping it entirely. Technology lets us build carbon-neutral houses 7,000 feet up in the Colorado Rockies. Monsanto and friends are engineering crops to withstand drought. For the hapless birds and bees, wildlife scientists are plotting what they call assisted migrations.
Still nervous? Then consider an even bigger taboo: geo-engineering. Invasive surgery on a planetary scale is getting attention from serious scientists, including Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen and National Academy of Sciences president Ralph Cicerone. Proposals include everything from costly, low-risk efforts (lofting a giant mirror into orbit) to cheap desperation moves (adulterating the stratosphere with reflective dust).
In his 1992 best seller, Earth in the Balance, Al Gore derided adaptation as " a kind of laziness, an arrogant faith in our ability to react in time to save our own skin." Better to take Stewart Brand's advice from the opening page of the original Whole Earth Catalog: " We are as gods and might as well get good at it." We're in charge here. Let's get to work.

Heartworm Prevention in Your Pet .
http://www.fda.gov/consumer/updates/heartworm061908.html

How to Dispose of Unused Medicines.
http://www.fda.gov/consumer/updates/drug_disposal062308.html

Should healthy eating be an issue for the courts? Obviously, dietary health is a personal choice. However, in today's busy world, many workingmen and women simply don't have the time to prepare their meals. This has resulted in an increasing national reliance on fast food and other restaurants and increasing rates of poor health.
Within the last decade, the courts have considered cases in which plaintiffs alleged that certain restaurants and food manufacturers should be held liable for the consequences of consuming their products. While this litigation has not always been successful, it has opened debate on the issues of health, responsible advertising, and whether the government needs to play a larger role in what people eat.
The landmark case against the fast food industry was a 2002 lawsuit Pellman v. McDonald's Corporation, in that class action lawsuit, four children who ate fast food regularly developed diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity. They argued that the restaurant was responsible for their health conditions because of their reliance on its claims that its food was healthy and nutritious. In addition, they alleged that the restaurant concealed the amount of calories and fat in each food item through dishonest and deceptive advertising campaigns. That case has not yet been resolved. However, it opened the door to other lawsuits and has been the impetus for both state and federal legislation.
In order to successfully prove the claim of product defect, a plaintiff must show that the product was unreasonable dangerous, or it failed to operate in the manner intended, that the plaintiff suffered an injury. These elements are difficult to show for fast food products. Specifically, it is difficult to prove that consumption of a certain food item such as a cheeseburger is the exclusive cause of weight gain or other health conditions. Moreover, plaintiffs who bring such cases often eat unhealthy food from different restaurants and sources. Therefore, it is difficult to establish a valid personal injury for a product defect case against a food manufacturer because the element of causation is unclear.
In order for a food case to be successful, it must successfully demonstrate that a company engaged in deceptive advertising practices that failed to warn consumers of the correct nutritional value of their products. Indeed, several lawsuits were settled out of court on this very claim. Fast food restaurants, ice cream manufacturers, cookie makers and even a diet food producer have all settled class actions lawsuits in which they were charged with misrepresenting the amount of fat and calories in their products for failing to reveal certain ingredients in their products that pose health risks.
In response to these lawsuits, some lawmakers have introduced legislation designed to prohibit civil liability claims against food makers. They argued that the courts are inappropriate for such action and the plaintiffs are responsible for their own consumption habits and choices. They have also asserted that reasonable consumers would not believe that fast food is healthy.
In 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act. This legislation, which is sometimes referred to as the &ldquo Cheeseburger Bill,&rdquo barred civil lawsuits against food manufacturers or restaurants for personal injury suffered by over-consumption of food products. In 2005, a similar bill was raised in the U.S. Senate. In each of those occasions, however, the introduced bills failed to pass in both houses of Congress. Part of the reason for the bills' failure is that some Congressman and Senators believed that is lawsuits against corporations were frivolous and lacked merit, then they would be dismissed by the courts before a trial. Therefore, a federal law prohibiting such lawsuits, in their view, was unnecessary.
There has been some successful legislation in the area of improving healthy options. One example is a city ordinance that prohibits restaurants from preparing foods with trans fats. These fats, which are often synthetic oil used for frying, can be substituted with more natural options. While this bill was initially met with resistance by some of the city's chefs, it has now been widely accepted. Other legislation includes a state law that prohibits sofa and junk food in schools.
Some of this legislation raises concerns of government imposition on people's freedom of choice. One proposed law would tax stores that sell soda in an effort to promote healthier living. When introduced, this bill was heavily criticized as an overly intrusive effort to control people's diets and freedom of choice.
Regardless of whether one believes such litigation is beneficial or frivolous, it has had the effect of encouraging the food industry to provide more accurate information about its products and even use healthier ingredients. This has allowed restaurant chains to avoid liability for personal injury and consumers to make more educated decisions about the food that they select.
Moreover, even though healthy eating and living is determined by personal choices, government intervention has played a role in food regulation. Traditionally this role has been limited to the government's involvement in ensuring that food services are sanitary. As a result of the fast food litigation, the government may pay greater attention to preventing food manufacturers from using ingredients that may be harmful, while still providing consumers with ability to choose the food that they desire without unreasonable interference into consumer freedom.

Learn more on the healthy lifestyle at www.infinitehealthresources.com

Food allergies among children are on the rise, spurring action in Congress to create guidelines for schools to protect students with allergies. The number of kids under age 5 with peanut allergies alone has doubled in 10 years, says a Duke Univ. study. Experts say society may have become too hygienic, so immune systems are weaker.

End

The last sentence does indeed say quite a bit. How is it that peanuts are destroying so many young lives? HOGWASH. Food allergies are the result of parents feeding McDonald's, Burger King, KFC and just about every other non-nutritious food out there.

The time has come for parents to wake up. Cook whole foods like vegetables, beans and whole grains. In six months to a year, the whole families health will improve. Try it. It's free and it works.

Learn more on the healthy lifestyle at www.infinitehealthresources.com

Beware of Online Cancer Fraud.
http://www.fda.gov/consumer/updates/cancerfraud061708.html

Warning for Regranex, Cream for Leg and Foot Ulcers.
http://www.fda.gov/consumer/updates/regranexcream061108.html

Technology: World leaders will meet this week in Rome to discuss how they'll deal with what they believe is a global food crisis. The answer is not so much in the fields or conference rooms as it is in the lab.

Of course the United Nations will make its usual pretense of doing something about food scarcity. There will be the typical special task forces, rhetorical flourishes, demands for international community service and First World sacrifice, guilt mongering and, of course, demonizing of America

All of which will feed exactly zero hungry bellies.

The way to feed the escalating world population is to grow more food and ensure it's delivered in a timely manner. While the latter is something that nations working together can do, the best way to achieve the former is to rely on science, the accumulation of human knowledge through the millennia. Technology has given us gifts that humanity cannot afford to turn down:

&bull By genetically modifying food crops, man can reap larger harvests per acre than through conventional farming. For instance, average corn production was 148 bushels per acre in 2005, but through technological advances, the average yield is expected to be 162 bushels per acre by 2010 and 173 by 2015.

Those might not look like big gains, but, in the U.S. alone, increasing output by just two bushels per acre will yield an additional 180 million or so bushels of corn.

&bull Increased production will lower prices.

&bull Genetically altering plants can make them resistant to the droughts, pest infestations and disease that destroy food production.

&bull Crops can be bioengineered to mature faster, shortening growing seasons and increasing the frequencies of harvests.

&bull Genetic modifications extend the shelf life of crops.

&bull Biotechnology is capable of making food more nutritious, as scientists are able to fortify crops with proteins, vitamins, minerals and disease-busting antioxidants.

More difficult than the science, though, will be the negotiating of political thickets that are filled with an irrational resistance to biotech foods and governments that will either steal the aid or block its delivery. The technology to feed a hungry world is here. We just have to apply it.