Don't Know If You're Eating GMOs? Then You Probably Are

Does this affect you? Consider that up to 90% of all major US grown crops are grown with genetically engineered seed (GMOs) and can be used in human and animal foods without any safety testing or labeling to let us know what’s been used.

This includes US GMO corn, soybeans, canola, and sugar-beets and cotton, which have made their way into approximately 80% of current US grocery store items. Don't know if you're eating GMOs? If you’re not buying organically produced foods or growing your own vegetables and raising your own animals for food, you’re probably eating genetically modified foods in most of the foods you’re consuming today.

In Europe, last week, officials ruled that the European Union's constituent countries could not independently ban genetically modified crops (GMOs). Paolo Mengozzi, Legal adviser to the European Court of Justice, ruled that only the EU itself could institute such bans. France and 5 other EU countries have put a blanket ban on GMOs citing safety concerns. “The French authorities could not suspend the cultivation of genetically-modified maize (MON 810) on national territory without having first asked the European Commission to adopt emergency measures citing a risk to health and the environment,” said Mengozzi.

Last month, for the first time, European judges allowed GMOs in small amounts as contaminants in other crops – such as imported GMO alfalfa.

Monsanto's MON 810 seed has been authorized for sale and cultivation in the EU's 27 member states since 1998. The license for MON810 corn is up for renewal this year, with pressure coming from both the sides. The US has been putting pressure on the EU to accept the planting of GM crops from US-based companies. France, Luxembourg, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and Greece have all blocked GMOs.

MON810 corn and the Amflora potato developed by BASF, are the only GMO seeds approved for farming in the EU. Dozens of GMOs, however, can be imported. The US has been lobbying hard to get all GMO restrictions removed in Europe, considering it an issue of unfair trade (with GMOs making up 95% of US corn and soybean production, it limits what the US can export).

Scientific testing has not been done on what effects GMOs may have on humans. What has been shown is that GMO foods contain excessive amounts of toxins, the effects of which have not been determined. Genetically modified foods also negatively impact the environment by creating more toxins and potentially leading to the creation of mutated soil bacteria that can lead to more harm regarding the future of food production.

The US Department of Agriculture statistics show that the majority of animal products produced in the US today are raised on confined feed lots, or CAFOs, are fed with genetically modified feed, and are injected with genetically engineered hormones and vaccines.

Genetically modified foods are grown so that crops can withstand repeated, heavy application of weed killers – and still survive and be turned into food. GMO crops were first introduced in the 1990s, and pesticide use has only increased – it hasn’t eliminated weeds or the need to reduce weeds. Instead, weeds have become stronger and our food has become more toxic.

US consumers are years behind in demanding the reversal of the use of GMOs. How safe do you feel knowing your government does not give you the right to choose which foods you will buy based on how they were grown?

Lack of truth in labeling takes away the consumer's choice to eat foods grown with genetically modified ingredients - there is no requirement by the US government to label GMO foods.

American's have right to know what is in their food, and food labeling is the most basic of requirements for consumers to be able to make a real choice. Ask your federal, state, and local politicians to commit to truth-in-labeling and your right to know as a consumer by supporting mandatory GMO labels on all foods.

Suggested Reading:
Scientific Facts on Genetically Modified Crops http://www.greenfacts.org/en/gmo/index.htm on 3/9/11
The Scary Side of Genetically Modified http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2008/09/25/the-scary-side-of-genetically-modified/ on 3/9/11

We Should All Be Concerned By Atlanta's Water Crisis

By Theodora Filis

In 2007 an unprecedented drought, lasting nearly three years, stretched across the southeastern United States forcing some of the region's largest cities to declare water emergencies. The situation became so serious that officials in Atlanta, where rainfall totals were more than 16 inches below normal, were worried they would run out of drinking-water.

David Stooksbury, a climatologist at Georgia State, classified the drought as “an exceptional drought... basically [it is] the type of drought that we expect to see about once in 100 years.”

When Lake Lanier reservoir, the main source of Atlanta’s water supply, shrank to historic lows in the midst of the drought, Georgia Governor Sonny Purdue called the drought “man-made,” and sought to halt or severely restrict water releases from Lake Lanier reservoir, directly threatening numerous aquatic species downstream, including endangered mussels and sturgeon. This crisis triggered litigation, and a water war, involving the states of Georgia, Florida, and Alabama.

Congress authorized 3 dams to be built along the Flint River in 1970, but then-Governor, Jimmy Carter, rejected the project when environmentalists opposed it.

Today, Georgia Governor, Nathan Deal, is promoting reservoirs to deal with some of the pressure on Lake Lanier, making Flint River dam opponents very nervous.

"We would lose the last undammed river as it crosses the fall line in Georgia," said Flint river keeper Gordon Rogers. "You get a mix of animals and plants (along the river) that is absolutely unique in Georgia."

Some residents of the Thomaston community along the Flint believe a reservoir on the river would bring economic benefits to an area hit hard by mill closures.

"We overlooked what could happen in 1994 with the great flood. We overlooked the drought situation that occurred in our state a few short years ago. These cycles are going to recur," said Hays Arnold, Mayor of Thomaston.

In a nation where abundant, clear, and cheap drinking water has been taken for granted for generations, it is hard to imagine residents of a major city adjusting to life without it.

Providing water free of disease and toxins is becoming more difficult, as old methods prove inadequate and new hazards emerge. Shortages have become endemic to many regions, as record drought and population growth drain rivers and aquifers. It's easy to see why concern over clean drinking water might someday make the energy crisis seem minor.

In July 2009, a federal judge ruled that Atlanta, where water demand is projected to double over the next 30 years, must find another source of water, and made the following observation:

“Too often, state, local, and even national government actors do not consider the long-term consequences of their decisions. Local governments allow unchecked growth because it increases tax revenue, but these same governments do not sufficiently plan for the resources such unchecked growth will require. Nor do individual citizens consider frequently enough their consumption of our scarce resources, absent a crisis situation….” 

Big business is seeking a leading role in US water delivery systems. Private industry promises new capital and greater efficiency, but can they deliver? In 1999, Atlanta became the largest US city to privatize its water system. Already the city is weighing whether to nullify its 20-year contract with United Water, a subsidiary of the French company Suez.

Researchers also question whether Americans are getting sick from their drinking water far more often than is recognized.

"Is this happening below the radar screen, with low-level [gastrointestinal] things, where people will stay home from work, or be miserable at work, and not ever go to the doctor?" asks Jack Colford of the University of California-Berkeley, who is leading an EPA-CDC-funded study comparing disease rates between participants who drink tap water through a sophisticated filter and those using a fake look-alike filter.

Harvard researchers reported that emergency-room visits for gastrointestinal illness rose after spikes in dirt levels that still remained well within federal standards. Pollution is shrinking water supplies for communities, and at the same time, growing population and weather are causing severe shortages.

The CIA predicts that by 2015, drinking-water access could be a major source of world conflict. 

Consider The Health Risks Before Buying Teflon-Coated, Non-Stick Pans

By Theodora Filis

“Industrial products developed with Teflon® fluoropolymer coatings, resins, additives, and films have exceptional resistance to high temperatures, chemical reaction, corrosion, and stress cracking. The properties of Teflon® make it the preferred solution for a host of industrial applications and different processing techniques.” DuPont Industries

Before you buy that new Teflon-coated, non-stick pan, consider this: the EPA has taken action against DuPont (the maker of Teflon) for failing to warn the public of the associated health risks of Perfluorooctanoic Acid, or "PFOA,"a synthetic chemical used in manufacturing fluoropolymers.

Perfluorooctanoic Acid, used in some Teflon® products, isn't limited to just non-stick cookware. Products using Teflon range from water-resistant carpets to Gore-Tex jackets to lubricant and more. In fact, Teflon is so prevalent that PF0A has been found to contaminate 92% of US children tested to date, and most of the adult population as well.

The Environmental Working Group wants the Consumer Products Safety Commission to put warning labels on Teflon cookware.

In 1981, DuPont first discovered the toxic, Teflon-related substance in the blood of some pregnant women working in their Teflon production facility. DuPont illegally kept the discovery of this possibly hazardous toxin a secret until 2001.

Although DuPont claims no known PFOA health hazards to humans have ever been discovered or proven, they do acknowledge that Teflon fumes kill birds, and that it is not safe for humans to use Teflon in temperatures exceeding 500 degrees. Researchers have also linked PF0A to developmental and reproductive abnormalities in animals, according to Legal Watch.

DuPont denies that "polymer fume fever,"which causes flu-like symptoms and shortness of breath, has any long-term health consequences. Substantial amounts of PFOA found in the public water supplies in West Virginia and Ohio has prompted a class action suit against DuPont.

Safe cookware is a one that doesn't produce any toxic substance during cooking. The manufacturing material and coating determine if it is safe. The interior surface material which could be either a coating layer or base material is vital to the safety because it contacts with food directly.

Teflon coated nonstick fry pans are not safe because they release toxic fumes when heated above certain temperature. There are many concerns about Teflon nonstick fry pans. Many lawsuits have been filed over the nonstick surface both as a cookware and in its manufacturing.

Too, pure aluminum fry pans are not safe. Colic, rickets, gastrointestinal problems, interference with the metabolism of calcium, extreme nervousness, anemia, headaches, decreased liver and kidney function, memory loss, speech problems, softening of the bones, and aching muscles can all be caused by aluminum toxicity.

Teflon-free titanium has many advantages due to titanium metal properties. They are healthier, lighter, lasts longer, heats quickly, easy to clean. But don't be confused with nonstick titanium or titanium reinforced cookwares. Titanium means pure titanium material without any coating while nonstick titanium or titanium reinforced ones have coatings made of material similar to Teflon. There is an easy way to tell the difference. Titanium cookwares have a silver metal color while others are dark colors. Choose Teflon-free nonstick.

Hard-Anodized aluminum use Teflon for interior coating too.

"Green Guide" recommends bird owners replace all nonstick pans and avoid using cookie sheets, Teflon-lined ovens and burners lined with Teflon drip pans. Birds exposed to fumes emitted by heated nonstick cookware resulted in bird poisonings called "Teflon toxicosis." The lungs of exposed birds filled with fluid, causing hemorrhage and death from suffocation.

The Society of Plastics Industry acknowledges PFOA as "persistent in the environment." The EPA reports that PFCs are a "present (environmental) persistence" and have "bio-accumulation and toxicity properties to an extraordinary degree."

Read more: Hazards of Nonstick Cookware | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_7412478_hazards-nonstick-cookware.html#ixzz1HK505LrQ

What Have We Learned From Chernobyl & Can It Help Japan?

By Theodora Filis

The world watched anxiously as a nuclear emergency unraveled at the Fukushima Daiichi complex, along the ravaged northeastern coast of Japan, as operators dumped seawater into 2 reactors in a final cooling effort to prevent a nuclear meltdown after a massive 8.9 magnitude earthquake and 23-foot tsunami devastated Japan on Friday, March 11, 2011.

With the Fukushima complex making headlines, White House officials hope to assure the American public that there is nothing for them to worry about.

"The U.S. power plants are designed to very high standards for earthquake effects," said Gregory Jaczko, chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "All our plants are designed to withstand significant natural phenomena, like earthquakes, tornadoes, and tsunamis."

Five of the six reactors at the Japanese plant, which suffered a second explosion Monday, use the same General Electric reactor that are at 23 nuclear plants in North Carolina, Georgia, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Alabama, Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Massachusetts and Vermont, according to a database maintained by the NRC – Nuclear Regulatory Commission: an independent federal agency created in 1974 to license and regulate nuclear power plants. All but two of them began operating in the 1970's.

"These need to be examined," said Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, an anti-nuclear organization. "When the reactor designs are the same, and the reactor's ages are the same, comparisons seem more than appropriate."

On Capitol Hill, some are calling for a halt to further nuclear development in the U.S.

Rep. Ed. Markey of Massachusetts, the top-ranked Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, called for a moratorium on new reactors in seismically active areas until a new safety review is completed. In addition, Markey joined three other Democrats in asking the House GOP to conduct a hearing on the safety of U.S. nuclear plants.

Independent Sen. Joe Liebermann of Connecticut, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said it was time to "quickly put the brakes on" the U.S. Nuclear industry.

The Fukushima story is still playing out. As of last night, the latest reports assumed partial meltdowns have occurred in the plant’s reactors No. 1 and No. 3, where another explosion has taken place.

Whatever the ultimate outcome in Japan, the world’s nuclear industry will be looking inward on how to handle older facilities, plan for new ones, and address renewed public focus on safety measures and what-if scenarios.

Nuclear meltdowns that have occurred between 1952 and 2008:

1952
Dec. 12, Chalk River, near Ottawa, Canada: a partial meltdown of the reactor's uranium fuel core resulted after the accidental removal of four control rods. Although millions of gallons of radioactive water accumulated inside the reactor, there were no injuries.

1953
Love Canal, near Niagara Falls, N.Y.: was destroyed by waste from chemical plants. By the 1990s, the town had been cleaned up enough for families to begin moving back to the area.

1957
Oct. 7, Windscale Pile No. 1, north of Liverpool, England: fire in a graphite-cooled reactor spewed radiation over the countryside, contaminating a 200-square-mile area.

South Ural Mountains Russia: explosion of radioactive wastes at Soviet nuclear weapons factory 12 mi from city of Kyshtym forced the evacuation of over 10,000 people from a contaminated area. No casualties were reported by Soviet officials.

1976
Near Greifswald, East Germany: radioactive core of reactor in the Lubmin nuclear power plant nearly melted down due to the failure of safety systems during a fire.

1979
March 28, Three Mile Island, near Harrisburg, Pa.: one of two reactors lost its coolant, which caused overheating and partial meltdown of its uranium core. Some radioactive water and gases were released. This was the worst accident in US nuclear-reactor history.

1984
Dec, 3rd Bhopal, India: toxic gas, methyl isocyanate, seeped from Union Carbide insecticide plant, killing more than 2,000 and injuring about 150,000.

1986
April 26, Chernobyl, near. Kiev, Ukraine: explosion and fire in the graphite core of one of four reactors released radioactive material that spread over part of the Soviet Union, eastern Europe, Scandinavia, and later western Europe. 31 claimed dead. Total casualties are unknown. Worst such accident to date.

1987
Sept. 18, Goiânia, Brazil: 244 people contaminated with cesium-137 from a cancer-therapy machine that had been sold as scrap. Four people died in worst radiation disaster in Western Hemisphere.

1999
Sept. 30, Tokaimura, Japan: uncontrolled chain reaction in a uranium-processing nuclear fuel plant spewed high levels of radioactive gas into the air, killing two workers and seriously injuring one other.

2004
Aug. 9, Mihama, Japan: nonradioactive steam leaked from a nuclear power plant, killing four workers and severely burning seven others.

2007
July 17, Kashiwazaki, Japan: radiation leaks, burst pipes, and fires at a major nuclear power plant followed a 6.8 magnitude earthquake near Niigata. Japanese officials, frustrated at the plant operators' delay in reporting the damage, closed the plant a week later until its safety could be confirmed. Further investigation revealed that the plant had unknowingly been built directly on top of an active seismic fault.

2008
February 7, Port Wentworth, Georgia: an explosion fueled by combustible sugar dust killed 13 people and injured several others at the Imperial Sugar plant near Savannah.

A nuclear meltdown happens when the core of a nuclear reactor is damaged from overheating. It is an informal term, not officially defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Meltdowns occur when a nuclear power plant system fails to properly cool the reactor's core, causing the nuclear fuel assemblies to overheat and melt. Meltdowns are serious because of the radioactive materials that could be released into the environment. After the meltdown, the reactor remains unstable until it is repaired.

At a news conference on Sunday, Japanese Prime Minister, Naoto Kan, emphasized the gravity of the situation. "I think that the earthquake, tsunami, and the situation at our nuclear reactors makes up the worst crisis in the 65 years since the war. If the nation works together, we will overcome," he said. The government called in 100,000 troops to aid in the relief effort. The deployment is the largest since World War II.

Will this nuclear disaster be another Chernobyl?

The partial meltdown of reactor No. 3 at the Fukushima Daiichi plant is the most serious nuclear accident since Chernobyl. But, it may be because of the April 1986 disaster at Chernobyl, the incident at Fukushima can be contained. Chernobyl's meltdown occurred because the reactor blew the unit's casing apart, exposing the core to the atmosphere.

The reactor at Fukushima hasn't yet melted through the containment vessel, due to engineers pumping seawater into the cooling systems. Too, evacuation of the Chernobyl area did not begin until a full 24 hours after the incident. A report released in 2005 by the Chernobyl Forum, states that up to 4,000 people could eventually die due to the radiation exposure from the accident twenty years ago.

Japanese authorities evacuated 200,000 people from the area of Fukushima within hours of the initial alert. Russia has sent two teams of emergency rescue specialists to Japan and has pledged extra deliveries of natural gas, but perhaps their biggest contribution from Russia has been the lesson learned from the disaster at Chernobyl.

While much of the United States is susceptible to tsunamis, there are several active fault lines and areas of volcanic activity not far from where existing nuclear power plants, nuclear reactors for research purposes and other proposed commercial sites are located.

California is home to some of the country’s oldest licensed nuclear power plants, there are at least two full-scale commercial plants near the San Andreas fault, the country’s most earthquake-prone region.

While nuclear experts have argued that the plants in the US have been built with the utmost attention to earthquake resistance – nuclear power plants currently in operation in the United States all date back, in part or in whole, to construction dates of more than 30 years ago.

Corporate America Gets Homeland Security Protection Too?

By Theodora Filis

Corporate America and Environmental Groups are engaged in a game of monopoly. So far, Corporate America has Boardwalk, Park Place and all the Utilities while Environmental groups struggle to build 1 home on Marvin Gardens.

Now, with the help of the US Department of Homeland Security, anyone who tries to speak up against Corporate America’s efforts to take over the rest of the board will be sent directly to jail.

The trailer for GasLand shows at least six states have documented nearly 1,000 incidents of groundwater pollution related to hydraulic fracturing (fracking). The documentary interviews people who say they suffered from neurological diseases and other debilitating conditions due to drinking contaminated water.

As a result of this documentary, the Pennsylvania Office of the US Dept. Homeland Security is now as focused on anti-oil and gas documentaries as it is on rooting out international terrorism.

In October of last year, it was revealed the department had declared the documentary “Coal Country” to be a “potential catalyst for inspiring ‘direct action’ protests or even sabotage against facilities, machinery, and/or corporate headquarters.”

I have never been in favor of violence, and never will be. I believe people should, and must, resolve their differences peacefully, and intelligently. However, I also believe that we must all have the right to speak up against any individual or corporation or government that encroaches upon our rights.

Today, Eco-terrorism is treated as a high priority threat giving government “just cause” to place anyone on the terror-watch/no fly lists for supporting environmental efforts that stand in the way of Corporate America’s unquenchable thirst for more oil and natural gas. Really?

The Power Fossil Fuel Industries Have Over Public Heath & Safety

By Theodora Filis

The fossil fuel industry uses their power to control public health and safety agencies as documented health issues continue to surface. The gas industry has began a powerful assault against anyone who speaks out on the dangers of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and the threat to public health and the environment. Politics is playing a significant role in the EPA's failure to hold the gas industry accountable for its damage to water supplies and public health throughout individual states.

For over seven years, environmental and public health advocates have called for full product disclosure of drilling and fracking chemicals. No one has any idea what is in those drums or totes. What we do know is that out of 944 chemicals injected underground, 30-70 percent of that contaminated water can come back up to the surface. We don't know how much stays underground – how much comes back up – or the long term effects of materials that could appear later in our rivers, streams, well sites and drinking water.

What most people don't realize is that gas doesn't come up out of the ground dry, it comes up wet. So the water taken off of the gas is not clean, and the water coming back up from fracturing is filled with unknown and hazardous chemicals.

After a nurse became critically ill while attending to a laborer involved in a fracking accident, and the attending physicians could not find out what she was exposed to, the urgency for full disclosure became evident.

In 2008 Colorado passed a rule (the first of its kind) that upon request through the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, operators must disclose product ingredients to victims or their physicians in case of an accident. Unfortunately, the response to such a request took several days, long after it was of any help for emergency diagnosis and treatment.

In 2010, Wyoming became the first state to require publicly available disclosure of chemicals in fracking products, including the volumes or quantity of chemicals used. Because of this requirement Wyoming is receiving requests for proprietary status which would prevent public disclosure of a number of fracking products.

The health effects on humans, animals and the environment are frightening. Bakken Watch keeps an eye on oil and natural gas development in North Dakota. Their Youtube video shows how citizens of North Dakota, their drinking water, and animals are being effected by fracking.

Fracking is destroying the once pristine North Dakota land, water, and air. Shocking video: http://www.youtube.com/watch made by Bakken Watch:

There is much more information that needs to be disclosed fully and publicly. Each drilling and fracturing event is custom-designed depending on the geology, depth and resources available. The chemicals and products used and the amounts or volumes used can differ from well to well. Complete records for each well must be kept for an accurate accounting of what is being introduced into watersheds, air, and soil.

It is time for those charged with protecting public health and the environment to demand full disclosure directly from the natural gas products industry. Additionally, responsible drilling and fracking companies should be insisting on safer products from their suppliers to protect the health of their employees and reduce their liability.

Most importantly, the industry needs to assure its drilling and fracking fluids and toxic byproducts are retained in closed-loop production systems that prevent the release of any toxic chemicals into the ambient environment.

Suggested Reading:

Summary is based on an analysis of the potential health effects of products and  chemicals usedduring natural gas operations:

http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/files/Multistatesummary1-27-11Final.pdf

Chemicals in Natural Gas Operations:

http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/chemicals.multistate.php

Downplaying The Negative Environmental Impacts of Ethanol

By Theodora Filis

Ethanol proponents have largely downplayed the negative environmental impacts of increased ethanol production, while emphasizing the positive impacts. But by ignoring the negatives, all of us, and future generations, are being put at risk.

Ethanol, an alcohol-based fuel, is made by fermenting and then distilling starch or sugar crops such as sugar-cane, maize, sorghum, wheat and other grains, or even cornstalks, fruit and vegetable waste. Ethanol can be used as a fuel for non-diesel engines, to spark ignition, or as an additive to gasoline engines.

In the US, ethanol is mostly manufactured from starchy crops like corn.

Ethanol has been promoted as a cleaner-burning alternative to gasoline for many years, and carries the image of an environmentally friendly fuel since it's derived from plants and plant waste. Experts say replacing gas with ethanol blends will reduce greenhouse gases and help the fight against global warming.

There are environmental benefits, as well as negative environmental consequences from using ethanol as fuel. If the ethanol is produced from industrial corn farms, more negative environmental consequences can be added.

Too, more than 200 US ethanol refineries in operation or under construction, mostly in Nebraska and Kansas, also emit thousands of tons of pollutants a year, including nitrogen oxide, a key element of smog.

Increased use of ethanol could raise smog levels about 1% in some areas of the country, according to Environmental Protection Agency officials. However, the EPA increased how much pollutants ethanol plants can emit before facing tougher restrictions, prompting concern among some environmental groups.

Additional problems from producing ethanol come from increased corn farming. Corn farming and conversion to ethanol consume enormous amounts of fresh water. More environmental problems arise when using genetically engineered corn developed by Syngenta.

Syngenta corn contains a microbial gene that causes it to produce an enzyme that breaks down corn starch into sugar, the first step toward making ethanol.

“If this corn is combined with other corn, it will have significant adverse impacts on food product quality and performance,” the North American Millers’ Association said in a statement. Ethanol manufacturers now buy this enzyme, called alpha amylase, in liquid form and add it to the corn at the start of their production process.

The corn, which is called Enogen, is one of the first crops genetically engineered to contain a trait that influences use of the plant after harvest. Enogen is also one of the first to be engineered solely for industrial purposes.

The Agriculture Department said the corn met the statutory requirements for approval.

The corn approval is the third recent one in which the Agriculture Department has had to weigh the risks of the spread of a genetically engineered trait.

The Ethanol Security Act of 2007, which is intended to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil, mandates a gradual changeover to renewable fuels through 2022, which will require the use of increasingly higher mixes of ethanol in gasoline.

On Jan. 21 the Environmental Protection Agency expanded its ethanol rule, allowing the use of 15 percent ethanol mixes in cars, SUVs and light trucks.

The Minnesota Legislature is now considering a bill to expand the use of ethanol in the state. It wants to require a 20-percent ethanol blend in gasoline by the year 2012. In Congress, farm state lawmakers are pushing for more ethanol use all across the nation.

Once again, we are being force fed something that sounds too good to be true – and is. Sad, but true, ethanol is not environmentally friendly.