Wednesday, September 16, 2009

"Borlaug the Great!"

Posted by Rich Kozlovich




You can't build a peaceful world on empty stomachs and human misery. — Dr. Norman Ernest Borlaug (1914-2009)


Borlaug the Great

Norman Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolution, has died at 95. Ron Bailey calls him “the man who saved more human lives than anyone else in history.” In an as-yet-unpublished letter to the New York Times, Don Boudreaux reflects: By saving millions of people from starvation, green-revolution father Norman Borlaug arguably has done more for humanity than has any other human being of the past century (”Norman Borlaug, 95, Dies; Led Green Revolution,” Sept. 13). Yet unlike Sen. Kennedy’s, his death will go relatively unnoticed. He’ll certainly not be canonized in the popular mind….. Just think of the people who have gone down in history as “the Great“: Alexander the Great, Catherine the Great, Charles the Great (Charlemagne), Frederick the Great, Peter the Great — despots and warmongers. Just once it would be nice to see the actual benefactors of humanity designated as “the Great”: Galileo the Great, Gutenberg the Great, Samuel Morse the Great, Alan Turing the Great.

So just for tonight, drink a toast to one of the great benefactors of the poorest people in the world, Borlaug the Great.


Norman Borlaug - The man who fed the world.

On the day Norman Borlaug was awarded its Peace Prize for 1970, the Nobel Committee observed of the Iowa-born plant scientist that "more than any other single person of this age, he has helped provide bread for a hungry world." The committee might have added that more than any other single person Borlaug showed that nature is no match for human ingenuity in setting the real limits to growth. Borlaug, who died Saturday at 95, came of age in the Great Depression, the last period of widespread hunger in U.S. history. The Depression was over by the time Borlaug began his famous experiments, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, with wheat varieties in Mexico in the 1940s. But the specter of global starvation loomed even larger, as advances in medicine and hygiene contributed to population growth without corresponding increases in the means of feeding so many. Borlaug solved that challenge by developing genetically unique strains of "semidwarf" wheat, and later rice that raised food yields as much as six fold. The result was that a country like India was able to feed its own people as its population grew from 500 million in the mid-1960s, when Borlaug's "Green Revolution" began to take effect, to the current 1.16 billion. Today, famines—whether in Zimbabwe, Darfur or North Korea—are politically induced events, not true natural disasters. (Wall Street Journal)

Norman Borlaug, India's 'annadaata', dies at 95


NEW DELHI: Long before Mr. Bush and Dr Rice came by to leapfrog US-India ties to a new level, it was Prof. Wheat who jump-started and nourished the relationship. Norman Borlaug, the genial scientist-pacifist who died of cancer in Dallas on Saturday, was as much India's 'annadaata' as he was the Father of the Green Revolution. Around the time Dr Borlaug arrived on the scene in the mid-1960s, the specter of famine, shortages, and starvation hung over the sub-continent. India was importing huge quantities of food grains from the US - much of it dole - to feed its growing millions in a manner that was famously described as "ship-to-mouth" sustenance. Enter Norman Borlaug, a strapping, self-made, sun-burnt American from the farmland of Iowa, who had spent more a decade by then in Mexico after hard-earned doctorate in Depression-era US. What he had pulled off in experiments in Mexico was a miracle, that if successfully applied in India, would fill its granaries to overflow - as it eventually did. By cranking up a wheat strain containing an unusual gene, Borlaug created the so-called ''semi-dwarf'' plant variety -- a shorter, stubbier, compact stalk that supported an enormous head of grain without falling over from the weight. This curious principle of shrinking the plant to increase the output on the plant from the same acreage resulted in Indian farmers eventually quadrupling their wheat -- and later, rice -- production. It heralded the Green Revolution. (Times of India)

Borlaug, father of Green Revolution, dies at 95

WASHINGTON — Norman Borlaug, a Nobel Prize winning scientist whose work on disease-resistant wheat is credited with saving hundreds of millions of lives, has died at the age of 95. The acclaimed agriculturalist, often called the father of the Green Revolution, died late on Saturday in Dallas, Texas, due to complications from cancer, according to Texas A&M University, where Borlaug served since 1984. He was best known for his work developing disease-resistant "dwarf" wheat, which yielded two to three times as much as the normal crop. "Norman E. Borlaug saved more lives than any man in human history," said Josette Sheeran, the head of the World Food Program, on Sunday. "His total devotion to ending famine and hunger revolutionized food security for millions of people and for many nations." (AFP)

A look at honors bestowed on Norman Borlaug

Agricultural scientist Norman Borlaug, the father of the "green revolution," died Saturday at his home in Dallas at age 95. Here is a look at some of the honors he received: (Associated Press)

Norman Borlaug, 95, Dies; Led Green Revolution

Norman E. Borlaug, the plant scientist who did more than anyone else in the 20th century to teach the world to feed itself and whose work was credited with saving hundreds of millions of lives, died Saturday night. He was 95 and lived in Dallas. The cause was complications from cancer, said Kathleen Phillips, a spokeswoman for Texas A&M University, where Dr. Borlaug had served on the faculty since 1984. Dr. Borlaug’s advances in plant breeding led to spectacular success in increasing food production in Latin America and Asia and brought him international acclaim. In 1970, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He was widely described as the father of the broad agricultural movement called the Green Revolution, though decidedly reluctant to accept the title. “A miserable term,” he said, characteristically shrugging off any air of self-importance. Yet his work had a far-reaching impact on the lives of millions of people in developing countries. His breeding of high-yielding crop varieties helped to avert mass famines that were widely predicted in the 1960s, altering the course of history. Largely because of his work, countries that had been food deficient, like Mexico and India, became self-sufficient in producing cereal grains. “More than any other single person of this age, he has helped provide bread for a hungry world,” the Nobel committee said in presenting him with the Peace Prize. “We have made this choice in the hope that providing bread will also give the world peace.” The day the award was announced, Dr. Borlaug, vigorous and slender at 56, was working in a wheat field outside Mexico City when his wife, Margaret, drove up to tell him the news. “Someone’s pulling your leg,” he replied, according to one of his biographers, Leon Hesser. Assured that it was true, he kept on working, saying he would celebrate later. (NYT)

Norman Borlaug, Agronomist Who Fought World Hunger, Dies

AFM mourns the death of Norman Borlaug, a great scientist and father of the green revolution. Borlaug, a Nobel Laureate recognized the vital importance of new technologies to increase agricultural yields and feed the world - millions of people are alive today thanks to his work, which amounted to a practical and courageous challenge to the Malthusian doomsayers. As a great scientist Borlaug also defended DDT for malaria control - and we salute him. Read John Pollock's piece here………….Ronnie Coffman of the Borlaug Global Rust Initiative (BGRI) notes that "we have a lot of complaints about the green revolution, but those who complain have little awareness of the alternatives ... because stem rust is a global disease, it's not a national disease. We have to hang together on this thing or we will all hang separately, because you cannot defend yourself alone." Three weeks ago Coffman met a frail Borlaug, and this humble American hero gave a last, stark warning: "Don't relax. Rust never sleeps."

Looking Back on Norman Borlaug’s Achievements

Norman Borlaug died on September 12th, aged 95. The name will be unfamiliar to many, but not to those concerned about food security in the developing world. Borlaug has been called the 'grandfather of the Green Revolution' for his breakthrough in breeding disease-resistant strains of so-called semi-dwarf wheat. This led to apocalyptic forecasts of global famine – given a high profile by Paul Ehrlich and others in the 60s and 70s – being proved dramatically wrong. In the 40 years from 1963, the world population doubled, and the number of chronically malnourished people (essentially a problem of poverty and infrastructure rather than overall food availability) hardly changed. Over 3 billion more people were fed from essentially the same total area of farmland.......... Over the years, the view that humankind should work 'with Nature' – and the implicit belief by the deeper greens that our species has no greater worth than any other – has become pervasive among those with the good fortune to live in prosperous societies and have enough to eat. While trying (with significant success) to change attitudes in their own countries, environmentalists have also created a belief among development agencies that poorer countries should not follow the same path to prosperity as the industrialised world had taken. As they put it, developing countries should not make the same 'mistakes' as we had already done……….If food security can only be guaranteed by a productive, intensive farming system, so be it. First solve the problem of hunger, then deal with whatever other problems remain. Whatever critics may say, the industrialised world has been very successful at doing just this. Norman Borlaug did not want to deny developing countries the opportunity to do the same, and neither should we.

Norman Borlaug and the next Green Revolution

Norman Borlaug, who died on Saturday, can justifiably be regarded as one of the greatest figures of the 20th century. His agricultural innovations, such as the development of higher-yielding dwarf wheat, led directly to the Green Revolution, and they have been widely credited with saving a billion lives that might otherwise have been lost to starvation. The Times carries his obituary today. His passing, though, is a good moment to look at the agricultural challenges that lie ahead of us, as we prepare to feed a world that is forecast to reach 9 billion by 2040. The need for higher-yielding crops is today just as acute as it was in the post-war years when Borlaug made his advances, as the scientist himself was always keen to point out. A few quotes from Borlaug highlighted by John Hawks set out the challenge particularly clearly. Borlaug was well aware that if we are to protect our planet's biodiversity, while also feeding its increasing number of human residents, it will be impossible to bring more land under cultivation. We need every tool available to us to make the land that is already farmed more productive -- including, as Borlaug put it, "proper use of genetic engineering and biotechnology"……… Agriculture, he said, is by its nature an unnatural practice, and its goal has always been to create plentiful crops that "no-one eats but us". We manage farmland in such a way as to minimise loss to weeds, birds and insects, while seeking to improve its yields with manure, artificial fertiliser and irrigation. GM crops create an opportunity to take that process a stage further, so that our species is increasingly the only one that eats the crops we sow in our fields.

Tributes to Dr. Norman E. Borlaug from Around the World

UPDATED September 14, 2009 - - Following the death of World Food Prize Founder Norman Borlaug, various tributes to his impact and lasting legacy have been coming in from all parts of the globe. In honor of Dr. Borlaug, and those whom he has inspired, the World Food Prize is pleaed to share the following statements that have paid tribute to Dr. Borlaug both following his passing and throughout his long career.

"Almost 40 years after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, you are still pushing and my hat is off to ... you. - President Barack Obama (June 30, 2008)

"With the passing away of Dr. Norman Borlaug, an era has ended, in which he spearheaded a scientific revolution in agriculture. At a time in the sixties when the country was facing the spectre of severe food shortages, the introduction of Dr. Borlaug's high yielding varieties of seeds set in motion a technological revolution in Indian agriculture that led eventually to the country achieving self-sufficiency in food grains. The Green Revolution lifted the spirits of the Indian people and gave them new hope and confidence in their ability to tackle the country's daunting economic challenges--. Dr. Norman Borlaug's life and achievements are testimony to the far reaching contribution that one man's towering intellect, persistence and scientific vision can make to human peace and progress. One of Dr. Borlaug's favourite quotations was to 'reach for the stars'. In doing so, Dr. Borlaug helped millions of people escape from a life of hunger and deprivation. On behalf of a grateful nation, I convey my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Dr. Norman Borlaug." - Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh


Remembering Norman Borlaug

“It wasn't that he had a disdain for theory, but turning theory into practice is the essence of plant breeding.”

I first met Norman Borlaug as a graduate student in Plant Breeding at Iowa State University. My classmates and I dutifully filed into the agronomy auditorium to hear another Thursday seminar that afternoon in 1973. Our speaker was viewed as a feisty renegade. At the time, some faculty expressed disbelief that Norm Borlaug merited a Nobel Prize. He hadn't published a thing in a journal that mattered. Peasants knew of his work instead of the National Academy of Science. It was widely believed that he had been relegated to work in remote areas of Mexico because he couldn't cut it in either industry or academia. Rumors around his disagreements with Rockefeller Foundation executives were legendary. Many wondered if this was yet another reason he drove a jalopy on dusty Mexican roads. Frankly, we all wondered why we had to listen to this guy.

Norman Borlaug never let go of focus on hunger


Washington, D.C. — The challenge of feeding the world's poorest people consumed Norman Borlaug until his final moments. On Friday, the day before the famous scientist, Iowa native and Nobel Peace Prize laureate died at his home in Dallas, Texas, he had a final conversation with his family. "I have a problem," said Borlaug, 95, his granddaughter, Julie Borlaug, recounted Sunday. What was that, a family member asked? "Africa." Borlaug is known as the father of the Green Revolution for his success during the 1960s in breeding varieties of wheat credited with saving millions of people in Pakistan and India from starvation. But he devoted his final decades to spreading the Green Revolution to Africa by encouraging scientists to follow in his footsteps and by cajoling public officials in the United States and abroad to support their work. More than a third of the population in many sub-Saharan countries is malnourished, according to the United Nations.

Recalling the work of the greatest hunger-fighter for all time

M.S. Swaminathan recollects his five-decade association with Norman Borlaug

CHENNAI: "He was a bright, affirming flame in the midst of a sea of despair then prevailing." This was how M.S. Swaminathan described Norman Borlaug, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970, who died in Dallas on Saturday night. "He was a man of extraordinary humanism, commitment to a hunger-free world and knew no nationality. He is the only person to have so far won a Nobel for agriculture." Norman Borlaug's association with India began in the late 1960s. India was then importing 10 million tonnes of wheat and "we lived a ship-to-mouth" existence. The introduction of the dwarf variety of wheat developed by him in Mexico was a turning point in India's food production pattern.

I know that some of these links are repeats of what is in the ACSH post, but I wanted to set up a posting of links. RK


.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

"Organic" Food--Are You "Myth-taken?"

by David Roll

David received a Ph.D. from the University of Washington in Medicinal Chemistry. He was on the faculty of the University of Utah College of Pharmacy for over 30 years, retired, completed a one year fellowship in the U.S. Senate (2001, yes 9/11 and the anthrax scare) and finally three years as director of dietary supplements at the United States Pharmacopeia.

David says that, "I was fortunate to meet Dr. Borlaug once. At the time I had taken a one-year sabbatical from my academic position (1981-82) and was the Associate Director of ACSH and he came by the offices. He was one of the most unassuming people I have ever met."

He is also the publisher of the blog Droll Bits .


Being trained as an organic chemist I suppose is the reason that I am offended by the term "organic" food because, of course, all food is organic. Nonetheless, over the years the term in the dictionary has come to mean, in addition to its original meaning, "of, relating to, yielding, or involving the use of food produced with the use of feed or fertilizer of plant or animal origin without employment of chemically formulated fertilizers, growth stimulants, antibiotics, or pesticides."

Purportedly, the individual responsible for the term "organic food" was Jerome Rodale who started the myth that "organically" raised food was the key to health rather than that raised using other chemicals. Even though Rodale had no scientific training (originally he was a federal tax auditor and then co-owner of an electrical equipment business), he was very successful in perpetuating his ideas and was the founder of Rodale Press and Prevention magazine. Consider some of the other beliefs of Rodale as documented by Dr. Edward H. Rynearson's article in the July 1974 edition of Nutrition Reviews in an article entitled, "Americans Love Hogwash":

"Borlaug scoffs at the mania for organic food, which he proves with calm logic is unsuited to fight global hunger. (Dung, for instance, is an inefficient source of nitrogen.) And while he encourages energy-conscious people to 'use all the organic you can, especially on high-end crops like vegetables,' he's convinced that paying more for organic is 'a lot of nonsense.' There's 'no evidence the food is any different than that produced by chemical fertilizer.'"

When it comes down to whether or not consumers wish to pay more for organic food, ultimately they should consider whom do they wish to believe, Jerome Rodale or Norman Borlaug.
• He believed that people do not get enough electricity from the atmosphere, owing to the presence of steel girders, and he would sit for 10-20 minutes a day under a machine that gave off short wave radio waves, which he believed beneficially boosted his body's supply of electricity.
• He took 70 food-supplement tablets a day as "extra protection" against pollution and to "restore nutrients lost in the kitchen processing of food."
• He believed that the cure for prostatic disease was to eat pumpkin seeds and stated that if he were to get prostate cancer he would have chiropractic adjustments.
• Reportedly he believed that "wheat is terrible for people, can make them overly aggressive or daffy, and that sugar is worse," and that he would live to 100 "unless I'm run down by a sugar-crazed taxi driver." (Actually at age 72, while taping a talk show with Dick Cavett he died suddenly--of natural causes, no doubt!).
• He believed that milk was bad for people, except for babies and he denounced vegetarianism because he believed that "people need the zest of a good piece of meat."
• When asked why "organic" fertilizer was preferable to "chemical" fertilizer he responded, "We feel that in organically grown food you have things you don't even know exist."
Indeed, the idea that "organic" food has some mystical powers and that it is preferable nutritionally to conventionally grown food is commonly believed. A few studies have shown that the former may have a marginally better nutrition profile, particularly as it relates to minerals. It is doubtful that those small advantages are nutritionally significant, and importantly is the use of so-called "organic" farming economically practical and sustainable particularly in feeding a burgeoning world population?

Consider for a moment the contributions of Dr. Norman Borlaug to agriculture and his view of the organic food movement. Borlaug is one of only five people in history (and the only scientist) to have received the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. The others were Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela and Elie Wiesel.

It has been estimated that Borlaug's contribution to agriculture though gene manipulation (a no-no to the high priests of organic agriculture) and use of inorganic fertilizer have improved crop yields, resulting in saving the lives of one billion human beings. Consider the following from Jonathan Alter's column in the 7/30/07 issue of Newsweek:

"Borlaug scoffs at the mania for organic food, which he proves with calm logic is unsuited to fight global hunger. (Dung, for instance, is an inefficient source of nitrogen.) And while he encourages energy-conscious people to 'use all the organic you can, especially on high-end crops like vegetables,' he's convinced that paying more for organic is 'a lot of nonsense.' There's 'no evidence the food is any different than that produced by chemical fertilizer.'"

When it comes down to whether or not consumers wish to pay more for organic food, ultimately they should consider whom do they wish to believe, Jerome Rodale or Norman Borlaug.


###

Remembering the Man Who Fed the World; Dr. Norman Borlaug, R.I.P.

By Curtis Porter

(I would like to thank Jeff Steir of ASCH for giving me permission re-print Curtis Porter’s very well done Morning Dispatch regarding the passing of Dr. Norman Borlaug. Dr. Borlaug was a man who did so much for so many people in his long and accomplished life that I thought it would be approptiate to outline of the history of his life. As I read the links in this Morning Dispatch I realized that anything I would say would only diminish who he was and what he accomplished.

I am saddened that so many know and praise Rachel Carson, who must bear the brunt of the blame for the tens of millions who have died as a result of her unscientific work regarding DDT, yet so few know about this true scientist who saved the lives of hundreds of millions of the poor suffering people of this world. The greenies, who discredit him, leave dystopia in their wake. Dr. Norman Borlaug lifted them out of dystopia. Please follow the links in the article. RK)

ACSH staffers are deeply saddened today by the passing of ACSH Founding Director and Trustee Dr. Norman Borlaug. Dr. Borlaug was known as the Father of the Green Revolution for his agricultural innovations, which have saved an estimated one billion lives to date. His contributions to science and humanity earned him a Nobel Peace Prize, a Congressional Gold Medal, a Presidential Medal of Freedom, and many other awards, though he lived a life of relative anonymity for a man of his influence.

"A sad day for science and humanity. Just to add a little more from my blog, Droll Bits, that was mentioned in your article (linked below, RK):"Borlaug is one of only five people in history (and the only scientist) to have received the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. The others were Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela and Elie Wiesel. - David Roll"
ACSH's Dr. Elizabeth Whelan writes, "Dr. Norman Borlaug has to be the most significant human being born in the twentieth century -- but so few people have even heard of him. He was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 (the Nobel team called about 6am, but Norman was already in the field, his hands in the soil -- his wife had to drive in the dark to find him to tell him the news, which he did not believe)..."Yet he was so humble and down to earth. He would regularly call me at ACSH and tell me what a great job I was doing to defend sound science. Each of these calls inevitably reduced me to tears. Dr. Borlaug was telling me that I was doing a good job?! Almost two years ago -- on the day of his ninety-fourth birthday -- he called to say he was in town and asked if he could come over. We dashed to the bakery across the street to get a cake and candles -- and had a great celebration in our conference room as Norman lectured us on the looming dangers of wheat rust."

The
New York Times obituary tells the story of his dedication to his research: "He spent countless hours hunched over in the blazing Mexican sun as he manipulated tiny wheat blossoms to cross different strains. To speed the work, he set up winter and summer operations in far-flung parts of Mexico, logging thousands of miles over poor roads. He battled illness, forded rivers in flood, dodged mudslides, and sometimes slept in tents."

There are still those, however, who question the value of Dr. Borlaug's achievements. As the
Wall Street Journal notes, "In later life, Borlaug was criticized by self-described 'greens' whose hostility to technology put them athwart the revolution he had set in motion. Borlaug fired back, warning in these pages that fear-mongering by environmental extremists against synthetic pesticides, inorganic fertilizers, and genetically modified foods would again put millions at risk of starvation while damaging the very biodiversity those extremists claimed to protect. In saving so many, Borlaug showed that a genuine green movement doesn't pit man against the Earth, but rather applies human intelligence to exploit the Earth's resources to improve life for everyone."

"He was fighting for humanity and for the Earth as opposed to a political or environmentalist agenda," explains ACSH's Dr. Gilbert Ross. "Part of the reason he is so little known is because he was so modest, kind, and humble. He was completely unassuming, not arrogant at all. The only time he ascended the podium was to fight against junk science and those who demonized the life-saving technologies of the modern food industry. Only when he took the mantle of science upon himself was he confrontational."

"I agree," adds long-time ACSH staffer and Associate Director Cheryl Martin. "He exuded compassion and humility, and it was always an honor to be in his presence. Whenever he visited ACSH, I was nourished by his wisdom, passion, and dedication. He always took time to praise and emphasize the importance of the work we do at ACSH. He certainly will be missed, but I know his work and his message lives on."

As he said in his Nobel Lecture, Dr. Borlaug remained optimistic for the future of mankind, who he called a "potentially rational being." He encouraged that rationality in facing the world's problems, and he proved that it could be used to make a dramatic difference. Now, in his absence, ACSH strives to continue his work of promoting the responsible use of science to improve the human condition, just as we have done since he helped found our organization over thirty years ago.

There is sadness here at ACSH for the loss of our friend, but we, too, remain optimistic, and as we carry on Dr. Borlaug's tradition of rationality and concern for our fellow man, we remember the words of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee upon the selection of Dr. Borlaug as a laureate: "[M]ore than any other single person of this age, he has helped to provide bread for a hungry world. We have made this choice in the hope that providing bread will also give the world peace."

Anyone can give a gift to ACSH securely online
HERE or by sending a tax deductible donation to:

American Council on Science and Health
1995 Broadway, 2nd floor
New York, NY 10023
For questions, call 212-362-7044 x225 or e-mail morning@acsh.org.



.

Monday, September 7, 2009

Bedbugs; The Real Answer!

By Rich Kozlovich

What is the reality of bedbugs? We have them! We don’t want them! The numbers keep getting larger! They are spreading farther afield! The tools left to society don’t kill them! There are species of bedbug that are even more resistant to pesticides than the rest!

The average homeowner is faced with over the counter pesticides that don’t work or IPM or green pest control programs that are either largely ineffectual or prohibitively expensive when they work. The same is true of new technology, such as heat which absolutely works. The reality of bedbugs is this; chemistry was the answer in 1946 and it will be the answer in 2010! And it must be the answer. Why?

Let’s drop back to 1946. Before the introduction of DDT bedbugs were everywhere. After the introduction of DDT they weren’t. After resistance to DDT developed in bedbugs pest controllers changed to Malathion and other products that bedbugs were not resistant to. DDT did the heavy lifting, and Malathion knocked them out.

Those were the tools; that was the chemistry that worked. However, that isn’t the story. Why did those tools work so well? That is the real question! The answer is a combination of chemical efficacy and its availability to the general society. The real story is that DDT, Malathion and all the other life saving products introduced into society were available as Do It Yourself products. That is the real story, and that is the answer to the bedbug problem.

It wasn’t the professional pest control industry that eliminated bedbugs. We had a major role to play, but no professional program will work if the problem continues to persist in a general population that cannot afford to pay someone to do the job for them. The re-introduction rate will be unending. The poorest people must be able to address this by themselves, in their own homes. They are willing to do so because they are desperate to rid themselves of the pest plague. They just need the tools.

We need to stop this nonsense about IPM and green pest control being the “glue” that holds pest control together. We need to stop this nonsense about the theoretical risks the greenies are constantly yammering about. We, the professionals of pest control, are part of that thin gray line that are the defenders of public health. We need to stop crawling on our bellies as if we should be ashamed of who we are and what we do. We need to take the field and raise the Battle Standard for all to see. We need to get back up onto our hind legs and defend what we do, the products we use and demand that everyone else, including the EPA, do the same.

The reality is this; as long as the average person is left adrift with no way to care for themselves and their families, this problem will remain a major societal plague that will never go away. Bedbugs must absolutely be addressed at the lowest levels of the economic spectrum if we are to eliminate them once again. That can only be done with chemistry that works and at a cost that the average person can afford. DIY is what really eliminated bedbugs and effective inexpensive DIY products must be made available again.



.

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Embracing Green is Irrational; NPMA, Part II

By Rich Kozlovich

Since all of this started I kept having past articles that I had written years ago coming back into my mind. What was most disturbing is how right my analysis was as I re-read all of these old articles. I have posted some of them recently and this article below is a combination of articles with some adjustments. Originally I intended this as a part of my five part “common sense” series. However, after reading some of the details of the NPMA/NRDC agreement in Pest Control Technology magazine, and talking to Bob Rosenberg, I believe that things have gotten so bad I intend to do a separate series on the National Pest Management Association (NPMA). They have shown a pattern of activity that has led to what I believe is a serious betrayal of the pest control industry by our “elected” representatives at NPMA. Part I was informational, Part II challenges the philosophy behind this action, and Part III will challenge the people behind this philosophy.

No industry is capable of preserving its viability without meeting the challenge of unending and ever increasing attacks on what they are and what they do. Yet we have in our midst “intellectuals” who believe that in pest control it will be different. At the head of our national organization our “elected leadership” believes by adopting “green” initiatives that it is possible and desirable for us to negotiate an end to the use of pesticides, for the good of the industry. The claim will be that they are not negotiating the end of pesticides. There can be no other ultimate alternative to this act of appeasement. Neville Chamberlain trusted Adolf Hitler and Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman trusted Joseph Stalin. They all attempted to appease these people and failed because you cannot appease someone who had an agenda and is implacable in their goals. Winston Churchill knew that and stated that "an appeaser is someone who feeds the crocodile hoping that he will be eaten last."
An industry can survive those who are foolish and careless. It can survive the overly ambitious, but it cannot survive those who attack an industry and what it stands for from within. The activists are more to be desired because they present themselves as the enemy at the gate. Although they may use deceit and cunning they are known because they carry their banner openly. No matter how formidable they may be they cannot be as serious a threat as those who wear the garments, speak the language and share the customs of those within an organization while secretly working that which is harmful. They rot the heart of an industry, undermine the pillars of support and infect the industry with their treason to the point that those who see clearly and understand what is really going on are left standing alone. That industry will no longer be able to resist those who would destroy it. Can any crime be feared more? Paraphrased from a quote by Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC)
The leadership of the National Pest Management Association (NPMA) has embraced the latest philosophical flavor of the day and partnered up with an organization, the National Resource Defense Council (NRDC), which I believe has some serious problms with integrity; after all, along with being
clearly, adamantly and unendingly against pesticides, these were the people who were instrumental in promoting the fraudulent Alar scare as was outlined in Part I. Not to mention all the other misanthropic organizations they have been allied with, also outlined in Part I.

This brings me to this question. Have they repented of their mischief regarding Alar? I have deliberately used the word repent here, because the root meaning is to “turn about”. Have they apologized for their actions in this matter? Have they attempted to make restitution? Even Don Hewitt of 60 Minutes fame told Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, of the American Council on Science and Health, “that he regretted having done the Alar segment, but Ed Bradley, the producer of the piece, refused to retract it.”

Have they admitted that what they said about Alar simply wasn’t true? I haven’t noticed it if they have! And if they haven’t “repented” or "turned about" on this issue, which clearly shows their misdeeds; why then would we wish to partner with them?

I do have a problem with that, especially since they have a chair at the table and I don’t think that the industry’s views are being properly represented. I believe that it is clear that the rank and file and the leadership have two different views about the pest control industry. No matter how it is spun, the NPMA leadership has now bonded with them! And for what purpose? To determine what constitutes “green pest control” for the pest control industry.

It turns out that this group, whose core values have to be seriously called into question, wasn’t happy with NPMA’s QualityPro Green program. Last October the NRDC contacted Bob Rosenberg telling him that they wanted to get behind NPMA’s QualityPro Green program, but they weren’t happy with it in the program in its current state and “wanted” four changes made in order for them to support NPMA’s program.

Bob Rosenberg says that NPMA agreed to three of their ….oh, let’s just call them what they are….demands. NPMA’s leadership stood strong though….they only accepted three out of the four.
1. They wanted the program re-written to make sure that companies that had bought into this “green madness” were “mandated” to follow “program standards”.

Actually, I don’t mind this! After all, if you claim to follow a certain religion you should be required to follow the tenants of that religion. Green certainly falls into the category of neo-paganism.
2. They also wanted “independent, third party field audits” and those audits were to be “beefed up” at $600.00 per audit for the corporate office and $300.00 for branches with 15% being audited randomly, not exceeding 30 offices.

This was the big change. So, having state and federal bureaucrats violating the 4th and 5th amendments isn’t enough. Now we have regulators for hire violating them! And of course we have to pay additional taxes (fees) to fund them in order to keep this program viable because we apparently don’t pay enough taxes nor do we have enough regulations at the federal, state and local level. Apparently we don’t have enough regulators searching our businesses either. We need “regulators for hire” who will add a further regulatory burden on the industry.

Apparently that is what the leadership at NPMA believes. You may call them self imposed rules, but they will in fact be de facto regulations. And how do I know that they will create new rules (regulations) as time goes by? Because that is what regulators do, create regulations. Bureaucrats have one goal…to grow and perpetuate themselves and they can only do that by promoting new regulations. These regulators for hire will in effect be a de facto bureaucracy; one that is bound to be heavily influenced by the NRDC or one of their fellow green radicals.
3. The NRDC wants to “make sure that we walk the walk” and have demanded and received a representative from outside the industry on the NPMA advisory board, if NPMA is to expect their endorsement.

Everyone should be upset about this outrageous capitulation on the part of NPMA. This and the idea of inspectors acceptable to the NRDC should send chills down our backs. Who will determine what constitutes independent? Will they eventually demand that only they can determine who those independent people will be? It may not start out that way, but you can make book on it that it will turn that way!

Did you ever wonder why so many in the structural pest control industry are so hot to embrace IPM or “green” pest control; when both are so obviously destructive to our industry? Did you ever wonder why so many in the pesticide application industries are so hot to understand and find common ground with the environmentalists, who would dearly like to see us all commit suicide?

The first thing some of you will say is; who says it is destructive to our industry? I do! The reason why I say this is because it will ultimately take away everything we use. Green pest control will ultimately create a system of micro management, (we are not far from it now) through regulatory agencies, regarding everything we do to rid homes and businesses of pests. It will ultimately give veto power to the greenies over everything we do. They and their lackeys in industry, media and government. If you don’t believe me, then ask any greenie what he thinks about what we do and what they want to do about it.

It is clear there is an element in the chemical manufacturing, distribution and application industries that believe all the environmental claptrap. It is also clear there is an element that believes they can gain ground on their competitors by embracing the environmental movement. I have always found this to be incredible. Initially, I thought this must be some kind of weird sort of Corporate Social Responsibility syndrome. However, I believe I have found the answer.

An article, rich with symbolism, by Dennis Prager called “Explaining Jews, Part VI: Jews who aid those who hate Jews (and America)" exposes how prominent Jews and rabbis actually make statements supporting the terrorist organizations that are working to destroy Israel in particular, and Jews in general. Throughout the course of the article he keeps coming back to the same question; why? I found his explanations, which I am reproducing with his permission, most fascinating. He states:

“How is one to explain these Jews who work to hurt Jews? I think the primary explanations are psychological. As I wrote in a previous column, it is almost impossible to overstate the pathological effects of thousands of years of murder of Jews -- culminating in the Nazi Holocaust, when nearly all Jews on the European continent were murdered -- have had on most Jews. “

He goes on to say---“even Jews who lost no relatives in the Holocaust fear another outbreak of anti-Jewish violence, and given the Nazi-like anti-Semitism in the Muslim world today, that is not exactly paranoia.”

His analysis continues; “One way to deal with this is to side with the enemy. Consciously or not, the Jew who sides with those dedicated to murdering Jews feels that he will be spared. He becomes the "good Jew" in the anti-Semites' eyes.”

As I read this I came to a realization that this sounds like a variation of the “Stockholm syndrome”. For those that are unaware of what the Stockholm syndrome is, here is the explanation from Wikipedia. “The Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in a hostage, in which the hostage exhibits seeming loyalty to the hostage-taker, in spite of the danger (or at least risk) the hostage has been put in. Stockholm syndrome is also sometimes discussed in reference to other situations with similar tensions, such as battered woman syndrome,child abuse cases,and bride kidnapping.”

“The syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg, Stockholm in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23 to August 28, 1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached to their victimizers, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal. The term was coined by the criminologist and psychologist Nils Bejerot, who assisted the police during the robbery, and referred to the syndrome in a news broadcast.”

“An offshoot of the Stockholm syndrome is the aptly-used term capture-bonding defined as a bond that in some instances develops between captor and captive. The term is modeled on the Swedish woman who became so attached to one of the bank robbers who held her hostage that she broke her engagement to her former lover and remained bonded, or in bondage, to her former captor while he served time in prison.”

One might say, “neither they nor we are being held captive”, and that would be true; physically. Captivity is merely one of the tools used to implement a fearful state. That fear is what effects a change in emotion and psychology. Eventually the intellect will supply the needed rationale to take you where your emotions already are.

Being constantly under attack creates sense of psychological or emotional captivity and works much the same way as being held hostage. In fact, they are all are similar because we are being held captive by our fears. Fear is the tool that is used to prompt changes in who and what we are, whether the captivity is physical, psychological, or emotional or all three. As a result, some will attempt to find common ground with those that would destroy them, in effect saying “don’t hurt me, I’ll be a good greenie’, in hopes that they will be spared while all others are sacrificed.

I keep saying it over and over again; the thing that all people have in common is they are all people and as a result the historical patterns keep repeating over and over again. We, the pesticide manufacturing, distributing and applications industry are the figurative Jews of this article.

We are a bit paranoid in thinking that no one likes or respects us. Well, just because we are paranoid doesn’t mean people aren’t against us. We are vilified by the environmental movement, self-serving politicians who spout environmentalist nonsense against us as if everything the greenies say is established fact, and a radicalized and compliant media prints reams of misinformation about us.

We are constantly under attack by bureaucrats. Worse yet there are substantial numbers of the population who have been trained to believe we are one of the world’s greatest evils. Why? Because they believe the propaganda that claims we are killing future generations and destroying the environment. These are the ones who represent those practicing figurative jihad against the pest control industry. As for those within our industry who support them; these are the same as those ones defending and supporting these figurative anti-Semites against their own people. Silly us for having a sense of paranoia?

Obviously, the environmentalists regard the pesticide application industries open embrace of “green” in some form as a victory. Soon they would require some other forms of “green” by redefining what will constitute a “new green”. They have already succeeded in getting NPMA to alter their “green” certification program…substantially. They and their allies in the pesticides industries are jumping on board claiming that this is needed to have consistency nationwide and is good for the industry.

Soon they will demand the total elimination of pesticides and their allies in the pesticide applications industries would find value in this view and claim that this is good for the industry and for society and the environment, but to no avail as the greenies cry out with righteous indignation over what we will be doing with what is left. Their enmity is everlasting and nothing will ever placate them. Whatever we agree to today will be unacceptable to them tomorrow. At some point it won’t matter if their allies in the pesticide industries agreed with them or not, because there will be no pesticide application industry left.

We have to recognize what is happening. We have to understand that everything the greenies want is antithetical to what is good for the pest control industry and humanity as a whole. We must stop appeasing those who cannot be appeased and be willing and able to defend that position with irrefutable facts and logic. We need to regularly state those facts categorically and forcefully wherever this kind of contamination appears in our industry. Finally we must become aware that those in our industry who support, promote and believe in the green movement and are willing to compromise the structural pest control industry (actually all the pesticide application industries) might be psychologically impaired.

The only conclusion I can come up with regarding those within our industries that continue to support “green” pest control, or even IPM, is that they are afflicted with some variation of the Stockholm syndrome. What other conclusion can you come to when people work to destroy that which puts food on their tables, clothes on their children’s backs, roofs over their heads? If that is the case, there isn’t any reasoning with them. Make no mistake about it; green is a weapon of mass destruction! To be green is to be irrational and misanthropic!

Our ignorance of history causes us to slander our own times. Gustave Flaubert


.

Langmuir's Laws (of bad science)

By Rich Kozlovich

Irving Langmuir 1881-1957 American chemist; awarded 1932 Nobel prize for chemistry for his work in surface chemistry.

As you read these “rules” I recommend that you precede each rule with the statement “You know it is bad science when” and then read the rule. Makes the rules much easier to understand.

1.The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.

2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the low level of significance of the results.

3. There are claims of great accuracy.

4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.

5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.

6. The ratio of supporters to critics rises to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to zero.

Saturday, September 5, 2009

Do You Have An Itch For An “ISM”?

by Rich Kozlovich

How many have tasted foie gras or even know what it is?

It is liver, but not just any old kind of liver; it is goose or duck liver; but not any old kind of goose or duck liver. It seems that when you force feed a migratory goose or duck species (this doesn’t work on non-migratory species) that it gets a large…really large liver…. which supposedly tastes really great. Foie gras, (pronounced fwa gra) is French for “fat liver”. This is achieved through a process of force feeding that goes back to ancient Egypt. “Foie gras is described as rich, buttery, and delicate, unlike that of a regular duck or goose liver.”

Now clearly this isn’t the kind of liver that my parents and grandparents generation doted on. That generation will go to a restaurant with a huge menu and go into rapture because liver and onions is the special the day! Of course that is usually beef liver, but they even like chicken livers as the special of the day.

I am 63 and you don't see people from my generation getting all that excited about liver..smothered in onions or any other way for that matter....why? I have always believed there must be a reason why anyone would like liver.. and I think I know what it is. They only liked liver because it was one of the few meats they could afford during the Great Drepression years. Liver, gizzards, chicken wings and pork ribs were mighty cheap back in those days, sometimes free. In those days they used to make chicken soup with chicken feet as the base for stock. That is one ugly sight!

In years gone by, average people didn’t have meat three meals a day. During the depths of the Great Depression many didn’t have meat once a week. Those old enough to remember the Little Rascals will remember an episode when Alfalfa was all excited because he was going to have meat at dinner that night. Meat was a big deal and if liver smothered in onions (the only way it could possibly be eaten) is all you can afford, and you have it enough in your youth, you might have the tendency to think the stuff is pretty great. Personally, I have always thought that anything that tasted that bad must be toxic.

Enough about that; back to foie gras! This is the liver that gourmets go into rapture over. As it turns out the animal rights activists are enthusiastic over it also. The difference is they want to ban it because they claim the raising process is cruel. There is an awful lot of green house gas being emitted by these people over this issue.

People who buy their food at the market and have never lived or worked on a farm should have nothing to say about this or anything else farmers do. None of these things ever became an issue until there were so many people living in the cities and so few living on farms. One hundred years ago over fifty percent on the population was involved in agriculture of some sort. Two hundred years ago most of the population farmed or at least raised some of their own food because the population in the cities was relatively small. Industrialization changed all of that, especially after WWII and so did attitudes.

We must remember that this is a process of incrementalism; one step at a time. The reality is that they are against eating any part of an animal and this is just one step in the process. Today foie gras, tomorrow the goose, the next day ducks and then chickens and so on until the eating of all animal flesh is banned. At least that is their goal, but make no mistake about it…if they hadn’t chosen animal rights it would be something else.

Take the Swiss for example. The Swiss have really gone over the edge. They added an amendment to a law that requires the Swiss to recognize the dignity of all living things to include…..plants. Yes, even the “decapitation” of wildflowers at the roadside “without rational reason”, will be punished. Folks, we have to stop being so anthropomorphic. Placing human values on non human things is irrational.

What if someone starts a movement that claims plants feel pain during harvest and therefore we shouldn’t eat bread? Would that be called Doughdoughism?


Friday, September 4, 2009

“Demagoguery Beats Data”

By Rich Kozlovich

"What is more frightening than any particular policy or ideology is the widespread habit of disregarding facts. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey put it this way - "Demagoguery beats data." Thomas Sowell

The pest control industry seems to be faced with the same problem. We are constantly told how we have to restrict pesticide use. We are told we must find alternatives to what we are using. We are told we must adopt “least toxic” (whatever that means) pest control programs. Why? Because they claim that pesticides may affect our health and the environment adversely.

This isn’t only from the environmental activists,  it's a constant refrain from the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It costs about three hundred million dollars to bring a pesticide to market, are we to assume that we don’t know what all the potential effects these products may have on people and the environment? Well....actually…..yes! We aren’t allowed to test people, so we don’t really know what any product will do until it's in common use. Ultimately the final testing ground will be agriculture.

Because of their effectiveness baits became common place in structural pest control. In years gone by the structural pest control industry used far more liquid pesticides than we do now, and we were only using 4% of all the pesticides manufactured. Four percent doesn’t make much money when the cost of testing is so high. Therefore any pesticide manufactured must be manufactured for use on corn, tobacco, cotton, rice, wheat, soybeans, etc. or it isn’t manufactured. Agriculture becomes the final testing ground for pesticides. If a pesticide is used in structural pest control it is because it has been used profitably elsewhere and for some time. We get it last. New technology in structural pest control is usually old technology everywhere else where pesticides are needed and used. So what must we conclude from that? These products have been used extensively for some time and the effect on people and the environment must absolutely be known to EPA.

So then we must conclude that they don’t care what the facts are. They apparently have made up their minds to advocate the view presented by the environmental activists and are not going to let facts stand in the way. Between the regulators, activists, universities, researchers, self serving politicians, and a compliant media they have managed to keep the public ignorant and frightened through “filtered facts” which has now given the completely opposite view of what is actually occurring.

Their answer to any criticism is that we must adopt IPM or "green" pest control, which cannot be truly defined. Name one thing you know for sure about IPM. Everybody has their own perception as to what it means, what products can be used, what techniques should be used, where and when they should be used if ever. This will always be debated because IPM is an “ideology, not a methodology” and "green" is nothing short of eco-religion.

If these products are so dangerous and EPA has the authority to remove products that are harmful from the market - and since they have traced the results of use of these products over the years - why don’t they do it? They clearly have the power and they certainly have the desire - why don’t they do it? It is quite simple...the facts must not support such an action.

Why are they promoting IPM to the tune of thousands of dollars a year in the form of grant money? Is it because there are no facts to support the elimination of these products and no matter how many times they change the rules (Food Quality Protection Act is one example along with re-registration requirements) to make it impossible to use pesticides they still can’t find the science to support the ban of pesticides, so they attempt to do it through a back door called IPM, organic or green pest control.

The public is constantly told by the media that pesticides cause ______. (fill in the blank) When it is discovered they were wrong or the facts were deliberately perverted, as in the Alar case, it is passed off as journalism. The activists jump up and down swearing it was good journalism. The media jumps up and down defending their right to say what they want to no matter where the real truth lies, no matter who's hurt, and in the Alar case, refusing to publically acknowledge their misconduct.

What are the facts regarding pesticides. There is no evidence that pesticides have adversely effected the general health of the population! In fact, if you compared the world before modern pesticides and today we find that we are better fed and healthier than ever in this nation’s history or any other nation that has adopted extensive pesticide use. Only the countries who are unable or unwilling to adopt modern practices suffer the consequences of dystopia; poverty, misery, disease, squalor, hunger, starvation and early death.

There has been a great deal of talk regarding trace amounts of __________(fill in the blank) in our waters and land and even trace amounts of over 200 manmade chemicals in our bodies. So what? This must be a good thing since the advent of these products people are living longer and healthier lives. The appearance of chemicals has nothing to do with toxicity. The dose makes the poison.

Still we have educated individuals teaching (and being taught) in our schools and universities that manmade chemicals are the great evil and we need to go "green" or “natural” or “organic”. Whatever those terms mean!

Most people have been misled into thinking that "organic" foods are healthier, taste better and that they don’t have to worry about pesticides. Nothing could be further from the truth. Note the following information by Dr. Bruce Ames.
Dr. Bruce Ames (a biochemistry professor at the University of California) pointed out in 1987 that we ingest in our diet about 1.5 grams per day of {natural} pesticides. Those foods contain 10,000 times more, by weight, of {natural} pesticides than of man-made pesticide residues. More than 90% of the pesticides in plants are produced {naturally} by the plants, which help protect them from insects, mites, nematodes, bacteria, and fungi. Those natural pesticides may make up 5% to 10% of a plant's dry weight, and nearly half of them that were tested on experimental animals were carcinogenic. Americans should therefore feel unconcerned about the harmless, infinitesimal traces of synthetic chemicals to which they may be exposed. The highly publicized traces of synthetic pesticides on fruits and vegetables worried some people so much that they began to favor ``organically produced'' foods, thinking that they would not contain any pesticides. Most people are not aware that organic gardeners can legally use a great many pesticides, so long as they are not man-made. They can use nicotine sulfate, rotenone, and pyrethrum (derived from plants), or any poisons that occur naturally, such as lime, sulfur, borax, cyanide, arsenic, and fluorine.

This apparently is OK because its “natural”. Chemicals are chemicals and have chemical names. If I presented you the following menu would you eat it? By the way...these foods are known carcinogens.

Cream of Mushroom Soup, Carrots, Cherry Tomatoes, Celery, Mixed Roasted Nuts, Tossed Lettuce and Arugula with Basil-Mustard Vinaigrette, Roast Turkey, Bread Stuffing (with onions, celery, black pepper & mushrooms), Cranberry Sauce, Prime Rib of Beef with Parsley Sauce, Broccoli Spears, Baked Potato, Sweet Potato, Pumpkin Pie, Apple Pie, Fresh Apples, Grapes, Mangos, Pears, Pineapple, Red Wine, White Wine, Coffee, Tea., Jasmine Tea. (Source: American Council on Science and Health)

Here are the chemicals that make up this natural meal.

Hydrazines, aniline, caffeic acid, benzaldehyde, caffeic acid, hydrogen peroxide, quercetin glycosides, caffeic acid, furan derivatives, psoralens, aflatoxin, furfural, allyl isothiocyanate, caffeic acid, estragole, methyl eugenol, heterocyclic amines, acrylamide, ethyl alcohol, benzo(a)pyrene, ethyl carbamate, furan derivatives, furfural, dihydrazines, d-limonene, psoralens, quercetin glycosides, safrole,furan derivatives ,benzene, heterocyclic amines, psoralens,allyl isothiocyanate,ethyl alcohol, caffeic acid,ethyl alcohol, furfural,acetaldehyde, benzene, ethyl alcohol, benzo(a)pyrene, ethyl carbamate, furan derivatives, furfural,benzo(a)pyrene, coumarin, methyl eugenol, safrole,acetaldehyde, caffeic acid, coumarin, estragole, ethyl alcohol, methyl eugenol, quercetin glycosides, safrole,acetaldehyde, benzaldehyde, caffeic acid, d-limonene, estragole, ethyl acrylate, quercetin glycosides,ethyl alcohol, ethyl carbamate,benzo(a)pyrene, benzaldehyde, benzene, benzofuran, caffeic acid, catechol, 1,2,5,6-dibenz(a)anthracene, ethyl benzene, furan, furfural, hydrogen peroxide, hydroquinone, d-limonene, 4-methylcatechol,benzo(a)pyrene, quercetin

For those that read the chemicals listed above you will notice that some of them are repeated a number of times. I deliberately left the list that way because you are getting a multiple dose of that compound in the above Thanksgiving meal.

Does that sound so bad now? It is unfortunate that so many in positions of authority and responsibility continue to allow filtered facts to become the conventional wisdom. More importantly it is impossible for any society to make intelligent long term decisions when preconceived notions are allowed to dictate what “facts” will be allowed to be presented.

Then again, facts are confusing and that certainly is the last thing the public needs - right?   And it certainly is the last thing the environmentalists and their minions want. Can you imagine who that might interfere with all those scares they are constantly presenting as eminent disasters. That in turn would foul up contributions and then the greatest disaster of them all would occur. They would have to go out and get real jobs.

All of this is disturbing, but what I find most disturbing is the unwillingness of our industry's information deliverers, including NPMA, the trade journals and state associations to stand up to these people and publish the truth. We are appeasers, enablers and will eventually we will become traitors to our own industry.

What we need is clarity and that can only be attained by making ourselves aware of the facts.  Once we're prepared to follow the facts wherever they lead then we have the truth, and truth isn't unkind.  It's just the truth!

Thursday, September 3, 2009

How Do You Pronounce Misanthrope?

How do you pronounce misanthrope? Try PETA.

by Rich Kozlovich

I originally published this Friday, April 21, 2006 in my first blog. With NPMA's recent actions I feel that it is important to reprint it here now.

Misanthrope - somebody who hates people: somebody who hates humanity, or who dislikes and distrusts other people and tends to avoid them.

The next time you see a Hollywood star proudly telling everyone how much they support animal rights and they are proud members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), remember the quotes listed below from an April 15, 2006 article by Fred Geilow. Remember, this is who these people really are.

"Mankind is the biggest blight on the face of the earth." PETA statement

"I don't believe human beings have the "right to life." That's a supremacist perversion. A rat is a pig, is a dog, is a boy." Ingrid Newkirk, PETA co-founder and national director

"It would be great if all the fast food outlets' slaughterhouses, laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. "Bruce Fredrich, PETA spokesman

"I would rather have medical experiments done on our children, than on animals." PETA statement

"If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would... Only 7 percent of Americans are hunters. That means there are more of us than there are of them. It is simply a matter of democracy. The majority rules in a democracy. We are going to use the ballot box, and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States... We will take it species by species, until all hunting is stopped in California. Then, we will take it state by state." Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the U.S.

"Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed, we must destroy the Judeo-Christian religious tradition." Peter Singer, known as the "Father of Animal Rights"

"To those people who say, "My father is alive because of animal experimentation," I say, "Yeah, well, good for you. This dog died so your father could live." Sorry, but I am just not behind that kind of tradeoff." Bill Maher

"Even if animal tests produced a cure [for AIDS], we'd be against it." Ingrid Newkirk, PETA co-founder and national director

"Chickens are interesting individuals, who have as much right not to be cooked and eaten as a dog, or a cat, or even a human being." Bruce Fredrich, PETA spokesman

"Ants are sentient beings, like we are, and have a right to life like we do, and they shouldn't be shown the level of disrespect the producers of ant farms show them." Stephanie Boyles, PETA

"The life of an ant and the life of my child should be granted equal consideration." Michael W. Fox, vice president, Humane Society of the United States

"We feel that animals have the same rights as retarded children." Alex Pacheco, former director of PETA, and subsequently the head of an animal-rights fundraising company

"I think it is speciesist [someone who accepts human domination over animals] to think that the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center was a greater tragedy than what millions of chickens endured that day, and what they endure every day, because they cannot defend themselves against the concerted human appetites arrayed against them." Karen Davis, president of the animal rights group, United Poultry Concerns

"If a human four-year-old has what it takes for legal personhood, then a chimpanzee should be able to be a legal person, in terms of legal rights." Steven Wise, Harvard University lecturer, and author of Rattling the Cage

"Surely there will be some nonhuman animals whose lives, by any standards, are more valuable than the lives of some humans." Peter Singer

"[A]rson, property destruction, burglary, and theft are "acceptable crimes" when used for the animal cause." Alex Pacheco, former director of PETA (This has been used in many areas of the world already, especially labs where animal experimentation has gone on. They have even intimidated individual employees at their homes as well as attacking the facilities. There has even been talk about assassinating researchers.)

"If someone is killing, on a regular basis, thousands of animals, and if that person can only be stopped in one way by the use of violence, then it is certainly a morally justified solution." Jerry Vlasak, spokesman for PCRM [Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine], a front group for PETA.

I have some questions.

1. When reading this sort of thing do we say to ourselves; are the views expressed here my views?
2. Are the views expressed here shared by most people?
3. Are these views the views of rational people?
4. What do you think their ultimate goals are?
5. Do you think these are the views of misanthropes?
6. Do you think all environmental activists are misanthropic?

If you answer no to the first three questions and yes to the last two isn't it appropriate to ask; why are we partnering up with the National Resource Defense Council people who are a part of this movement?


.