Banner
    European Food Safety Agency: Feed Additives Could Protect Environment
    By News Staff | July 30th 2012 01:39 PM | 7 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    Livestock is an essential part of the human diet and farm productivity is dependent on animals being healthy, which depends on adequate nutrition. Existing evidence shows that livestock feed can be improved by the use of feed additives which improve diet and health but also increase milk yields, suppress the oestrus (female reproductive) cycle or improve digestion in livestock. When properly used in a well-managed environment, many of these additives can substantially improve performance and farm profitability.

    The Agricultural and Environmental Research Unit at the University of Hertfordshire has been awarded a research contract by the European Food Safety Agency to review chemical additives used in livestock diets and to critically evaluate their potential for delivering environmental benefits such as reducing waste gases that may contribute to climate change.

    The study is to be completed in spring 2013 and will undertake a thorough, critical and systematic review to produce a global inventory of current feed additives that offer environmental benefits. This information will support the current European regulatory process on feed additives, and will help develop more sustainable policies in this area.

    Dr Kathy Lewis, reader in agri-environmental science, said, “Feed additives must meet the necessary safety standards but they can also help to deliver environmental benefits. They have an important role to play in delivering sustainable increases in productivity but can be used to improve digestive processes in livestock which will reduce waste production including methane, ammonia and other metabolic gases.”

    Comments

    Almost everything has been poluted now with extraneous additives to the natural environment. Why isn't anybody interested in ways to reduce the numbers of humans to, lets say, 10% of what it is now? Everybody would then be living in a comfortable and pleasant environment.

    Pjtr (not verified) | 08/04/12 | 14:42 PM
    Hank
    Who gets to pick the survivors? Progressive elites?  Because those are the only people I see making that argument (and even they have not made it in 35 years - Obama's science czar John Holdren knows better than to endorse forced sterilizations and abortions now like he did then). 

    Are you willing to off 90% of your friends?
    —
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Hank Campbell | 08/04/12 | 14:50 PM
    Excellent reply to Pjtr, Mr. Campbell.
    People are so concerned about perps like the Colorado Theater killer, as evil as he was, but there are others, like Pjtr, who advocated, and some who still advocate offing, well, billions of people, an exponential increase of mind boggling proportions! It could not be achieved by any natural reduction in the reproduction rate. It would have to be...an "offing" done on an immense scale. As Pjtr said "Everybody would then be living in a comfortable and pleasant environment." Everyone that is, except the 90% who are killed. And they say this, as if it is on the same plane as using bleach to kill millions of bacteria in the bathroom. What would Pjtr say if he is not chosen to live by the "selection" committee?

    Absolutely no regard for fellow humans! And there probably are those in political positions, and universities promoting similar views, so it isn't going away.

    Curiously, there is an academic response to judge those who push the proposal to eliminate (murder) 90% of the world's population, and it is found in DSM IV code 301.7 Antisocial Personality Disorder, which notes the "reckless disregard for the safety of self or others", and "being indifferent to hurting others." No lack of ambivalence on that definition. And of course, the old measure: "Thou shall not murder".

    Being marched into the "showers" ala Auschwitz, or direct to the firing line in a Soviet Gulag to fulfill a "Government" mandate is the ultimate display of state sponsored practice of "Antisocial Personality Disorder", and that is just what Pjtr and any fellow travelers have proposed.

    Might pay to look up that DSM IV code... .

    Tusculum (not verified) | 08/04/12 | 17:10 PM
    Gerhard Adam
    It could not be achieved by any natural reduction in the reproduction rate.
    Don't be absurd.  Of course it could, and that says nothing about the additional 50% population growth that we're still going to be expected to absorb.

    I don't know of anyone that is advocating achieving such population levels over a period of a few months, so it's a bit disingenuous to present it as if it were some alternative Holocaust.

    There are only three choices.  Stabilize our population, allow unfettered growth, or attempt to reduce it.  Like it or not, the second choice is NOT an option.  That is already given by any estimate or projection regarding our human future.  The "hope" is that it will stabilize, but even so, for that to occur it must be reduced.

    So, let's knock off the bullshit, and recognize that one way or another, the human population will come under control.  Whether we make the decision consciously, or that decision is made for us, it will occur.

    ... and trust me ... no one knows how to brew up a Holocaust better than good ole' Mother Nature.  Pay now or pay later ... it serves no one's purpose to pretend that we can grow forever.
    Gerhard Adam | 08/04/12 | 19:03 PM
    Mr. Adam, as Mr. Campbell points out the obvious to Pjtr: "Who gets to pick the survivors? Progressive elites? And: "Are you willing to off 90% of your friends?"

    To borrow a Bushism, who gets to be "the decider"? And how will the criteria to determine who is the "decideds" be developed? On what, or whose "values" will that issue be settled?

    I'm grateful for the opportunity Science 2.0 provides people like myself to first, keep ahead of the thrilling advances in the sciences, and in my case, to present to the scientific community the moral challenges these discoveries present if and how they are brought to bear on humanity. For some examples, this very scenario was fiercely debated by the Manhattan Project scientists, and for good reason. Incinerating countless thousands of people in an instant, and then the proliferation of nuclear capability as a terrifying possibility, were first order concerns debated back then, and sure enough, what they feared has come to pass. Before that, another scientific product, namely chemical weapons, came under censure as a the result of their use in WW 1.

    These are some of the application issues to ponder... .
    Interesting, how an article on feed additives morphed into this debate on application ethics, courtesy of Pjtr !

    Tusculum (not verified) | 08/04/12 | 20:37 PM
    Gerhard Adam
    You don't get it.  It will be decided.  We can either consciously decide to restrain our population growth, or "nature" will do it for us.  There are no other options.

    So while you can make it seem like it's some murderous plot, but it's the simple reality of biology.  Nothing grows to infinity, and the human population is no different.  The choice humans have is to do it in an orderly fashion so that everyone can make voluntary choices, or to allow themselves to be victimized by chance.
    Mr. Adam, as Mr. Campbell points out the obvious to Pjtr: "Who gets to pick the survivors? Progressive elites? And: "Are you willing to off 90% of your friends?"
    That's simply a silly statement.  No one is talking about eliminating people that are already alive.  Preventing population increases means that we stop with the self-indulgent crap and begin to scientifically recognize the impact we have on the planet and the fundamental rules governing populations.  As I said before, to portray this as some scientific act of murder or another "holocaust" is simply disingenuous and chooses to ignore reality.

    So, pick your magic number.  Whatever you think the human population can grow to.  At that point, the choice is removed.  Then all the cute comments about choosing which of your friends you wish to eliminate, won't be so cute, and it certainly won't be your choice.


    Gerhard Adam | 08/04/12 | 21:07 PM
    Gerhard Adam
    I do find it ironic that for those advocating how important science is to solving our human-based problems and feeding all the people in the world.  Pointing out that anti-science beliefs increase the risk because of anti-vaccine rhetoric, and anti-GMO foods is going to be responsible for causing people to starve.  Just as the anti-DDT or environmental crowd is making life so difficult for people ... in every instance it's about how this anti-scientific sentiment is putting people's lives at risk and therefore is a bad influence.

    Yet, it is clear that the single biggest contributor to all the problems we face as a species is a direct result of our inability to curb our propensity to reproduce.  Despite having technology to control our birth-rates, so that no one has to be inconvenienced by things like abstention from sex.  We can live our lives with unparalleled abandon regarding our biology, yet when the mere mention of curtailing our birth-rate occurs, images of Hitler are immediately invoked.  It is this aspect of it which speaks volumes.  We have the technology to solve this "problem" and yet we intentionally choose to do nothing about it.  Like so many others that science promises, here is another "solution" laid waste because people can't be bothered to think beyond their own self-indulgent beliefs.

    In my view, this is science's blind spot.  The one part where social values takes precedence [even beyond religious views] as a topic that no one wants to touch.  After all, we can regulate all manner of things that people are or aren't permitted to do.  People are even willing to regulate what you're allowed to consume as food.  God forbid someone should tell you that you might want to ease up on having 8 children.  So, we employ a "Red Queen" strategy, of committing our resources and efforts to "run as fast as we can" so that we can "stay in the same place" regarding our lifestyles.  So, every time we add another billion people to the planet, we can pat ourselves on the back for having successfully "dodged another bullet", despite that even the most cursory consideration would force us to recognize just how precarious our existence has become.  We haven't improved our probabilities of surviving, we've simply upped the stakes, so that any crash produces a bigger collapse.

    In my view, that is something that evolutionary psychologists could explore because it is so obviously a stupid position to take, that it can only be the result of some psychological barrier that prevents reasonable discourse over something so fundamental to our survival.

    The smoker is viewed as exposing people to second-hand smoke and risking cancer.  The person that is anti-vaccine is accused of compromising herd immunity and risking the spread of infection.  However, the individual that contributes several more mouths to feed and inhabit this planet is praised for doing their godly duty, often accompanied by the platitude of "liking large families".

    Talk about anti-scientific nonsense.

     
    Gerhard Adam | 08/04/12 | 21:20 PM