How hard it is for the man-in-the-street to get his mind around the biofuels issue. Sadly, it's not helped by people like the U.S. President backing biofuels (with lashings of GM, high-energy processing, agrochemicals etc.) without giving the whole picture.

Richard Branson's achievement today (flying a Virgin Atlantic Boeing 747 to Amsterdam from London on biofuels fed to one engine) has shown that the oils will perform at 30,000 feet, which was not known before (or at least a 20% mixture will).

"Virgin said the fuel to be used for Sunday's flight -- a 20 percent biofuel mix of coconut and babassu oil in one of the plane's four main fuel tanks -- was of a type that wouldn't compete with food and fresh water resources amid mounting concerns among green campaigners about the environmental impact of biofuels."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/02/24/flight.biofuels/

In the first place, it is only 20% non-fossil fuel. In the second place, it is unfortunate that Branson's biofuel oil came from the tropical rainforest, thus heralding massive deforestation if we don't look for other sources. There is then the threat of food acreage being used, leading to starvation in some areas of the world. The requirement of the aviation industry is massive beyond belief.

It is high time we were all given the truth and a full explanation by all concerned, in order to help us to see all the issues. Joined-up thinking is required if we are to break out of the mess into which we've dug ourselves.

Clearly, however, cutting down transport is a very good way to make a start. Sadly, rather than this, we are increasing at a massive and exponential rate.

Until we are given all the facts, things are not clear but, in my current state of understanding, I don't think Mr Branson's airshow is the breakthrough we require. We have to stop salving our consciences with 'easy' solutions, be truthful with ourselves over the issues and start to cut our suit according to our cloth.

[Why not take a look at www.alternativevet.org , while you're here?]

For those who buy into the whole manufactured food thing, it may be nice to know that recent Hill's(TM) publicity announces: "New Improved Hill's(TM) Prescription(TM) Canine r/d(TM) and w/d(TM)". This may seem like good news for dogs.

However, for those more worldly-wise and who like to read further into such announcements, to see what they really mean, this will confirm that the whole concept of 'complete diets' or 'perfectly balanced diets' is seriously flawed.

This is a common publicity stunt in this field, used by other petfood manufacturers, too. The word 'improved' says it all. These diets were supposed to be perfect before. How can you improve what's already touted as scientifically-formulated and providing all you need for your dog? If you can improve it, it wasn't ideal before (yet it was supposed to be your dog's only food). If you can improve it now, how many more improvements will be deemed necessary and be used as an advertising ploy in the future, when really they should show up the whole thing for what it is?

These two diets have even been "changed to a lighter brown colour"! That's nice.

The pet food trade is big business. Marketing follows rules of its own.

[Why not take a look at www.alternativevet.org , while you're here?]