RE: Palm oil and the environment

[Guest guest]

> In yesterday's Observer (major UK Sunday newspaper) there was an article

> about palm oil and its damage tothe environment. The article also claims

> that palm oil is in many products - now, I do read labels but the only

> thing I have found it to be in recently is peanut butter!

> The article can be found here:

> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1163840,00.html

> Any comments? At least they didn't start talking about its saturated fat

> content!

>

I have seen it in PB and in Nairns Oatcakes. I've never seen it in

anything else, as hydrogenated oils are of course the favourite oils in

use when they need to be solid at room temperature.

Jo

[Guest guest]

At 12:11 PM 3/8/2004 +0000, Sharon M wrote:

>In yesterday's Observer (major UK Sunday newspaper) there was an article

>about palm oil and its damage tothe environment. The article also claims

>that palm oil is in many products - now, I do read labels but the only

>thing I have found it to be in recently is peanut butter!

>The article can be found here:

>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1163840,00.html

>Any comments? At least they didn't start talking about its saturated fat

>content!

well - If I were to put my conspiracy theory cap on <big toothy grin> I

would say that this might be less of a campaign by environmentalists but

engineered by the vegetable oil forces (corn, soy) in an attempt to torpedo

the Indonesian palm oil industry.

A similar charge has been applied to Mediterranean countries who have

prioritized olive oil production. The claim was that too many olive trees

were planted, leeching the soil of nutrients, endangering other crops. But

we don't hear too many calls for olive oil boycotts.

Ok, conspiracy cap off, economic cap on.

If the environmentalists have their way, the Indonesians will still have

their palm oil plantations but will have no market to sell the product to.

A similar situation happened in the Philippines regarding coconut

plantations - these were encouraged in the 30's to the 60's by the

Americans who at the time bought much of the copra and coconut oil. Now

coconut is a depressed export market because of the ban by the west due to

the saturated fat scare brought about by the soybean producers and the

Philippine coconut industry is hurting. Who can blame the coconut farmers

if they wish to shift to other crops?

Thankfully there are new uses for coconut oil (i.e. coco-diesel, an

alternative automotive fuel) being developed. This would be even better for

the environment as an alternative to diesel (besides the exhaust smells

like baked coconut pie, smells great!)

Btw - Palm oil is usually orange in color - similar to corn oil. It's

supposed to be rich in beta carotene, hence the color. It's not a fully

saturated oil like coconut oil, there is some polyunsaturates and

monounsaturates as well.

[Guest guest]

>If the environmentalists have their way, the Indonesians will still have

>their palm oil plantations but will have no market to sell the product to.

>A similar situation happened in the Philippines regarding coconut

>plantations - these were encouraged in the 30's to the 60's by the

>Americans who at the time bought much of the copra and coconut oil. Now

>coconut is a depressed export market because of the ban by the west due to

>the saturated fat scare brought about by the soybean producers and the

>Philippine coconut industry is hurting. Who can blame the coconut farmers

>if they wish to shift to other crops?

I just hope that we coconut-lovers can spread the word fast enough to

keep enough coconut groves so we can get reasonably priced coconut

oil!

>Thankfully there are new uses for coconut oil (i.e. coco-diesel, an

>alternative automotive fuel) being developed. This would be even better for

>the environment as an alternative to diesel (besides the exhaust smells

>like baked coconut pie, smells great!)

That sounds WONDERFUL! The bio-diesel used in the U.S. now reportedly

smells like french fries, because restaurant cooking oil is one of

the prime sources.

>Btw - Palm oil is usually orange in color - similar to corn oil. It's

>supposed to be rich in beta carotene, hence the color. It's not a fully

>saturated oil like coconut oil, there is some polyunsaturates and

>monounsaturates as well.

Has anyone tried it yet? I'm thinking about getting some.

Jeanmarie

[Guest guest]

Jim

I am sure the conspirators are the big farmers of gmos like soy, etc. What dya

know, Britain had a study pubished the other day saying 2/3 of all crops on US

farms has been contaminated with the gmos!!! It further says now the US cannot

say they have organic food since most of the soil and seeds of about anything

they plant have been " downwinded " . Their animal products are also not organic

because they eat farm produce!!! It further said that Britain should not

approve the use of gmos until all research work has been thoroughly examined and

done because at present it indicates creating health problems for consumers and

farmers.

I am angry because this pres. macapagal has an ad in the paper about her " gloria

rice " . It is a full page ad and if you read the whole thing this rice is also

genetically modified. The ad further says that other agricultural farms like

Monsanto and others have also embarked on this kind of rice propagation and give

expertise on the fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides farmers should use. The

yield is so tempting 250 cavans per hectare vs. 100 per hectare if using the

traditional way of rice farming. They have started this kind of " test " farming

in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao covering 600,000 hectares. And they call that

TEST? These are the major islands in the Philippines. If downwinded, these

islands will be converted into gmos too.

From: Jim Ayson

Coconut Oil ;

Coconut Oil

Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 10:48 AM

Subject: Re: Palm oil and the environment

At 12:11 PM 3/8/2004 +0000, Sharon M wrote:

>In yesterday's Observer (major UK Sunday newspaper) there was an article

>about palm oil and its damage tothe environment. The article also claims

>that palm oil is in many products - now, I do read labels but the only

>thing I have found it to be in recently is peanut butter!

>The article can be found here:

>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1163840,00.html

>Any comments? At least they didn't start talking about its saturated fat

>content!

well - If I were to put my conspiracy theory cap on <big toothy grin> I

would say that this might be less of a campaign by environmentalists but

engineered by the vegetable oil forces (corn, soy) in an attempt to torpedo

the Indonesian palm oil industry.

A similar charge has been applied to Mediterranean countries who have

prioritized olive oil production. The claim was that too many olive trees

were planted, leeching the soil of nutrients, endangering other crops. But

we don't hear too many calls for olive oil boycotts.

Ok, conspiracy cap off, economic cap on.

If the environmentalists have their way, the Indonesians will still have

their palm oil plantations but will have no market to sell the product to.

A similar situation happened in the Philippines regarding coconut

plantations - these were encouraged in the 30's to the 60's by the

Americans who at the time bought much of the copra and coconut oil. Now

coconut is a depressed export market because of the ban by the west due to

the saturated fat scare brought about by the soybean producers and the

Philippine coconut industry is hurting. Who can blame the coconut farmers

if they wish to shift to other crops?

Thankfully there are new uses for coconut oil (i.e. coco-diesel, an

alternative automotive fuel) being developed. This would be even better for

the environment as an alternative to diesel (besides the exhaust smells

like baked coconut pie, smells great!)

Btw - Palm oil is usually orange in color - similar to corn oil. It's

supposed to be rich in beta carotene, hence the color. It's not a fully

saturated oil like coconut oil, there is some polyunsaturates and

monounsaturates as well.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

> Jim

>

> I am sure the conspirators are the big farmers of gmos like soy,

etc. What dya know, Britain had a study pubished the other day

saying 2/3 of all crops on US farms has been contaminated with the

gmos

----

Well the GMO issue is a long standing loaded political issue

especially between the USA (who wants the world to consume their

crops) and the EU countries who have banned the stuff. I think an

extended discussion here will also end up a political debate :-)

Even the " Gloria Rice " issue is political, why the heck would a

sitting president name a rice strain after herself? That's like

Marcos making the giant Mt Rushmore-like bust of himself in Ilocos.

What if there was Clinton Corn and Bush Brocolli? Oops, I forgot that

HW hated brocolli :-)

I'm not that hot about GMO rice though - what I'm more concerned is

more resturants should serve brown rice as an alternative to white

polished rice.

(and even then I dont eat that much rice anymore! more vegetables,

less starch)

The " consipracy theory " I brought up had to do with giving western

markets yet another reason to boycott palm and coconut oil - if not

from the health angle ( " saturated fat " ) but on the premise of saving

Indonesian rainforests.

[Guest guest]

I know western countries always cloak their greed to look like a scientific

report. Blah.

Re: Palm oil and the environment

> Jim

>

> I am sure the conspirators are the big farmers of gmos like soy,

etc. What dya know, Britain had a study pubished the other day

saying 2/3 of all crops on US farms has been contaminated with the

gmos

----

Well the GMO issue is a long standing loaded political issue

especially between the USA (who wants the world to consume their

crops) and the EU countries who have banned the stuff. I think an

extended discussion here will also end up a political debate :-)

Even the " Gloria Rice " issue is political, why the heck would a

sitting president name a rice strain after herself? That's like

Marcos making the giant Mt Rushmore-like bust of himself in Ilocos.

What if there was Clinton Corn and Bush Brocolli? Oops, I forgot that

HW hated brocolli :-)

I'm not that hot about GMO rice though - what I'm more concerned is

more resturants should serve brown rice as an alternative to white

polished rice.

(and even then I dont eat that much rice anymore! more vegetables,

less starch)

The " consipracy theory " I brought up had to do with giving western

markets yet another reason to boycott palm and coconut oil - if not

from the health angle ( " saturated fat " ) but on the premise of saving

Indonesian rainforests.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

We get Palm oil from TT, use it for cooking; because it contains

tocotrienols. (sp?)

Best Regards,

Lorenzo

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.616 / Virus Database: 395 - Release Date: 3/8/04

[Guest guest]

At 08:38 AM 3/9/2004 +0000, Sharon M wrote:

> The Functional Oil study, conducted at a cost of $400,000, was funded

> by Forbes Medi-Tech Inc. and the Dairy Farmers of Canada. Forbes

> Medi-Tech, which holds the patent to the Functional Oil, is a

> biopharmaceutical company and is currently conducting more tests on the

> product before the Functional Oil makes it way to supermarket shelves.

Well that explains it! There's a PATENT involved. Aha :-)

[Guest guest]

I use Palm Oil for cooking. I like many foods from Africa and was

delighted to find out that the basic flavor of many African dishes is

red palm oil!! This is another oil that when used by the indigenous

people who didn't use margarine, sugar, flour or other commercial,

Western " foods " , did not contribute to degenerative diseases in any

way. In fact, Palm Oil on biscuits is used to combat Vit A deficiency

in many depressed areas.

Irene

RPO trivian

[Guest guest]

Yeah yeah yeah. Take a bunch of oils, mix them together, patent the

result, feed them to people in a " study " , if the people don't get sick

or die, then you advertise the heck out of the " study " so that you can

sell it for very big bucks...

Irene

Not a cynic at all!!

[Guest guest]

And what really takes the cake is Mansanto suing small farmers who's crops

have been poluted. Saying that the farmer has " stolen " the Monsanto seed

even thought the farmer had no say in the matter because the wind brought in

the poluted seed.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: pbanagal [mailto:pbanagal@...]

Jim

I am sure the conspirators are the big farmers of gmos like soy, etc.

What dya know, Britain had a study pubished the other day saying 2/3 of all

crops on US farms has been contaminated with the gmos!!! It further says

now the US cannot say they have organic food since most of the soil and

seeds of about anything they plant have been " downwinded " . Their animal

products are also not organic because they eat farm produce!!! It further

said that Britain should not approve the use of gmos until all research work

has been thoroughly examined and done because at present it indicates

creating health problems for consumers and farmers.

I am angry because this pres. macapagal has an ad in the paper about her

" gloria rice " . It is a full page ad and if you read the whole thing this

rice is also genetically modified. The ad further says that other

agricultural farms like Monsanto and others have also embarked on this kind

of rice propagation and give expertise on the fertilizers, herbicides and

pesticides farmers should use. The yield is so tempting 250 cavans per

hectare vs. 100 per hectare if using the traditional way of rice farming.

They have started this kind of " test " farming in Luzon, Visayas, and

Mindanao covering 600,000 hectares. And they call that TEST? These are the

major islands in the Philippines. If downwinded, these islands will be

converted into gmos too.

[Guest guest]

A four week diet study is a “long” study.

On the news today they were listing all the bad things that “may” happen to

anyone who follows a low carb diet long term. They made it very plain that

six months is “long term.”

If it weren’t serious their lies and misinformation would be hilarious.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: vegasrenie@... [mailto:vegasrenie@...]

Yeah yeah yeah. Take a bunch of oils, mix them together, patent the

result, feed them to people in a " study " , if the people don't get sick

or die, then you advertise the heck out of the " study " so that you can

sell it for very big bucks...

Irene

Not a cynic at all!!

[Guest guest]

The thing I find most irritating about this " cooking obvioulsy trying to profit

from coconut oil's benefits, but trying to conceal that fact, for instance

pointing out that CO is artery clogging. For instance: they list both " tropical

oils " (65%) and coconut oil (6%) in the ingredients. The only tropicaloils are

coconut and palm so it must be a mixture of these two, otherwise they would have

said, palm oil. Since coconut has more MCT's than palm, that's probably the

major part of the tropical oil ingredient. So they are listing coconut oil in

fdact twice; it's probably far higher than the 6% they admit to. The simply

refuse to credit this wonderful MCT to coconut oil, this fantastic secret

ingredient. It's a scam, as far as I can see. Just so they can patent an MCT

oil. After all, they can't patent CO.

Sharon M

Yeah yeah yeah. Take a bunch of oils, mix them together, patent the

result, feed them to people in a " study " , if the people don't get sick

or die, then you advertise the heck out of the " study " so that you can

sell it for very big bucks...

[Guest guest]

They may simply be trying to avoid letting prejudices fostered by

misinformation about coconut oil keep people away from their product.

Also, to accommodate price fluctuations of ingredients, manufacturers

sometimes say something like " contains xxx oil or yyy oil " to avoid

having to print new labels every time they adjust their ingredients

after one becomes too expensive and they substitute something

cheaper, or they have supply difficulties, or other reasons.

Not everything is a nefarious plot, folks.

Jeanmarie

>The thing I find most irritating about this " cooking obvioulsy

>trying to profit from coconut oil's benefits, but trying to conceal

>that fact, for instance pointing out that CO is artery clogging. For

>instance: they list both " tropical oils " (65%) and coconut oil (6%)

>in the ingredients. The only tropicaloils are coconut and palm so it

>must be a mixture of these two, otherwise they would have said, palm

>oil. Since coconut has more MCT's than palm, that's probably the

>major part of the tropical oil ingredient. So they are listing

>coconut oil in fdact twice; it's probably far higher than the 6%

>they admit to. The simply refuse to credit this wonderful MCT to

>coconut oil, this fantastic secret ingredient. It's a scam, as far

>as I can see. Just so they can patent an MCT oil.

[Guest guest]

At 07:10 AM 3/10/2004 +0000, Sharon M wrote:

far higher than the 6% they admit to. The simply refuse to credit this

wonderful MCT to coconut oil, this fantastic secret ingredient. It's a

scam, as far as I can see. Just so they can patent an MCT oil. After all,

they can't patent CO.

---

There's a silver lining to this of course - a thorough study on MCTs by

McGill university will boost the credibility of MCT in North America, more

so when that " functional oil " goes to market. It will have to cite MCT as

its marketing advantage.

When that happens, the fortunes of coconut oil, a natural oil rich in

MCT's, should rise. People who will prefer natural to

genetically-engineered will go for tropical oils for their does of MCTs.

Funny but the Canadians also bioengineered Canola, a monounsaturated fat,

even when natural fats like olive oil and nut oils exist.

But you can't deny that the Olive oil and even peanut butter industries

benefited from the monounsaturated " Mediterranean diet " boom.

What coconut oil needs though is a lobby group in North Am, because this is

how the olive oil and peanut farmers did it at the height of the low-fat

craze. If only the Philippines, India, Malaysia, and Indonesia - the oil

producing countries - can get their act together on this.

[Guest guest]

But why, then. do they themselve foster prejudicesm by saying that coconut oil

clogs arteries? IMO they know very well that it doesn't - why then say it?

Seems to me they are trying to deceive. The fact that they have patented this

oil seems to show that it's profit they are thinking aboutl. Since this is still

at the research stage and they are not yet into printing labels, why can't they

just come out and say coconut oil?

Sharon M

Re: Re: Palm oil and the environment

They may simply be trying to avoid letting prejudices fostered by

misinformation about coconut oil keep people away from their product.

Also, to accommodate price fluctuations of ingredients, manufacturers

sometimes say something like " contains xxx oil or yyy oil " to avoid

having to print new labels every time they adjust their ingredients

after one becomes too expensive and they substitute something

cheaper, or they have supply difficulties, or other reasons.

Not everything is a nefarious plot, folks.

Jeanmarie

>The thing I find most irritating about this " cooking obvioulsy

>trying to profit from coconut oil's benefits, but trying to conceal

>that fact, for instance pointing out that CO is artery clogging. For

>instance: they list both " tropical oils " (65%) and coconut oil (6%)

>in the ingredients. The only tropicaloils are coconut and palm so it

>must be a mixture of these two, otherwise they would have said, palm

>oil. Since coconut has more MCT's than palm, that's probably the

>major part of the tropical oil ingredient. So they are listing

>coconut oil in fdact twice; it's probably far higher than the 6%

>they admit to. The simply refuse to credit this wonderful MCT to

>coconut oil, this fantastic secret ingredient. It's a scam, as far

>as I can see. Just so they can patent an MCT oil.

[Guest guest]

At 08:33 AM 3/10/2004 +0000, Sharon M wrote:

>But why, then. do they themselve foster prejudicesm by saying that

>coconut oil clogs arteries? IMO they know very well that it doesn't - why

>then say it?

The quote goes:

---> To those who may be surprised that the McGill team recommends tropical

oils, following recent studies that such products may clog arteries,

says that " tropical oils are actually fat-busters. "

Seems to me in the quote above that the McGill team is actually refuting

those artery clogging studies and telling the reporter that tropical oils

are the good stuff.

[Guest guest]

But why, then, say " recent studies " ? There were never any studies - it was

always rumour. Why don't they say openly it's not true?

You're right though about the good side of this. In fact, I'v e just done a

search and I've found several articles on coconut oil sites which quite the

resuklts of the study, without pushing the " new " oil .

For instance, this one:

http://www.livecoconutoil.com/fife.htm

Sharon M

Re: Re: Palm oil and the environment

At 08:33 AM 3/10/2004 +0000, Sharon M wrote:

>But why, then. do they themselve foster prejudicesm by saying that

>coconut oil clogs arteries? IMO they know very well that it doesn't - why

>then say it?

The quote goes:

---> To those who may be surprised that the McGill team recommends tropical

oils, following recent studies that such products may clog arteries,

says that " tropical oils are actually fat-busters. "

Seems to me in the quote above that the McGill team is actually refuting

those artery clogging studies and telling the reporter that tropical oils

are the good stuff.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

>What coconut oil needs though is a lobby group in North Am, because this is

>how the olive oil and peanut farmers did it at the height of the low-fat

>craze. If only the Philippines, India, Malaysia, and Indonesia - the oil

>producing countries - can get their act together on this.

There are producers organizations, but I'm not sure whether they have

offices and staff in the U.S. to lobby the U.S. government. It's a

pretty expensive proposition.

Jeanmarie

[Guest guest]

>But why, then. do they themselve foster prejudicesm by saying that

>coconut oil clogs arteries?

No idea. It's impossible to know for sure what they know, and there

is the chance they don't know. They may be as confused on this point

as most people who've always heard how bad tropical oils are. *I*

don't know what's up with them.

> IMO they know very well that it doesn't - why then say it? Seems to

>me they are trying to deceive. The fact that they have patented

>this oil seems to show that it's profit they are thinking aboutl.

People and companies patent their products to protect their

intellectual property, so no one else can profit from the time and

expense they've put into developing them. Nothing wrong with that. If

I invented something, whether a unique formula for a product or an

industrial process or if I wrote a book or a play, I'd want to

protect that work from being taken by others, who could claim they

invented it and profit from it at my expense. Nothing wrong with

wanting to protect your financial interests.

You like to get paid for your work, don't you? It's hardly reasonable

to castigate companies for wanting to get paid.

>Since this is still at the research stage and they are not yet into

>printing labels, why can't they just come out and say coconut oil?

Don't know.

Jeanmarie

[Guest guest]

on 10/3/04 2:59 AM, Sharon wrote:

> You're right though about the good side of this. In fact, I've just done a

> search and I've found several articles on coconut oil sites which quote the

> results of the study, without pushing the " new " oil .

> For instance, this one: http://www.livecoconutoil.com/fife.htm

I went to the above link. I have a problem with Fife's statement:

" One of the reasons coconut oil is effective in helping to reduce body

weight is that it contains fewer calories than other fats. For this reason,

coconut oil has gained a reputation as being the world's only natural,

low-calorie fat. "

This is just not true. My resources show coconut oil having the SAME caloric

value as corn oil, crisco, olive oil, peanut oil, safflower oil, sesame oil,

soybean oil and sunflower.

Perhaps the medium chain triglycerides in coconut oil make it metabolise

better, but to say coconut oil has " less calories " is not right. If I

cannot trust one statement by an author, can I trust the rest?

-- Joan McPhee, MH, WT

mailto:mcpheej@... --

[Guest guest]

What you say is basically correct. But when big companies, such as the drug

companies, pay big money to try to stamp out inexpensive treatments so that

all that's available is their brand of poison, cut and burn they have

stepped way over the line.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

>But why, then. do they themselve foster prejudicesm by saying that

>coconut oil clogs arteries?

No idea. It's impossible to know for sure what they know, and there

is the chance they don't know. They may be as confused on this point

as most people who've always heard how bad tropical oils are. *I*

don't know what's up with them.

> IMO they know very well that it doesn't - why then say it? Seems to

>me they are trying to deceive. The fact that they have patented

>this oil seems to show that it's profit they are thinking aboutl.

People and companies patent their products to protect their

intellectual property, so no one else can profit from the time and

expense they've put into developing them. Nothing wrong with that. If

I invented something, whether a unique formula for a product or an

industrial process or if I wrote a book or a play, I'd want to

protect that work from being taken by others, who could claim they

invented it and profit from it at my expense. Nothing wrong with

wanting to protect your financial interests.

You like to get paid for your work, don't you? It's hardly reasonable

to castigate companies for wanting to get paid.

>Since this is still at the research stage and they are not yet into

>printing labels, why can't they just come out and say coconut oil?

Don't know.

Jeanmarie

[Guest guest]

-Bruce Fife is occassionally at the Coconut info group.erhaps he could be

contacted there.Itwould be great to find out where his source is.

IN NC

-- In Coconut Oil , Joan McPhee <mcpheej@s...> wrote:

> on 10/3/04 2:59 AM, Sharon wrote:

>

> > You're right though about the good side of this. In fact, I've just done a

> > search and I've found several articles on coconut oil sites which quote the

> > results of the study, without pushing the " new " oil .

> > For instance, this one: http://www.livecoconutoil.com/fife.htm

>

> I went to the above link. I have a problem with Fife's statement:

>

> " One of the reasons coconut oil is effective in helping to reduce body

> weight is that it contains fewer calories than other fats. For this reason,

> coconut oil has gained a reputation as being the world's only natural,

> low-calorie fat. "

>

> This is just not true. My resources show coconut oil having the SAME caloric

> value as corn oil, crisco, olive oil, peanut oil, safflower oil, sesame oil,

> soybean oil and sunflower.

>

> Perhaps the medium chain triglycerides in coconut oil make it metabolise

> better, but to say coconut oil has " less calories " is not right. If I

> cannot trust one statement by an author, can I trust the rest?

>

>

> -- Joan McPhee, MH, WT

> mailto:mcpheej@s... --

[Guest guest]

Re: Re: Palm oil and the

environment

> >What coconut oil needs though is a lobby group in North Am,

because this is

> >how the olive oil and peanut farmers did it at the height of the

low-fat

> >craze. If only the Philippines, India, Malaysia, and Indonesia -

the oil

> >producing countries - can get their act together on this.

>

> There are producers organizations, but I'm not sure whether they

have

> offices and staff in the U.S. to lobby the U.S. government. It's a

> pretty expensive proposition.

> Jeanmarie

>

To lobby successfully in US politics one needs more than to

hire some people, have an office, and print up some research papers.

One needs to contribute huge sums of money to many many political

campaigns over the years. I say it's bribery, but the crooks in

congress don't agree with me.

Alobar

[Guest guest]

Re: Re: Palm oil and the

environment

> People and companies patent their products to protect their

> intellectual property, so no one else can profit from the time and

> expense they've put into developing them. Nothing wrong with that.

If

> I invented something, whether a unique formula for a product or an

> industrial process or if I wrote a book or a play, I'd want to

> protect that work from being taken by others, who could claim they

> invented it and profit from it at my expense. Nothing wrong with

> wanting to protect your financial interests.

>

> You like to get paid for your work, don't you? It's hardly

reasonable

> to castigate companies for wanting to get paid.

> Jeanmarie

If research is done with private funds, I fully agree,

however research done at Universities is mostly paid for with public

funds -- salaries of the researchers, equipment, laboratories, etc.

Some small percent of the cost comes from a grant form a company. I

don't know about Canada, but in the US, hen a company gives a

research grant to a University, the money is supposedly a donation,

and is a tax write-off for the company. So I feel research done by

universities should not be patented. Patenting research done at

public expense cheats the public. Research done using public money

should be in the public domain.

Alobar