Tainted Links

From the Des Moines Register: Ethanol warning label upsets industry

The main part I want to comment on is paragraph four:

"Shaw questions the label’s truthfulness because of the sentence that says the “fuel might damage other vehicles.” The government is still studying the impact on models from 2001 to 2006 and isn’t doing any research on vehicles older than 2001, so there’s no basis to say that E15 might damage cars odler than 2007, Shaw said. “That is a flat-out unsupportable statement that is very prejudicial and needs to be out there,” he said."

Mr. Shaw is letting his bias cloud his reading of the label. The label is worded correctly - "fuel might damage other vehicles". The fact that the government is still studying vehicles that were made before 2007 and have no data of how E15 runs in them makes the wording perfect. The wording is not "fuel will damage". The word might is the key word.

MIGHT, n. pret. of may. Had power or liberty. He might go, or might have gone.

1. It sometimes denotes was possible, implying ignorance of the fact in the speaker. Orders might have been given for the purpose.

The EPA will change the label once it has completed its testing of E15 in engines for models before 2007. Mr. Shaw can disagree or agree with the label then but right now he doesn't have a valid complaint against it.