NationStates Jolt Archive

What is your position on the issue. Explain your position and, if possible, back it up with evidence.

I'll start off, I believe very strongly in altered food, crude modifications in the past century developed by just a few people, most notably Norman Borlaug, have created new strains of crops capable of thriving in harsher environments, provide greater yeilds per acre, and which are more resistant to disease. While in Mexico he introduced new strains of semi-dwarf wheat more resistant to disease (stem rust, a nasty fungus) which were capable of higher yeilds and the practice of shuttle breeding, allowing more wheat to be grown each year. Later he moved on to India, where in spite of a war with Pakistan, new wheat strains were introduced which more than tripled production.

It is the work of scientists like Dr. Borlaug and the results of their work in reducing the number of starving people in the world today and the numerous tests that must be conducted in the US by the EPA, USDA, and FDA to ensure food safety that have convinced me that it is safe and should be supported.

GM food is proven safe and offers an opportunity not only to meet the needs of the growing world population but also to mitigate the environmental cost caused by agriculture. Combined with a strong regulatory environment and scientific transparency, it is the most promising development in agriculture since the Green Revolution, perhaps even the heavy plow in terms of its potential.

I agree with Vet on this issue.

Now gimmie my vitamin enriched, low fat bacon.

I, for one, welcome our Fishberry overlords

Fishberry (http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb281/Barringtonia_bucket/fishberry.jpg)

Nearly all vegetation type food is now and has been for some time genetically modified. This started thousands of years ago. Today corn (maize) is so genetically modified that it could no longer survive in the wild anywhere.

But I suppose you are talking of current gene splicing. Most of your food has been modified by this also. Most within the same species. Sweet corn for instance, has been given extra sweet genes and the genes that make the outside hard have been taken out so you get extra sweet corn that no longer needs to be cooked to be tender. It can just be warmed up enough to melt the butter. This less cooking also preserves the nutrition.

I really don't see a problem with modification within species. There are also experiments that move genes from one species to another. I think this has to be done carefully. One bad example it the "Roundup Ready" grass that was intended for golf courses. The idea was to develop a grass that could be sprayed with Roundup (a herbicide that kills nearly all vegetation) thereby killing all weeds and other vegetation and leaving the grass. the problem was it wasn't to be allowed to go to seed. But someone missed the memo and it escaped into the wild. There is an expensive eradication program going on to kill it before it spreads from the immediate area.

There is also a problem with genes escaping to related species in the wild. Since almost all of the agricultural species are grass (with a few exceptions like soy beans). And grass pollinates by wind. It might be possible for genes to escape into the wild with unexpected results.

Big subject. I could fill a page or two.

A lot of Monsanto GM grains are "single use". Meaning, the seeds from these GM plants are good for only one seeding and the seeds producted by these plants are infertile. So what does that mean?

In the past, farmers took seed - grew a crop and then took the seed from that crop to grow next time. Now, with this new GM food - that's gone. They have buy from a company everytime they need new seed, instead of doing what we did in the past which is how nature did it too. Fertile crop producing seed which creates a new generation of plant better adapted for the environment it was grown in.

The GM way has one big problem to add to the problem GM plant seeds are infertile, all this GM modification has probably killed off any "useless" genes which become useful when crop gets stressed and allow the crop to survive unfavourable conditions. So the GM crop will thrive in the right conditions or die a lot faster when the environment is unfavourable as it's backup survival genes have been removed by accident or on purpose.

A lot of Monsanto GM grains are "single use". Meaning, the seeds from these GM plants are good for only one seeding and the seeds producted by these plants are infertile. So what does that mean?

In the past, farmers took seed - grew a crop and then took the seed from that crop to grow next time. Now, with this new GM food - that's gone. They have buy from a company everytime they need new seed, instead of doing what we did in the past which is how nature did it too. Fertile crop producing seed which creates a new generation of plant better adapted for the environment it was grown in.

The GM way has one big problem to add to the problem GM plant seeds are infertile, all this GM modification has probably killed off any "useless" genes which become useful when crop gets stressed and allow the crop to survive unfavourable conditions. So the GM crop will thrive in the right conditions or die a lot faster when the environment is unfavourable as it's backup survival genes have been removed by accident or on purpose.

In the past this was true of wheat and soy beans (not maize) because they were self pollinating and bred true. New breeds were developed by universities and became public property. Also it wasn't possible to patent life.

Now most are produced by big companies and the very genes are patented. So while it's still possible to save the seed, it isn't legal. Also with soy beans it's a risk because most are Roundup ready (and guess who makes Roundup) so if you save back and Roundup kills the crop, you've lost a whole year.

The patent thing is really a problem the way it's written. You don't have to develop a gene, or even figure out what it's good for. You only have to "discover" the gene to patent it. So, it's locking out a lot of research on naturally occurring life.

In the past this was true of wheat and soy beans (not maize) because they were self pollinating and bred true. New breeds were developed by universities and became public property. Also it wasn't possible to patent life.

Now most are produced by big companies and the very genes are patented. So while it's still possible to save the seed, it isn't legal. Also with soy beans it's a risk because most are Roundup ready (and guess who makes Roundup) so if you save back and Roundup kills the crop, you've lost a whole year.

The patent thing is really a problem the way it's written. You don't have to develop a gene, or even figure out what it's good for. You only have to "discover" the gene to patent it. So, it's locking out a lot of research on naturally occurring life.

You wonder how much Roundup people are ingesting by accident through GM food.

(I'm Jeru FC, it's my puppet)

The only problems with genetically modified foods are:

1. What happens when the gm food outcrosses with wild relatives, creating a wild plant (i.e. weed) that is resistant to pests, disease and chemicals and is capable of passing that resistance on - this is a subject of experiments at various agricultural colleges and research stations.

2. How do you predict/avoid allergic reactions to, for instance, gm plants that have been modified with, for instance, peanut genes? I recall that, a few years ago, some gm corn with peanut modifications got into the food pool and several people with nut allergies were adversely affected - the gm food will have to be labelled so the introduced genetic material can be identified.

Other than these issues, which can be dealt with, I'm all for gm food.

I'm of the opinion that if you do not like genetically enhanced food, you shouldn't talk with your mouth full. Because, (news flash) unless you grow it yourself from a very old seed variant, and eat exclusively thereof, you have already been enjoying the benefits of genetically enhanced food for all your life. If it were not for genetically enhanced seed, the world would be suffering from famine more deeply than you could ever imagine. Genetically enhanced seed stock has led to higher yields, and increased disease resistance.

It's a no-brainer, kids.

I'm of the opinion that if you do not like genetically enhanced food, you shouldn't talk with your mouth full. Because, (news flash) unless you grow it yourself from a very old seed variant, and eat exclusively thereof, you have already been enjoying the benefits of genetically enhanced food for all your life. If it were not for genetically enhanced seed, the world would be suffering from famine more deeply than you could ever imagine. Genetically enhanced seed stock has led to higher yields, and increased disease resistance.

It's a no-brainer, kids.

The old and new way of GM-ing food is different. The old way still is natural in a way since it allowed nature to combine two different strains of whatever in the way intended. If it didn't work, the hybrid would just fail.

The new way with this new gene tech is far more controllable by us BUT we don't know the long term consquences as such. I'm all for increased yields and better productivity but if the end we have one strain of each crop feeding the world - we are in trouble. If we wipe out any genetic diversity with allows our food crops not to withstand unusual circumstances on the weather (which has been less than kind lately), then what then?

I don't particularly like the idea of GM food. I'm referring to gene splicing here.
For one thing, it takes the absurd concept of intellectual property rights and allows people to patent nature.
Secondly, the long-term effects of GM food have not been researched well enough. We are seeing increased amounts of GM food and also increased rates of cancer. Correlation, most certainly. Causation? Perhaps, perhaps not. How would we know? The research hasn't been done.

2. How do you predict/avoid allergic reactions to, for instance, gm plants that have been modified with, for instance, peanut genes? I recall that, a few years ago, some gm corn with peanut modifications got into the food pool and several people with nut allergies were adversely affected - the gm food will have to be labelled so the introduced genetic material can be identified.
But a peanut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut) is a legume, not a nut.

As the peanut is a member of the legume family unrelated to other nuts, individuals with peanut allergies may not be allergic to the other types of nuts, and vice-versa.

Can you source your claim that people with nut allergies were affected? A peanut is not a nut, so how could it trigger nut allergies?

But a peanut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut) is a legume, not a nut.

As the peanut is a member of the legume family unrelated to other nuts, individuals with peanut allergies may not be allergic to the other types of nuts, and vice-versa.

Can you source your claim that people with nut allergies were affected? A peanut is not a nut, so how could it trigger nut allergies?

I'm a nut. I don't trigger nut allergies. :)

I'm a nut. I don't trigger nut allergies. :)

You my friend are the exception to every bizarre rule known to man. :)

It depends a lot on how it's done. There are different ways to do it and some of them are better than others.

I prefer it when they manipulated through natural means - like breeding a cow for better milk.

I disagree with it when we're messing with someone we have little knowledge about yet (I'll agree with it more once they can tell me with a lot more certainty what will happen) - like going in and altering the DNA directly.

The patent thing is really a problem the way it's written. You don't have to develop a gene, or even figure out what it's good for. You only have to "discover" the gene to patent it. So, it's locking out a lot of research on naturally occurring life.

Now that is bullshit. There is no reason that that should be allowed to occur. Hooray for holding back the advancement of mankind.

But a peanut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut) is a legume, not a nut.

As the peanut is a member of the legume family unrelated to other nuts, individuals with peanut allergies may not be allergic to the other types of nuts, and vice-versa.

Can you source your claim that people with nut allergies were affected? A peanut is not a nut, so how could it trigger nut allergies?

Soy beans are also legumes.

The old and new way of GM-ing food is different. The old way still is natural in a way since it allowed nature to combine two different strains of whatever in the way intended. If it didn't work, the hybrid would just fail.

The new way with this new gene tech is far more controllable by us BUT we don't know the long term consquences as such. I'm all for increased yields and better productivity but if the end we have one strain of each crop feeding the world - we are in trouble. If we wipe out any genetic diversity with allows our food crops not to withstand unusual circumstances on the weather (which has been less than kind lately), then what then?

In other words, we used to use an incredibly blunt instrument, while now we're using a precise instrument.

Furthermore, it's incredibly unlikely that the entire world would be reduced to a limited number of crop lines, due to the sheer number of seed producers likely to evolve from this element of the biotech revolution.

But a peanut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut) is a legume, not a nut.

As the peanut is a member of the legume family unrelated to other nuts, individuals with peanut allergies may not be allergic to the other types of nuts, and vice-versa.

Can you source your claim that people with nut allergies were affected? A peanut is not a nut, so how could it trigger nut allergies?

This was cited as an example concerning a potential issue with gm food. Peanuts may not be actual nuts, but they are defined as such, and a peanut allergy is defined as a nut allergy.

Peanuts are nuts in the same way that tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers and squash are vegetables - technically they are fruit, but in common practice they are called vegetables.

GM foods are fine in theory, but in practise the companies that develp them have far too much power, and could exploit farmers with ease. Farmers would not be able to recover since conventional produce would not be as well traded as the amazing GMproduce offers. Ofcourse, this is not certain, things can go either way depending on how GM foods are all distributed produced etc.

ofc i prefer to eat real food, I don't expect my apples to have jellyfish genes.

I voted No, but I have mixed feelings on the issue. The problem with genetically modified food is that it's being controlled by a few select corporations (eg Monsanto) that care nothing about making the world a better place, and everything about making more money. Terminator seeds are a perfect example of the lengths corporations will go to screw people out of their money. Another example in Canada would be the farmer who's neighbour grew crops genetically modified to resist roundup (a herbicide). A few stray GM seeds blew into the guy's farm, and next thing he knew, he was sued for a fortune by Monsanto. The worst part is, he took the case to the Supreme Court and lost; disgusting.

The second problem is that once you start creating superplants, there is no knowing what they will do. A few stray seeds getting into the wild, and they could wipe out entire ecosystems.

Should the government find a way to remove all patents from GM crops, and generally fix this mess, I might start supporting the idea.

ofc i prefer to eat real food, I don't expect my apples to have jellyfish genes.Christ, how pointlessly reactionary do you want to be? Show me a gene taken from jellyfish that imbibes the apple with any advantage. If you're talking about Green Fluorescent Protein, obtained and adapted from Aequorea victoria, then it's one of the single most useful advancements in biochemistry in the last 20 years.

btw, I'm technically one of these ebil scientists that splices cow genes into wheat so that you can milk the fields of all their worth. I'm a terrible person, I know, but someone's got to decimate the planet and I've got my sights set high. :)

GM food is proven safe and offers an opportunity not only to meet the needs of the growing world population but also to mitigate the environmental cost caused by agriculture. Combined with a strong regulatory environment and scientific transparency, it is the most promising development in agriculture since the Green Revolution, perhaps even the heavy plow in terms of its potential.

I agree though I worry about patents on naturally evolved genes.

Most of the GM foods have proved to be safe. The problem is what happens if companies become so confident that they become complacent about the safeguards. As with the Roundup Ready grass, there needs to be tight controls before the release and follow-up after the release.

That said, there are lots of exciting things going on. Such as the goats that produce milk with human hormones that can dramatically reduce the cost of medicine for many people. Don't know if I would want to eat such goats, but I'm all for that research as long as it can be contained.

And then there are things like the possibility of perennial crops like wheat or oats that can produce for years with one planting.

I have a vegetable farm and plant GM seed all of the time. We have to offset the possible danger with the advantages. I can plant crops that are resistant to disease and insects, so I don't have to spray poison on the food to control these things. Example: If you want non GM sweet corn without ear worms, then you have to accept the fact that it has been sprayed with poison every three days. If you are willing to accept GM then the husk is tight enough to repel the moths that lay the eggs that produce the worms. Hence, a little more muscle to take the husk off but far less poison. AND, you also get double sweet, longer shelf life, and tender kernels that don't need to be cooked until the nutrition is dead.

Everything has a good side and a bad side. We have to do a cost-benefit analysis.

2. How do you predict/avoid allergic reactions to, for instance, gm plants that have been modified with, for instance, peanut genes? I recall that, a few years ago, some gm corn with peanut modifications got into the food pool and several people with nut allergies were adversely affected - the gm food will have to be labelled so the introduced genetic material can be identified.
Or you could just let the GM food eliminate peanut allergies from the gene pool. That's an upside.

Genetic modification makes food cheaper (by making it more durable or more plentiful). That helps everyone, especially the poor.

In other words, we used to use an incredibly blunt instrument, while now we're using a precise instrument.

Furthermore, it's incredibly unlikely that the entire world would be reduced to a limited number of crop lines, due to the sheer number of seed producers likely to evolve from this element of the biotech revolution.

As a computer programmer, we'd better be damn careful about how we modify our food. Playing with plant genes is like programming, well it is programming. We are playing with the program which runs what our food turns out like. And the food regulators on the USA are probably in the pockets of these multinational companies like Monsanto.

The crop lines we will be owned by a few companies and to me, the food of the world should be owned by the people of the world not a few large companies. If you look at how resources like oil, and minerals are mined - it's controlled by multinationals. Food is going the same way and I don't the idea what food we eat is controlled by a few people in a faceless company who is driven by profit.

And I really don't like this terminator seed idea much.

Food is going the same way and I don't the idea what food we eat is controlled by a few people in a faceless company who is driven by profit.
Why not? If they're interested in profits, then wouldn't they want to sell us food? That guarantees supply.

As a computer programmer, we'd better be damn careful about how we modify our food. Playing with plant genes is like programming, well it is programming. We are playing with the program which runs what our food turns out like. And the food regulators on the USA are probably in the pockets of these multinational companies like Monsanto.

The crop lines we will be owned by a few companies and to me, the food of the world should be owned by the people of the world not a few large companies. If you look at how resources like oil, and minerals are mined - it's controlled by multinationals. Food is going the same way and I don't the idea what food we eat is controlled by a few people in a faceless company who is driven by profit.

And I really don't like this terminator seed idea much.

Most people don't know this but in the US there are only 3 companies left that ultimately buy all grain products and only about 3 that control animal products. (there are a few smaller but they have such a small part of the food as to be a nonplayer) This is part of the "conservative" deregulation that started 27 years ago. So there really is no price competition for the seller (farmer) or the buyer (consumer). It's really just like gasoline, if you want it you will pay whatever they ask. (hard to turn down food)

I'm wary of GM crops.

I wary because of the interplay between a companies need to make a profit out of its research, cross contamination, the independence of small farmers, and unintended consequences.

The one crop I do want to see genetically modified is the banana. Damn plant has its days numbered unless someone can do something to increase its resistance to disease.

That, and I want to be able to easily buy proper sweet bananas and not the Cavendish variety you get every where.


I do find it interesting how GM crops seem to be much more widespread in the US than they are in Europe - where all products which contain GM ingredients must be labelled as such. I think there's only one thing I buy which has a GM ingredient and that is the vegetarian Cheddar cheese I buy. It uses rennet made from GM micro-organisms.

Most people don't know this but in the US there are only 3 companies left that ultimately buy all grain products and only about 3 that control animal products. (there are a few smaller but they have such a small part of the food as to be a nonplayer) This is part of the "conservative" deregulation that started 27 years ago. So there really is no price competition for the seller (farmer) or the buyer (consumer). It's really just like gasoline, if you want it you will pay whatever they ask. (hard to turn down food)

If the USA runs like that, that's for the people of USA to live with. The farmers of USA get assistance from the government.

If a poor farmer in a developing nation has to be dependent on self-terminating seed from the USA, then it's going be a problem if the crop fails for whatever reason - and any seed he's produced from the current crops can't be replanted because he has to buy the seed again for next year. Seeing the crop failed, he probably has no government assistance and no money for more new seed.

Why not? If they're interested in profits, then wouldn't they want to sell us food? That guarantees supply.

Yeah, true but the market works this way - if you restrict supply, then prices rise due to lack of supply as we have seen. If a few companies control supply, will the temptation to restrict supply to articially raise prices be too much?

Yeah, true but the market works this way - if you restrict supply, then prices rise due to lack of supply as we have seen. If a few companies control supply, will the temptation to restrict supply to articially raise prices be too much?

No, because crops are easily produced, unlike, say, cars or computers. It might take some work, but individuals or communities could grow their own food and thereby go around any potential monopoly on supply. Even a single farmer equipped with modern machinery can produce a huge quantity of food without relying on a corporation.

No, because crops are easily produced, unlike, say, cars or computers. It might take some work, but individuals or communities could grow their own food and thereby go around any potential monopoly on supply. Even a single farmer equipped with modern machinery can produce a huge quantity of food without relying on a corporation.

Your thoughts are only about 50 years too late. A farmer can't produce without inputs from outside and can't process the food without inputs from outside. And for the most part farmers are specialists. Each only grows one or two things. So for nutrition they would need to trade over long distances.

The farmer really isn't in control of his supply. The three companies that control the purchase from farmers and the sale to processors and export are in control of both ends. Before it was decided that every merger was a good merger there was competition. That is no longer true.

No, because crops are easily produced, unlike, say, cars or computers. It might take some work, but individuals or communities could grow their own food and thereby go around any potential monopoly on supply.Not with single-use GM seeds.

Even a single farmer equipped with modern machinery can produce a huge quantity of food without relying on a corporation.And the farmers who don't have modern machinery?

And the farmers who don't have modern machinery?
They're inefficient.

They're inefficient.

And how would you address this? To merely state the obvious, which none of us will deny doesn't say anything.

And how would you address this? To merely state the obvious, which none of us will deny doesn't say anything.
If you're not an efficient farmer, don't farm.

If you're not an efficient farmer, don't farm.

So, let's put ourselves in the shoes of this farmer. Let's say you've been a farmer all your life. You're reasonably good at farming, but just can't cut the mustard against the advance of massive, corporate owned industrial agriculture. You don't have any alternative career. You have two options A) Capitulate, selling off your farm and hope to god you can find work somewhere or B) Hope to ride the storm out. Neither is a very good option.

So, let's put ourselves in the shoes of this farmer. Let's say you've been a farmer all your life. You're reasonably good at farming, but just can't cut the mustard against the advance of massive, corporate owned industrial agriculture. You don't have any alternative career. You have two options A) Capitulate, selling off your farm and hope to god you can find work somewhere or B) Hope to ride the storm out. Neither is a very good option.
They could always work for the massive, corporate-owned industrial agriculture. I wouldn't, but that's cos I wouldn't be a farmer in the first place. Primary industry is not my friend.

So, let's put ourselves in the shoes of this farmer. Let's say you've been a farmer all your life. You're reasonably good at farming, but just can't cut the mustard against the advance of massive, corporate owned industrial agriculture. You don't have any alternative career. You have two options A) Capitulate, selling off your farm and hope to god you can find work somewhere or B) Hope to ride the storm out. Neither is a very good option.
Why not? Almost everyone has transferrable skills

And, are the other farmers somehow required to make farming a sustainable enterprise for you? If I'm a farmer and I start producing my food vastly more efficiently than you, you'll either have to keep up or fail. The only other option is that I not get better, but why should someone be allowed to tell me not to do my best?

A lot of Monsanto GM grains are "single use". Meaning, the seeds from these GM plants are good for only one seeding and the seeds producted by these plants are infertile. So what does that mean?

In the past, farmers took seed - grew a crop and then took the seed from that crop to grow next time. Now, with this new GM food - that's gone. They have buy from a company everytime they need new seed, instead of doing what we did in the past which is how nature did it too. Fertile crop producing seed which creates a new generation of plant better adapted for the environment it was grown in.

The GM way has one big problem to add to the problem GM plant seeds are infertile, all this GM modification has probably killed off any "useless" genes which become useful when crop gets stressed and allow the crop to survive unfavourable conditions. So the GM crop will thrive in the right conditions or die a lot faster when the environment is unfavourable as it's backup survival genes have been removed by accident or on purpose.
I voted No, but I have mixed feelings on the issue. The problem with genetically modified food is that it's being controlled by a few select corporations (eg Monsanto) that care nothing about making the world a better place, and everything about making more money. Terminator seeds are a perfect example of the lengths corporations will go to screw people out of their money. Another example in Canada would be the farmer who's neighbour grew crops genetically modified to resist roundup (a herbicide). A few stray GM seeds blew into the guy's farm, and next thing he knew, he was sued for a fortune by Monsanto. The worst part is, he took the case to the Supreme Court and lost; disgusting.

The second problem is that once you start creating superplants, there is no knowing what they will do. A few stray seeds getting into the wild, and they could wipe out entire ecosystems.
As a computer programmer, we'd better be damn careful about how we modify our food. Playing with plant genes is like programming, well it is programming. We are playing with the program which runs what our food turns out like. And the food regulators on the USA are probably in the pockets of these multinational companies like Monsanto.

The crop lines we will be owned by a few companies and to me, the food of the world should be owned by the people of the world not a few large companies. If you look at how resources like oil, and minerals are mined - it's controlled by multinationals. Food is going the same way and I don't the idea what food we eat is controlled by a few people in a faceless company who is driven by profit.

And I really don't like this terminator seed idea much.
I'm wary of GM crops.

I wary because of the interplay between a companies need to make a profit out of its research, cross contamination, the independence of small farmers, and unintended consequences.

I agree.

I'm not scared that eating modern GM food will have bad consequences for my health or something, for me it's strictly about two things:

1) that we simply don't know what havoc crosspollination with "normal" breeds might wreak - the potential for severe unintended consequences is huge and entirely unexplored

2) that modern GM produce is fucking patented, thus leaving our food supply in the hands of a tiny number of global players like the ubiquitous Monsanto, making farmers pay for seeds anew every single year AND pay for the only herbicides and pesticides that work with those seeds which are, of course, also produced by those very same companies.

I do find it interesting how GM crops seem to be much more widespread in the US than they are in Europe - where all products which contain GM ingredients must be labelled as such.
Indeed. Here, you can't even find those products on the supermarket shelves - because supermarkets are too afraid of the customer backlash would they stock them.

Yes if:

A)Hammer out the problems with GM foods.Allergies for example.
B)Test it over and over and make sure it was just like our old food only it now yields higher crops,is bigger,etc.
C)Introduce these as normal seeds were before. Yes,support local farmers.
D)Allow companies to grow food but not to be able to stamp out farmers.We need a food surplus.
E)Keep the old seeds.Allow some sections of non-GM food incase in the long term,lets say the average world temperature goes up and GM foods wern't suited but our traditonal seeds could.

Eventually if we need to adampt we can GM foods over time.we can end world humger and more. Now that would be good.

D)Allow companies to grow food but not to be able to stamp out farmers.We need a food surplus.
We don't so much need a food surplus as we need excess capacity to produce food. Producing more food than we need is wasteful and inefficient, but being able to increase production when we need it is very helpful.

A similar probably drove up US gasoline prices a few years ago when the hurricane season was bad. Because refiners had so much trouble getting permission to build new plants, and it took so long to do so, they didn't bother, so there was no excess capacity when the gulf coast got shut down.

No, because crops are easily produced, unlike, say, cars or computers. It might take some work, but individuals or communities could grow their own food and thereby go around any potential monopoly on supply. Even a single farmer equipped with modern machinery can produce a huge quantity of food without relying on a corporation.

You know it's really amazing to people in agriculture how much ignorance there is and how many people are so insulated from their foos.

People could have a backyard garden but while quality is great, quantity would take virtually all free time to make a significant contribution.

How is this farmer going to buy the fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, much less the equipment and parts? The only cash available is by selling to the big three. And try to get a bank loan with unconventional farming. I have trouble after 16 years in the vegetable business. I sell quite a bit directly to the consumer, but you'd be surprised how many people won't buy from a farmer because it isn't "clean" like at the store. Little do they know the process that makes is flawless and "clean".

You know it's really amazing to people in agriculture how much ignorance there is and how many people are so insulated from their foos.

People could have a backyard garden but while quality is great, quantity would take virtually all free time to make a significant contribution.

How is this farmer going to buy the fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, much less the equipment and parts? The only cash available is by selling to the big three. And try to get a bank loan with unconventional farming. I have trouble after 16 years in the vegetable business. I sell quite a bit directly to the consumer, but you'd be surprised how many people won't buy from a farmer because it isn't "clean" like at the store. Little do they know the process that makes is flawless and "clean".

Modern farming to me is like a huge outdoor biotech factory operation. It uses large amounts of fuel, large amount of resources, large amount of land and it's not the "simple" farming we used to have. It's too much at the mercy of fuel prices, import/export conditions, the damn weather and of course the government.

Farmers are tough people, I don't I could be a farmer at this time and I admire what farmers for what they have to put up with to feed us.

We don't so much need a food surplus as we need excess capacity to produce food. Producing more food than we need is wasteful and inefficient, but being able to increase production when we need it is very helpful.


The most destructive thing right now is the fad of people wanting massive amounts of land for a house. Tens of thousands of acres of farmland is going to housing developments. Never to return to production regardless of future population increases. The worst abusers are those that build a house on 5 or 10 acres so they can say they have a horse.

The most destructive thing right now is the fad of people wanting massive amounts of land for a house. Tens of thousands of acres of farmland is going to housing developments. Never to return to production regardless of future population increases. The worst abusers are those that build a house on 5 or 10 acres so they can say they have a horse.

:/
I don't like having nothing but a backyard, so I think I'll keep my acreage. If you disagree, you have obviously never lived in the country.

:/
I don't like having nothing but a backyard, so I think I'll keep my acreage. If you disagree, you have obviously never lived in the country.

I live on 80 acres. I use it to produce food.

Will your great-grandchildren be thrilled that the ability to produce food was traded for your big back yard.

If the companys didnt constantly hide/manipulate information on these things it would go along way to helping themselves aswell as there possable customers, thay themselves dont even know what the end result of all this spliceing is going to be so when something springs up it will ether end the company or end the customers that place to much trust in them.
(humans are still too immature to be trusted with unrestricted power)

If the companys didnt constantly hide/manipulate information on these things it would go along way to helping themselves aswell as there possable customers, thay themselves dont even know what the end result of all this spliceing is going to be so when something springs up it will ether end the company or end the customers that place to much trust in them.
(humans are still too immature to be trusted with unrestricted power)
But they do have to turn over the potential product to three different government agencies for testing. If you don't think that is enough then make that your argument, not some fantasy corporate conspiracy or a fictional pseudo-scientific horror. They go through millions of dollars worth of testing that takes years before they can ever go to market. To me that's enough to ensure safety, there are other products put out with less testing and which could pose a greater hazard to consumers.

I also don't think that educated scientists are immature by any measure, at least not one which would compromise their work.