Still plenty of unharvested crop in some areas

[haveapulse]

Ahh the Leonard Cohen song that sounds this saga: "there is a crack, a crack in everything that's how the light gets in... the light gets in" Or, alternatively depending upon your point of view "the dark gets in". The crack or an abyss depending upon your perspective.

A clever plot, for sum, if it was.
Clear evidence to others, that the root of the problem is the control measures of an entire industry. A point the organic industry has been making for years.

[haveapulse]

Or is it possible that we honestly just got caught, like the 13th man on the field...?

[parsley]

Other buyers also set a line in the sand that genetically modified grain is not allowed for <div class="EC_style8ptBK">
[URL="http://parsleysnotebook.blogspot.com/2008/09/commentary-by-parsley.html"](Hasidic sales)[/URL]
</div>

No contention here, though. Am I right? Parsley

[Kodiak]

OK - where to begin? I have a feeling passion and philosophy is going to make this an intense discussion. It already has! But, as the saying goes, “if you’re taking flak you must be hitting close to the target”.

First. Science MUST be the pursuit of truth. When we find that a particular area of science is not being truthful and scrupulously honest, its repute and its ability to speak with authority falls apart very quickly. It’s the same for business. We’ve all seen lots of examples of it. The tobacco industry is the prime example. AND because the basis of science IS the pursuit of truth, purveyors of many things try to be scientists, or at least masquerade as scientists. For example, someone should ask Al Gore if he is a professional climate scientist or a professional climate activist. His answer and body language would be interesting. Is David Suzuki a scientist or an economist - or a professional crusader? Why does he use his particular science credentials to try and demonstrate he knows with absolute certainty and is truthful about everything he promotes - including climatic and economic predictions?

Food production, nutrition, climate, pharmaceuticals, organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, physics, mathematics. All these ‘things’ (and more) are building blocks of science or a result of scientific processes. All these disciplines are completely objective, and must strive to be. If they don’t, convenience, subjectivity, and even deception creep in. Subjectivity, because of its very nature, is what science strives to eliminate in its pursuit of knowledge and truth.

So I go back to basics to form my views. Because I’m NOT a scientist, that’s where I have to start. I have basic questions. Are genetically engineered food and pharmaceutical products less safe than those produced by other scientific methodologies? Where is the evidence, even of significant risk? Are “inorganic” crops, food, and pharmaceutical products safer than “organic” ones(interesting, if not misleading terms in themselves)? Where is the evidence? Without evidence statements, assertions, and advertisements are just opinions or claims, not facts.

Until there is evidence that there are scientific problems or scientific benefits that arise as a result of various methodologies and products, all have equal standing. Any and all real or perceived benefits are then subjective, and not science based. And once we enter into the world of subjectivity, truth becomes secondary and trust is lost.

When trust is lost, what are the costs? To whom do the costs belong - are they accurately distributed?

One final thought for now. Subjectivity is fine; in certain things. I’m completely subjective about a lot of my choices. My spouse for example! My taste in music and art. Even the foods I enjoy (as opposed to the ones that are good for me!). Where I am a consumer, I am allowed to be subjective. But where I’m a producer and a marketer, I believe I must be scrupulously honest and truthful. And that can only be derived through science and its pursuit of truth. I don’t want agriculture to suffer the setbacks and costs of other industries or businesses where “truth in advertising”, indeed truth in everything they do, is not a hallmark of their business ethic. Enron was in the business of trading energy. Bre-X was in the business of gold mining. Madoff was in the business of investing. Those were individual businesses. Tobacco is a whole industry. I’m sure they didn’t start down their slippery slopes with the “big lie”. In each case, they likely found it expedient to start with small deceptions; things where maybe even initially nobody got hurt or the costs were minimal. A saying again comes to mind, "Oh what a tangled web we weave, whenever we practice......"

This is getting too long, so that’s all for now. Plus, I feel like I'm on a high horse, and I strive to not make that a big part of my character!

[Fransisco]

I disagree with the statement that climate science and GM science are the same.

The climate guys would not let anyone look at their data or their calculations. It was just trust us. What it reminds me of is the wheat board.

On the GM side everything is on the table. All of the studies and data is out there for anyone and everyone to look at and duplicate. It is transparent, which is how it should be.

The side of the GM debate that can't back up what they claim are the ones who think it's somehow dangerous or there is some kind of health concern. Crying we just don't know what will happen is not good enough. It's an anti-intellectual argument. Without any evidence it has zero credibility.

There has been something like a trillion meals of the stuff eaten without so much as a sniffle resulting.

[parsley]

Other buyers also set a line in the sand stipulating that unblessed food by the rabbi is not allowed for

(Hasidic sales)



No contention here, though. Am I right? Parsley

[parsley]

Kodiak,you stated:

"These issues and stories need to be revealed for just what they are - convenient myths for protectionists, scientific hoaxers, and exploiters."

Now, I am not going to debate whether or not grain in the field should be blessed, or not, or if buyers embrace or reject genetically modified food or not.

And yes, I fully noted, Kodiak, that you instruct:

"Subjectivity is fine; in certain things"

Kodiak, feel free to clearly inform AVer's what the correct "certain things" are.

Perhaps when you've compiled your list of acceptable "subjective things", you'll post them. I'll certainly read them.

But in fairnesss, I should tell you that I'm not prepared to promote regulatory enforcement of your personal pet list of "subjective things". Sorry. I'm trying to be upfront.

You see, I have adopted this "notion of requirement" from so many different buyers all wanting the same thing....well, it's so simplistic, nothing scientific about it, but it works well for them and for me:

It's their money.


Yup.

It's their money. Pars

[tipsy]

bduke "their public spin to effectively build their empires" and "neither has showen much willingness to be accountable for their mistakes" pretty will sums it up.
Is it only a matter of time before we see agriculture be challenged for our useage of the gamut of pesticides we put on our fields today? I don't know why, but,I can't help feel,especially north american ag that were not far from the challenges the tobacco industy went threw in the 80s and 90s.How soon before someone or group challenges farming practices and farm food saftey?

[bduke]

Kodiak.... You state "when trust is lost, what are the
costs?" This is such a pertinent statement to me.

Triifid was de-registered because the flax grower
groups were convinced we would lose our European
market since Europe was unwavering in their
refusal of GM's. What are the costs?

The Climate Change industry has conveniently
broken protocols in proving their data to support
their self serving and altruistic objectives. I'm sure
they believe "the end justifies the means". What are
the costs?

When Monsanto introduced RR canola they were
asked about RR resistance becoming a problem in
other crops and in weeds. They claimed this would
not be problematic. Do you remember why they did
not deliver the promised seed the first year?

I have never grown RR canola, yet our farm is
polluted with rouges from cross contamination with
our LL's and our neighbours RR's. What are the
costs?

The University of Guelph is finding the gene from
RR corn in the micro organisms of the RR corn
fields. This gene is transferring. Monsanto had
stated this will not be a problem.

Guess what?... Monsanto has lost my trust!

Fransisco... I stated that the Climate Change
industry and the GM industry are "quite alike", and I
stated my reasoning.

I did not say that they are the "same".

While crying we don't know what will happen is not
good enough.... not being concerned with gene
transfer is naive at best.

You say the GM side has everything on the table...
then they have a "microscopic table"!

The contamination of gene transferring has lead to
more problems than I wish to fund.... but which I
must.

I wish my "trust" had not been lost... Bill

[Fransisco]

And exactly what studies or data on pollen flow and gene transfer were not available for everyone to see?

Which ones were purposefully destroyed and replaced with fraudulent data such as with the CRU climate data?

That, to me, is the issue. If it's strictly about hype, everyone hypes their product or position. There's nothing new there.