Still plenty of unharvested crop in some areas

[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.

[cottonpicken]

You know what would be handy right now-a group of lawyers fighting for farmers out of a pool of money-never mind dumb idea.

[ianben]

Personally I believe most people believe what they say is true.

Monsonto believe their data and perhaps it showed there would be no problems.

The climated change guys all believe their data shows global warming.

Organic believe their food is better safer etc even without data just past experience.

So it comes down to the data or experience none of which has 100% yes or no truth in 100% cases
Everything has some margin of error

Monsantoes GM looks to be perhaps 99% OK but still a long way to go in my view I see it as perhaps a hundred year experiment.

Climate change data is the most suspect in my view as we only have meaningful figures for the last two centuries so if the input data is at best an estimate.
How acrurate can can the results be 20%-----80%

Organic has no data, no proof. No risk? Why?
Back to living in a cave in my view.
I am happy to take a pill or anti-biotic that has proven data and testing, try a new crop, spray, fly in an aeroplane. Take a risk to improve our/my world.

Lets be honest and reconise the risks we are prepared to take but equally we need to know the accuracy of the truth.

[bduke]

Fransisco.... while you may be comfortable using
RR genetics and defending this technology by
technicalities.... I am not.

Monsanto stated gene transfer would not be
problematic.

We have RR genetics 1 mile from the nearest
neighbouring field. We have had no benefits from
RR... but we have been victimized by their
genetics... ergo problematic!

I compared the Climate Change Industry to the GM
Industry with several opinions..... such as "they both
use public spin to effectively build their empires"
and " Neither has shown much willingness to be
accountable" et al.

You say everyone "hypes" their product.... I agree
that some do while some promote..

So I will get technical...

hype.... Excessive publicity and the ensuing
commotion.... Exaggerated or extravagant claims
made in advertising and promotional material... an
advertising or promotional ploy... something
deliberately misleading; a deception.

Where is the accountability when "hype" is deemed
acceptable?

Cottopicken's reference to lawyers could be a
premonition of future farming... unfortunately!

ianben.... you believe most people believe what
they say is true.... I agree.

But when time and technology prove our
statements were erroneous where should the
resulting costs be appropriated?

Should culpability and liability not be analogous?

I realize there is always some degree of "buyer
beware"...

However I have never bought RR genetics....

So where is the future.... technicalities or
principles?..... Bill

[Fransisco]

Have you bought invigor canola?

They're GM too.

[Fransisco]

If this is the case you have had quite a benefit from GM. Maybe not the RR varieties, but without GM there would be no invigor.

I use both kinds and don't see the problem. Some people complain about having to add some 2,4-d or something else to spice up their spring burn off. But so what. The gain we've made using the GM canola far outweighs the cost or minor hassle of adding some 2,4-d.

[Choice2U]

I have a few questions:
In 1974, there was about 4B people on earth. In 2009, there is about 6B. Without the growth of pesticides in the 70/80s and without the growth of GM in the 90/00s, how would we have fed the extra 1.5B assuming the percentage of starving people in this world has stayed about the same? Is organics, no GM, no pesticides, etc. going to feed the 10B projected by 2050? Did eliminating DDT in parts of the world where Malaria killed thousands of people make since before any viable alternative was found? Is there any value to GM products if we can prevent blindness in kids with deficient vitamin diets? As a society, we move ahead...not correctly on every issue....but in general, many people around the world are much better off. Do we throw the baby out with the bathwater?

[ianben]

So where is the future.... technicalities or
principles?

An example from the past.

I live on the right hand side of the railway track in this link.
http://www.rainhilltrials.com/index.cfm/page/article/id/50/listid/27/title/The%20Trials%20Map%20–%20Points%20of%20Interest

If you click the global impact link also it shows the significance of railways today.

1829 GM.

There was much debate even then on the effect on mankind and wether it was a good idea. The person that owned the land we now farm ran a stagecoach from Liverpool to London,he was a looser as the train soon replaced his business.

However he saw the opertunity took the risk and invested in the railways and became a winner again for a while.
Then of course the railways where superceeded and there where winners and loosers again.

It really is just luck and good judgement.

If third party worries and concerns are given too much weight it stifles inovation and progress.

Principals a fine but they cant turn back time.

[parsley]

1. If you want to argue that science experimentation is fun, that science is the nature of man, that science is simply not going to stop... I agree.

2. If you want to argue that GM food will feed the starving masses, well your argument sounds just plain foolish.

Even organics target rich people, not poor. The masses cannot afford to buy ordinary grain grown on small plots in third world countries let alone imported designer grain from G8's. Not only that, but I don't have an obligation to feed the masses of starving. I have a duty to feed MY family. Sigh.

3. GM products can provide options for the wealthy. GM prenatal manipulation. Science can be magnificent. But scientific revelations and alteration-fixes provided as a cure, or as a mend, or as a relief,....yes.....wait for it...... should be your CHOICE.

Those attending a fertility clinic realize the options can provide great joy. In vitro manipulation? GM virus fixes? I am the sort of woman who pierces living bugs with pins on a ninety degree July afternoon because I am interested in examining them.

4. Who can benefits from GM? Influenza scares rage right now. Not many are waiting in line in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia to get their H1N1 immunization, right? Yet they probably are lined up in Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, Belgium. Why is that?

5.Tactics: Btw, ianben, I got an H1N1 last week, it was my CHOICE. Releasing genetically modified food in the population without labelling is not offering me a choice. Inferring I am a horse and buggy'er because I do not agree with your position doesn’t fortify your position.

6. Ethics: Genetic modification of our food supply through corporate backdoors is deceitful at best and most likely dangerous in the long run, not because it will run amok, which any system is bound to, and I accept that errors are part of progress, but because the system will be conjugated with cover-ups

a) by people who have no alliance to our country;

b) by the smart but not intelligent elite who have no appreciation for considering the long term ramifications of tinkering with nature, or respectfully anticipating the unintended circumstances;

c) by the opportunists who initiate and thrive on deceptive practices in order to avoid accountability;

(d) by weak governments ruled by partisanship who's only goal is to get
re-elected.

(f) and lastly because it seems to me, there seems to be lacking altruistic views in the food industry/ food production in comparion to say, the pet industry.

Choice 2u asked: "Do we throw the baby out with the bathwater? "

My position was, and remains, that we must throw out the GM food the baby eats unless it is identifiable, and I have a choice, and that includes the GM bathwater if the baby drinks it.

The principle of choice should underpin Canada. That kind of principle never goes out of fashion.

[agstar77]

Too late , the Genie is out of the bottle. Just like when the first atom bomb was dropped.

[charliep]

In a world of gene mapping, what do you define as genetically modified? Do you consider mutagenics breeding techniques as non GMO/safe (there is a whole range of processes used here by the way)? Would you label food products with mutagenic bred crops included in them? Europe uses mutagensis in plant breeding by the way and seems to consider safe or at least applies a different standard. No issues with importing clearfield crops.

If genetic engineering/transgenics is what you are talking about? Does it apply to all processes including inserting genes from closely related crops? Example, what is the way to achieve the perrenial food wheat you suggest is taking a closely related grass species and inserting a gene? Would this be acceptable?

Is there no level of scientific evidence that would convince you that any genetically engineered crop is safe?

Science is moving at an extremely fast pace. Should agriculture not use it? Does Canada want to be at the back of the line or the front in terms of being innovative and creative? Europe is using biotech in a broader sense looking outside a narrow definition of GMO (or perhaps genetic engineering).