Still plenty of unharvested crop in some areas

[charliep]

Didn't say it well. Here is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency definition.

"Mutagenesis" is the use of methods to physically change or "mutate" the genetic sequence, without adding DNA from another organism. Various chemicals and ionizing radiation can be used to invoke these changes. "Site-directed mutagenesis" can also be used to invoke changes in specific genes. In plants, such agents are used to change a plant's genetic sequence, and the plant can pass on these new characteristics to its offspring.

[ianben]

Parsley

We each had our own reasons for making the choice we did.

The reason(s), is not important to anyone except ourselves.

As it should be.

I want the same choice with my food.

It was you who mentioned the horse and buggy earlier and I assume from your comments you have accepted the inovation in travel and also inovation in medicine.

As I see it you still have the choice in food but seek to limit mine because you fear a risk which you are willing to accept to protect your health.

I found the above program very interesting

Having four children myself and loving them all and their differences. Life would be very different with just the eldest.
Should they be allowed the same choice?

Will that choice lead to a Ruandan solution of genocide and murder. Something even worse?

I dont believe my children, or the children of rest of North America and Europe, can be persuaded to live on their 2 hectare equivalent but perhaps one child per couple as in China might work.

Would you be willing to have the choice of how many children you have taken away for the good of the planet?

[ianben]

Pity you cant see it Here is the preview.

In a Horizon special, naturalist Sir David Attenborough investigates whether the world is heading for a population crisis.

In his lengthy career, Sir David has watched the human population more than double from 2.5 billion in 1950 to nearly seven billion. He reflects on the profound effects of this rapid growth, both on humans and the environment.

While much of the projected growth in human population is likely to come from the developing world, it is the lifestyle enjoyed by many in the West that has the most impact on the planet. Some experts claim that in the UK consumers use as much as two and a half times their fair share of Earth's resources.

Sir David examines whether it is the duty of individuals to commit not only to smaller families, but to change the way they live for the sake of humanity and planet Earth

Nearly midnight here so off to bed. I will start a new thread and try to put on some more tomorrow.

[parsley]

Black and white to me, charliep, means acknowledging that some parts of the world cannot afford a malaria shot, let alone a buy a new muta-potato.

Genetic modification is not the cure for hunger, imho. And farmers shouldn't have a guilt trip put on us insinuating Canadian farmers are responsible for feeding the hungry masses. Pooey.

And Canadian taxpayers shouldn't have a guilt trip put on them either, so that they will feel obligated to hand out huge tax exemptions and huge grants because the end result will feed the hungry of the world. Poopey-fooey.

And farmers shouldn't have a guilt trip put on them so they will portion out yet more checkoff money to fund GM funscience for the reason of feeding the masses.

charliep, give me at least a reasonably reasonable reason and I'll probably be a better ally. LOL

Pars

[parsley]

Ianben,

If you want all your food radiated, fine. If you want it washed with chlorine, fine. If you want it steamed, chopped or frozen or boiled or mashed, chlorided, treated for worms, or combined with goat dung, go for it.

Processes that affect food will vary. To date, there is a choice of the way food is processed, and I can purchase what I want. Processes are kept separated and labelled.

Not everyone is equal in the world either, albeit you envision portioning sperm. So when you are eating your smoked pate with your four genetic copies, a mother in Gihlaghyej drowns her two children in the river because she has no food.

That is the way the world is.

My objection is about changing the very esssence of food. Irrevocably. Changing what it is. Changing it so that bodies no longer recognize say, the protein it needs, that has been transformed.

Manipulating genes changes food irreversibly forever.

I have been assuming that there could be kept a separation of GMO and non-GMO food if there a commitment to do do, by farmers themselves.

But.

Will producers who are seemingly ambivalent to the permanence of genetic tic tac toe, and approach the present altering-phenomena with complete uttered trust and total abandon, also approach their segregation and accountability commitments and responsibilities with an air of casualty?

I read the Wheat Growers presentation in Australia and was hopeful from it's content that GM and non-GM could co-exist.

Farmers themselves, who, all of a sudden are demanding they have a "right" to eat genetically modified food, causes me to set my glass of wine down for a sober thought.

Pars