Still plenty of unharvested crop in some areas

[Hopperbin]

Iowa Illinois South Dakota,

http://www.mysask.com/portal/site/pc-saskatchewan/template.MAXIMIZE/news/?javax.portlet.tpst=136f6967dded5921802ac01060315a e8_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_136f6967dded5921802ac01 060315ae8_viewID=story&javax.portlet.prp_136f6967d ded5921802ac01060315ae8_topic_display_name=Agricul ture%20News&javax.portlet.prp_136f6967dded5921802a c01060315ae8_topic_name=Agriculture&javax.portlet. prp_136f6967dded5921802ac01060315ae8_news_item_id_ key=46674233&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=com.vignett e.cachetoken&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=com.vignett e.cachetoken

[agstar77]

It's called branding and quality assurance which many on this site have dismissed as a bogeyman and not important in our relationship with our customers.

[Burbert]

Marketing causes BS to be spread far and wide. Each time there is a reason given to downgrade, it follows throughout the so called system. Producer tells country cousin of problem he has with this grain, country cousin tells a friend, freind another friend, problems in ag explode, lead back to marketing BS. However 3 times a day the everyone pulls up to the table and eats the poor quality, unorganic food that they can afford to buy, and hopes to not be a victim of food poisoning......

[parsley]

I think that's aimed directly at me, Kodiak, so I'll address it.

Everyone knows my name and telephone number listed on my blog, so I am indeed accountable in every way for what I say.

1. First of all, I have always approached the marketing issue as a choice issue. Few would dispute it.

2. Organics went into the EU with flax decades ago, and promoted ground flax, promoted flax as a healthy FOOD. A Quebec german-speaking company did a lot of work going into Germany in the late 70's . I think it benefitted all flax growers.

3. Organics also set a high price. I think it benefitted all flax growers.

4. Organics also establshed an audit trail. It works for us and seems to have been adopted by many in the valuie chain.

5. Organics also established a third party audit. So far so good, with a few people getting kicked out.

6. Organics also set a line in the sand that genetically modified grain was not allowed in organics.
That's your point of contention. Am I right? Parsley

[haveapulse]

Which "honest" would you like to address, claws out full attack, like a Mama bear Kodiak:
1/ Purging Triffid: the source of contamination revealed
or
2/ GMO: good or bad

or shall we simply "eat cake"

[parsley]

Faceless card has already stated, "But not cleansed of the Triffid flax’s"

[parsley]

Best reminder was 'volatility is alright'

That's what life is.

Volatile. Pars

[Hopperbin]

She says 5 dollars for 2 liters of milk in Canadian retail in Toronto. Can I say a joke about size?

[parsley]

<p></p>
<p class="EC_style8ptBK">[URL="http://www.leaderpost.com/2009 Canadian Prairie crop better than expected/2300387/story.html"](Larry Weber)[/URL]</p>

[bduke]

Kodiak... I once shared your perspective, and your
passionate support of new age genetics and the
"science" which supports this industry.

The cross pollination of RR canola and Invigor
canola has caused me to become skeptical of such
science.

Further, studies finding gene transfer from RR corn
to the earth's micro organisms suggests much of
the info regarding the safety and soundness of GM
genetics is not valid.

In fact I have been thinking the Climate Change
industry and the GM industry are quite alike.

They both have been making statements of fact
which are at questionable, and indeed are being
proven erroneous.

They both are using their public spin to effectively
build their empires.

They both have the blessing of the mainstream
media.

Neither has shown much willingness to be
accountable for their mistakes, it seems that court
action is prerequisite.

And both industries have enjoyed tremendous
growth based upon yet to be proven science.

BTW I think our entire industry needs "to be
scrupulously and honestly accountable for what we
do."

However, I agree with your statement "I'm afraid we
may be too late"..... Bill

[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.