Do we really want to go there?

[oneoff]

If the tolerance level is an absolute zero; then GM is forever.

[parsley]

Is this a little better business model for recalls, charliep?
<p></p>
<p class="EC_style8ptBK"><strong>[URL="http http://money.ca.msn.com/investing/news/business-news/article.aspx?cp-documentid=23357895 "](The consumer is not sent the repair bill, nor ordered to buy from the same folks)[/URL]</strong></p>

[oneoff]

Seems like Nobody; and I mean nobody seems to want to discuss the prospect of 9 billion people.

[oneoff]

Seems your new link doesn't go very far parsley.

[parsley]

<p></p>





<p class="EC_style8ptBK"><strong>[URL=" http://money.ca.msn.com/investing/news/business-news/article.aspx?cp-documentid=23357895 "](The consumer is not sent the repair bill, nor ordered to buy from the same folks)[/URL]</strong></p>

[burnt]

To the matter of feeding 9 billion mouths - it will be done no more easily with GM wheat than without.

Well perhaps I should modify that to say that it WOULD help if the modification would include a gene that would selectively assassinate despots and dictators that cause their countries immeasurable harm - i.e. Mugabe, Lenin types.

The world is able to quite easily feed its people with existing wheat types. The hindrance to full tummies is political rather than agronomic in nature.

Ironically, allowing the commercial production of GM crops is simply an insidious form of the same kind of despotic control as was demonstrated by Lenin or Mao.

You pay whether you play or not. If you don't want to play you will be either re-educated or eliminated.

The appetite of 9 billion people is not the problem - the ideology of a few is.

[burnt]

Well looky here!

http://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=147281&DisplayType=flat&setCookie=1

[oneoff]

The way I look at it is that there is no way that the earth can sustain the current population; let alone doubling it; considering the expectations of the present developed and developing world nations.
If I'm dead wrong, then quit bothering to chastise anyone for the side effects of living more materialistic and comfortable lives. We are nothing but hypocrites; because I believe that Mother Nature can not sustain both unrestrained population growth; and exponential consumption growth of non renewable and renewable materials and there wastes and by products.
It would be brutally honest to concede that nothing would be more environmentally friendly than having one less kid. (or two or three or whatever it takes to strike a balance without eventually destroying the cleansing capacity of the air and soil. If the world thought that way our environmental challenges might very well almost disappear.

[TOM4CWB]

Oneoff,

Is the sun going to stop shineing... or is it because 6b folks have a hard time getting along... 3b more increases the risk of self destruction even further?

We CAN do anything we set our minds to... if we want to. Innovation is all about a state of mind.

We humans are creative by design... because our designer built us to be creative. Also we are designed with the knowledge of good and evil... and the right to choose which path we want to follow.

The mind police have not won... unless we give up and let them win!

But then this has been the challenge of humanity from the very beginning... we must choose who we will serve!!!

[TOM4CWB]

We have the right to choose between 'everlasting life' and 'eternal life'.

The first involves time... the second involves life with the creator of time!

I love the idea... that I can be part... of an existance that is beyond time!!!

[oneoff]

Quote "We have the right to choose between 'everlasting life' and 'eternal life'.

The first involves time... the second involves life with the creator of time!

I love the idea... that I can be part... of an existance that is beyond time!!!"

You are zeroing in on the real problem and thats why there can't be a rational discussion about real problems that are the result of mortal decisions.
Your expectations of what the future holds are not the result of any firsthand knowledge; or secondhand or thirdhand knowledge. While it may weel be comforting to a fairly large fraction of any certain country; that thought is not any licence to reproduce beyond what is sustainable.
In the meantime; responsibility for how the Triffid flax was developed and multiplied; and how many bodies come to be on this planet; rests with you and I and the rest of us sharing the limited spaces we currently occupy .

[oneoff]

A couple more thoughts. The sun won't stop shining; but it will probably get more smoggy and hazy. When it gets to the point that it covers a country (eg. China olympics) and you find it necessary to slow down industry for a few weeks so it doesn't look so bad; or you visit Las Vegas and are warned not to breate the air outside; then there are symptoms of a current problem.
What will really get us into trouble is the attitude that we can do absolutely anything if we just put our minds to it. How about the thought that just because it is physically possible to do anything; should not mean that it is quickly and automatically going to be done. At least investigate whether the cost to benefit ratio is greater than unity. And check to see if the sources of the media promotions have actual conflicts of interest and stand to personally gain more than the rest of the population that will or could be impacted.
Above all; don't let the promoters unilaterally make any decisions; especially if they are not willing to be personally responsible for the consequences that certainly will and should arise. That statement concedes that history may very well recognize the overall benefit of beneficial changes.

[oneoff]

"The mind police have not won... unless we give up and let them win!"



Oh my... Would not "blind faith" not be the ultimate "mind police"

[haveapulse]

Until the balance between risk and reward is more equitably shared between the holders of capital: land, producer and the new kid on the block, the owners of intellectual property rights endorsing the grow more for less mentality, is a questionable direction.

The question who benefits most from the endeavour in terms of risk free capital, Monsanto et al, or the mix of capital necessary for production, land and farmers?

I believe the only discussions of merit when it comes to the GMO debate is
1/ does your customer endorse GMO carte blanche.
2/ Can we afford the risk of contamination? in crop, and with other crops? Note flax and mustard examples)
and
3/ The shared capital equasion.
Is the wealth generated by the intellectual property a balanced relationship. Is there a process in place to insure that the margins needed to maintain longterm viabiltiy of the producer, the intangible skills of growing the crop, together with the capital cost of the land, equitable?

Today, at 50$ an acre for canola seed the cost of intellectual property has grown to equal to the capital cost of the land.

The equasion in terms of history production costs is new, and
must be challenged to provide a fair equation. In a few decades we have invited the third capital partner in the costs of production which now include
1/the producer,
2/ theland
and
3/ owners of the intellectual property.

Todays GMO equasion in my opinion is is not one vested in that of
balanced returns. The elixur of "Grow More for less!' addictive as it is, need to be balanced with the risk margins of the producer and the capital base which enables production the land.

From he pulpit of FARM TECH the concept of feeding the hungry world, was captivating to say the least, had I not heard it in 1974 when then it was at least delt with 10$ wheat as bait.
And while the lions share of risk free wealth, embracing capital, with patents and several decades of protection from competition, we salute your competive spirit: go Gladiators go! When in reality in a world of accelerated uptake and transfer of technology the length of patent protection should be decreasing in direct proportion to accelerating technology and the ratio of uptake forcing owners of intellectual property.

After a few decades since the introduction of the third pool of capital we can take score. The old timers say the proof is in the pudding and so statistics note; increasing corporate concentration of agricultural corporations, increasing global production, a return to cheap food and its counterpart, declining net income from production, and in our own back yard expanding farm size. Ironically, while we make less from more, intellectual property owners make more on less.

The responsible debate must capture in addition to the question of a balanced eqasion the rights and responsibilty of property rights as noted by Parsley.

The gas pedal sticks and Toyota picks up the bill.

We have GMO in flax & in mustard, who owns the costs, farmer.

Yup don't seem like a fair equasion to me, but have to admit it is great to grow that fantastic canola crop. Sure is.

[charliep]

Your last sentence poses an interesting question.

So if Canada includes market acceptance on new biotech plant
breeding solutions, what does this mean? The current policy from
what I know is that evaluation of new breeding technology should be
based on science. So if market acceptance is factor that drives our
approval process for new technology, who decides? Does the
European Food Safety Agency become the regulatory agency
controlling our breeding programs? European parliament? Green
peace? If you move this direction, I suspect that more research dollars
will remain in the US and Europe - defined processes, big markets,
understood regulatory system. Investing in Canada would be a waste
of money - particularly when risk/liability is included.