Can someone help me understand

[oneoff]

Amen ado.

We all need to be more diligent and careful than ever before.

And that will be best done by weighing properly done research; combined with the common sense of realiing that "just because something can be done; it need not necessarily be done"

At the very least; not until reasonable doubts have been addressed in a very significant way.

And maybe the promoters agreeing to be willing to take on full responsibility for their actions.

[rkaiser]

I understand that you are not agents for Monsanto boys. And if you had read all of my posts instead of just picking out parts, you would have heard me say that I understand your financial predicament as well.

I think that you would have to look real hard to quote me saying not to buy GMO products. Might even find that I call most all chem crutches as gifts rather than curses.

Gifts that have people knocking on my door and not having to do much marketing at all. You may want to direct your attention to the doctors and nutritionist (who you feel have been duped) that actually send people to store like the ones I support and supply.

Not a real organic supporter either boys, just to clear that air. Made friends with Mischa Popoff when he was writing his book and never did have much use for government rules. If I promote anything, it is simply natural agriculture.

Natural agriculture that could well support the nutritional needs of all people on this planet, and does to a major extent. Have you ever considered that in sprite of farmers in Canada and the USA thinking they are feeding the world (after being duped into thinking that way by chem companies) only about 7% of food from either of our countries is exported. And what percentage of the population of the planet do we make up folks. My non peer reviewed math says about 4 or 5%.

You are right about shoddy science from both sides bud, but that is not even the point. The point is more that your scientific approach to feeding microbial beings with chemical fertiliser is just another reason you have come up with to believe that you are doing things the best way you know how. And I am not arguing that you are not. Best way you can to feed your family and "hopefully" (as long as you believe the scientists who test chem imputs) feeding people a healthy product and not harming them in the process.

We have only used these so called farming methods for a few years when you look at the history of the planet boys and maybe Allan Savory could help you understand how the planet was surviving prior to modern, or even post modern agricultural methods were introduced.

Yes, I know that you will come at me with all kinds of stories about how the world needed agriculture to feed the human population, however I do not think that you will find much scientific data to back up the fact that we could have chosen other methods of harvesting and influencing nature rather than relying on chem inputs. That statement of belief should really get you going oneoff. What did you say earlier "God I hate hypocrites" Seemed a little strange to use two of those words in the same sentence, but hey - not going to go there on a Sunday. LOL

As for Monsanto - sorry for picking on them. LOL Just such an amazing name that I cant help saying it over and over. One --- human creation -- kinda like an anthropomorphic deity.

One last point and a good guy to google is a fellow named James Glattfelder. His summation of the shit show we are experiencing financially on this planet is very interesting as he compares it to natural occurrence. No real plan. Love it.

cheers

[wd9]

How about a link of shoddy science from
"the other side". Just one showing GMO
anything is better, more healthy, more
anything. Anything at all.

[oneoff]

Congratulations, kaiser , on your last largely balanced rebuttal.

There is always room for strong feelings and opposing views. But when either of us strongly promotes one view or another; it should be fair game to challenge any data used in the argument. And the other person should be big enough to admit or at least take into acount the point backed up with data with some credability.

But one or two studies showing some trend; is not sufficient to come to a firm conclusion.

Remember "cold fusion"? If only it were true; and for a while after the initial report;it looked awesome. But there was something being overlooked and just like perpetual motion; the concept is still completely elusive.

Another point is that there are an unknown number of farmers who are not financially captive to any RoundUp company. Sure it makes economic sense. And those people do use those chemical products. They may also onlt use generic versons that are now off-patent. They may have never willingly grown the seed produced under agreement with that multinational, largeley faceless company.

But a half dose of BuctrilM or 2,4-D would do a world of good in areas plagued by wild mustard and easy to chemically kill weeds. When food gets scarce enough; and world population grows beyond sustainable levels; and rising sea levels and urban sprawl over agicultural lands continue in the future; eventually there will be a problem that even organic farming can not rise to meet. I would argue that we are past that stage; and that neither your cost structure; nor organic capabilty to produce food is possible. All farmers aare mining nutrient from the soil; when production is exported elsewhere. What is your long term plan for soil fertility and weed control in a non labor intensive agriculture system?.
Do you enjoy and appreciate the "benefits" of a modern industrialand agricultural production system. I kinda appreciate cheap electronics and utilitarian gadgets of all kinds outside a watch and a old radio; but exactly which you would you draw the line in stopping technology; chemical formulation and metallurgy and and inventions from being refined further.

Neither of us (or consumers at large) should be led to believe that Roundup ready crops are deficient in any nutrient compared to any other similar non-GMO corn.

And when someone; who could have vested interests; releases an extremely dubious nutrient analysis; that could only rationally be explained as doctoring the data ; or confusing soil test procedures with standard "feed test" analysis methods....then it is way past the time to challenge the results.

If the shoe were on the other foot; I would be the first to challenge any claim of a GMO Roundup ready superiority in nutrient content directly related to genetic makeup.

That the measure of honesty that I look for in any important debate.

And GMO alfalfa is a horrible unnecessary idea; and commercial GMO wheat release will be a disaster; and the real problem of too many mouths in the world will eventually have to be addressed.

[wd9]

The challenge oneoff, as i am sure you
well know, is that organic farming is a
philosophy to market a product by saying
it is safer and better then
conventional.

The science argument has no place in a
marketing discussion and that is the
challenge of this 'debate'.

Used to be when you searched the web
there was very little to find in terms
of organic hoax, ripoff, dangers,
oxymoron and a hundred others like it.
Now you see far more discussion looking
a little deeper into it. Of all the
trends in organics, that one seems to be
the most prolific.

People just questioning the statements
made by organic marketing.

[ado089]

Kaiser are you a politician? You have a real talent for sidestepping the
issues and changing the subject. You can make alot of money with skills
like that.

I'm touched though that you have some much concern about my "financial
predicament" I didn't realize you had a chance to review my books. Rest
assured you need not worry any longer, my financial situation is strong
and healthy.

I find it cute that you've hitched your wagon to the "natural" fad. So
basically you want most or all of the premium with half the
accountability. Ok

Then you go on to twist our net food export numbers suggesting that we are
consuming nearly all the food we produce in Canada. The 7% figure you so
proudly quoted is the trade surplus in dollars of all food products. Lets
look at this a little closer. Like i said those are measured in dollars,
they are accurate as the come from the canadian government. Since we
primarily produce relatively low value grain and livestock commodities
and do very little value adding the result is the export of low value
commodities and the import of high value produce(that doesn't grow here)
and processed food. Those figures get clouded even further when you start
considering that many food products will cross the border several times
before it gets to the consumer. I challenge you to rebut this statement
with figures representing tonnes of food or calories instead of the
misleading dollar value.

I'm really shocked that no one swung at the softball I lobbed out on
shoddy science. Most of the science I take exception to is the stuff,
that not unlike your "studies" is aimed at selling me products that don't
live up to it's claims. Thats why I apply the critical assessments of such
works in accordance to to methods learnt while obtaining my degree in
science. I recently read an article that quoted a study showing that of
162 studies that claimed to compare nutrition of organic vs conventional
only 55 met the standards of systematic review. I have no idea how a
product can be trusted when it's strategy for marketing is quoting studies
that range from inadequate to fraudulent.

Here is a link to an article in the american journal of clinical
nutrition.

www.goldenrice.org/PDFs/GR_bioavailability_AJCN2012.pdf

Golden rice if you don't know has been genetically modified so that it
doesn't block the production of beta caratine, in lay-mans terms it
produces vitamin A. This is of consequence since rice is the primary food
source for nearly a third of the world population and vitamin A
deficiencies lead to blindness in thousands of children per year in
developing nations. Did I mention this seed was beeing offered free to
the farmers but they can't use it because the governments don't want to
get on the wrong side of a trade dispute with the EU. I guess it's easy to
be morally superior when it's not your child going blind. Back to the
study, you will notice a few things that set it apart from the pseudo
science the food intelegenti like to tote. First of all it's in a well
respected journal, secondly it was registered. Moving more into the meat
of it the methods and procedures are outlined in detail and take up almost
as of the paper as the results and discussion, this is important to
maintain transparency. You'll also notice there aren't inflammatory
picture of blind children on the cover. The sample size of the experiment
did bother me as it was quite low but this was mitigated by an extensive
literature review and dozens of collaborating works cited. You'll also
notice that it uses alot of big words that you probably don't understand,
this is because it's target audience is scientist,doctors and
nutritionist, not unsuspecting consumers.

I'm not even going to touch the denial of population growth being linked
to the green revolution.

WD9 makes a fantastic point about who is buying organic foods. I'm sure
that if you segment the market you'll find some that are the marxist
science/corporation haters, some that view it as luxury to show off to
their elite friends no different than a BMW, alot probably are looking for
quality (shorter supply chain = fresher) and a good portion are simply
paranoid and/or misinformed. This story gets very sad when it's impacting
people on a limited income.

You know kaiser i respect what you have as far as developing a breeding
program that produces better quality beef (i'm talking about taste and
utility)and opening a meat shop that sells higher quality cuts, different
cuts, beter portioned cuts. At the end of the day i'm willing to bet you
could drop the rhetoric and labels and stick to butchering high quality
carcasses with extra care and attention and still be as successful.

Still waiting for someone to swing at that ball...

[rkaiser]

Sorry about sounding like a politician ado, better to just outright say that you are going to avoid the most important topic on the thread I guess.

I am happy that you are wealthy bud, I consider myself wealthy as well. Probably in different ways but que sara.

My point about pitty is not so much that I got a look at your books which are obviously the way they are due to hard work, dedication, and what else --- moral obligation and integrity.

My point is more about pitty for your limited future, based on a fearful limiting prediction of mankind.

I will say that you likely can not choose any more ado? And thus my condolences. Even if you somehow had a change of heart and wanted to treat your land and the crops you grow in a different way, you are likely hooped. Not that you ever will - until those who do your marketing for you, and tell you what and how to grow your crops tell you to do so. Your goal of more and more wealth may not happen as quickly as you are now used to.

I am sure that you can show all of us the statistics that show how much of your crops go directly into the stomachs of those starving people you care about so much.

Thanks for the compliments about my beef ado, you and wd are really doing your homework on me. LOL Don't really need marketing advice from a fearful limiting thinker though.

[ado089]

Aux contrair, see I can be worldly too, I have a six year plan set aside
in my office that would take me from conventional grain farm to certified
mixed organic should the economics ever make sense to do so. As well as a
having a pesticide free premium market lined up for the transition
period. But since most of my friends and acquaintances are getting out
of organics to join the "one saint" army it's going to take some very
compelling convincing to make me implement that plan. Like I've said
before, savy operators will succeed no mater how much the rules of the
game change.

I realize that you're all about choice no one here wants to deny
consumers that right. We simply want the integrity of the information
fueling that choice to meet some sort of responsible standard and
accountability. Also I can't debate or defend anything rational when
someone isn't willing to acknowledge the very foundation of progress and
knowledge, science. I mean using your brand of science someone must be
sneaking into the Bronson forest and feeding ractopamine to the moose
because I cooked a moose roast this weekend, that I shot and butchered
myself, and the damn thing shrunk by almost 50%. But I don't want to dive
into that pool since I don't consume much for beef anymore and I haven't
kept current on beef finishing techniques.

I didn't much appreciate your shot at me suggesting that my life isn't
rich. I have a great bunch of family and friends, I have the plenty of
time for my outdoor pursuits, I have a solid education education and full
work experience as well as traveling to a great portion of this world.
That includes meeting those people in developing countries you like to
pass off so callously and the dumbass NGO's that think they are helping
them.

[ado089]

Allan Savory is a brilliant man, I still remember being floored by
his TED Talks presentation about reversing desertification the first
time I saw it. Funny thing is that he co-authored a special report
titled Food and Agriculture : The future of sustainability where they
advocated the increase development and use of GMO's, zero till and
precision farming to ensure resource maximization and to ensure
adequate global nutrition.

As for your Mischa Popoff, at a glance, his opinions mirror what WD9
and I are saying. In fact I believe in another post I said let's
scrap organics and have a residue free market. Since natural just
"organic light" I'm not entirely sure how your name dropping advances
your case.

I've browsed a couple of Vrains commentaries but haven't had a chance
to look at it in detail. I will have to look closer but some of his
suggestions that genetic traits from GE crops are jumping to non
related species and soil microbes seems a little suspect. If it were
that easy there would be zero genetic diversity on the planet as all
life forms would just be a stew of genes from any organisms that came
into contact with each other. As for the one gene one protein
argument, makes sense, identify the differences and analyse the
individual rogue proteins for human health effects. Chances are we
already know what they do and if they pose a threat. I didn't notice
any published papers in the first couple of pages of google so it
makes me wonder if he saw this as an opportunity to use his position
to make some coin in the wake of this fad.

There are some crazy websites out there filled with hate and devoid
of information, I'm shocked and that doesn't happen that easy
anymore. Please pass along any further reading some of this stuff was
neat and we're suppose to get more rain this week.

[ado089]

Vrains horizontal gene movement fear
mongering would require plants and
animals to drop a few levels on the
evolutionary charts. As far as these
transgenes ending up in bacteria goes,
that's where we found them.

Limited thinking is a disgruntled cowboy
leaving the farm who wants to turn back
the last 60 years of agricultural
progress. Not a young farmer who wants
to continue sustainably farming for
another 25 years while using all the
tools available.

[charliep]

Here is an interesting article that may get people stirred up. Perrenial crops may be a way of the future but what if the way there is genetic engineering?

[URL="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/why-annual-crops-need-to-be-turned-into-perennial-ones/article12579450/"]perrenial crops[/URL]

[rkaiser]

Sustainable...LOL Okeedokee ado089

Is that really how old you are. 1989 model. Amazing

Not disgruntled, not leaving anything, in fact looking at ways of expanding in a truly sustainable way.


Have to read you perennial crop article in detail later. Probably after ado 089 has his way with it. LOL

[charliep]

Here is another one that you find interesting and goes to the issue of what defines natural.

[URL="http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Regulation/Judge-There-is-a-gaping-hole-in-the-current-regulatory-landscape-for-natural-claims-and-GMOs/?utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_ campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily&c=jYz%2BwZTNAeWbAKcue4 o4Og%3D%3D"]Natural Products[/URL]

[ado089]

Sorry to disappointing yet again, you'll
have to add a few years to that 89, only
my university id.

Great read, perennial crops will be the
next big step in Ag, unfortunately there
are still a lot of obstacles. First is
funding, it's harder for biotechnology
companies to monetize, so they won't be
motivated to help that much. Secondly
they are having trouble getting the
beneficial traits from both sides of the
cross. There is much work that need to
happen in breeding winter hardiness,
diaease tolerance and yield. It would be
nice if they could throw in some legume
dna to make them nitrogen fixing and
give then some allopathic traits.
Unfortunately the anti gm crowd is
making using ge to advanced e these
crops nearly impossible.