Agr. Sprays

[countryguy]

What worries me isn't what has gone unnoticed,but rather HAS been noticed and not revealed to anyone.

[countryguy]

Danno: Maybe we could live to 125 years old with the help of GMO's. With conventional food we are living to the ripe old age of 70 something. Back in the days of organic farming prior to 1950 we were living to the average age of 65 years old or alittle better.

Genetic Modification in plants and animals in the past 40 years has added to our longivity.

I admire people who do organic farming in the proper way by crop rotation and having the ability to seek out niche markets. Now as you know we were not all cut from the same cloth and do not believe in the same theories of making our lunch.

By the way I eat all kinds of organic food, apples from my tree in the back yard vegetables from my garden which are all grown by organic means. An my oh my do they taste good but its not because they are organic but because they are fresh.

Your humble servant The Kernel

[cakadu]

I have to agree with Rod somewhat in that we need to take the fear and emotional aspects out of the argument. What appears to me to be lacking in many instances is a knowledge of traditional plant breeding techniques for example. The simple version, at least my understanding of it, is that we put two species together through pollenation, waited for results and hoped that something good would result.

What is also lacking is a good background for science and the way genes, DNA etc. works, and it seems to come from those of us who didn't have the benefit of all this newer information when we were in school, and I include myself in this group. 25 years ago, our science books were basically touting the wonders of DNA, which hadn't been discovered too many years prior to that. It seems to me that we don't hear as much hue and cry from younger people and budding scientists as we do from those of us who pre-date the rapid change in science. Now I'm not saying this is either good or bad, just an observation I have made and I welcome anyone who has evidence to the contrary to pass it along.

Again, my understanding of what happens is that a particular strand of DNA is encoded to do a specific function only. Without the necessary "keys" in whatever it is inserted to, it will not function. Therefore, scientists can be far more precise and concise in what they are doing because they know that a certain gene in the sequence will only perform one specific function.

Without naming names, we have had people with (perceived) credibility speak out against GMO's without offering any proof that they don't work. How can something that will help half a million children per year to not go blind be a bad thing? The companies that have this technology are not charging the poor countries for it. In terms of holding seed for the next year, Rod has also said we have a choice and it would seem to me that poorer countries who do not have the ability to pay for this seed would simply not buy it. They will buy things that will grow in their own climates and own locale.

What would happen, if through the wonders of biotechnology, we were able to grow plants in extremely arid areas, such as the outback of Australia or in areas of high salinity? We are quite frankly running out of land to grow crops and with this burgeoning population, it is an ever increasing concern.

We also need to look at multi-species cropping and economies of scope rather than economies of scale, but that is a whole other debate. It seems to me that with some of these current technologies, we are leaving less of an environmental footprint on the land in general and are preserving areas that should not be disturbed. Can't there be some way to find a win/win?

What would it take for people to feel comfortable with the idea of the technology?

[DanMoore]

GMO is not the answer to the starving millions. It is doing more harm than good. 80% of the malnourished are in countries with good food production. The problem is simple poverty. The people cannot afford the food. In all instances it is a lack of nutritional diversity that is the cause. There is the need of fats, carbohydrates, proteins, etcetera so that the nutrients from the food can be ingested. As a grower you should know that from experience. I have done some surfing (can't call it research) and offer a few sites for you to read. A mix of sources was attempted to gain both sides of the story. Read and let us continue to discuss the GMO question.

[DanMoore]

GMO is not the answer to the starving millions. It is doing more harm than good. 80% of the malnourished are in countries with good food production. The problem is simple poverty. The people cannot afford the food. In all instances it is a lack of nutritional diversity that is the cause. There is the need of fats, carbohydrates, proteins, etcetera so that the nutrients from the food can be ingested. As a grower you should know that from experience. I have done some surfing (can't call it research) and offer a few sites for you to read. A mix of sources was attempted to gain both sides of the story. Read and let us continue to discuss the GMO question.

[DanMoore]

Forgot the paste.
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/001015a.html
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/service9.htm
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE2/Less-Corn-2001.htm
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13954/newsDate/8-Jan-2002/story.htm
http://www.ag.iastate.edu/centers/leopold/newsletter/2001-4leoletter/gmo.html
http://www.fbworld.com/Mag/4_NF_June_July.htm
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan2002/2002L-01-16-04.html
http://www.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/geneng/2001aug15.html
http://www.agresearch.cri.nz/scied/search/biotech/resources_biotechthissite.htm
http://www.agribiz.com/newsbio.html

Lots more to read with over 10k returns to search for GMO study.

[nakodo]

The OECD has done studies that show poverty is being reduced in any country where there is not a civil war. Technology and new varieties, fertilizers and chemicals are all bringing the average lifespan of children and adults up (again if there is not a civil war). Much of the starvation of the world and most of the poverty is linked to warlords using available resources to fight a war and not to build the logistics needed to deliver the food to where it is needed. redirecting fuel to tanks and jeeps instead of tractors and rice to feed armies or to sell offshore for currency to buy more weapons or to pay soldiers.

GMO's will not feed these people perhaps, but I sure as heck know they cannot afford to buy organic produce from Canada nor can the lowered yields in large tract organic fields in their own countries support them. Lets deal with the real issue and let the agonizing of our rich western ego's stay in Canada where we have lots to eat and no one is shooting at us and let the other nations look after their own people.

[cakadu]

Good point, Nakodo. During my recent trip to Chile to study globalization and it's impacts on a developing country, we found out that they are trying to get into organic production in a big way. Their climate is conducive to not using pesticides, so they are trying to get into the export game for organics. They are boarded by the Andes to the east, desert to the north, Antarctica to the south and have ocean around them, which cuts down significantly on their pests and pesticide use.

They are very much aware that in their own country, people cannot afford to pay any premiums for organic and it sells for the same price as non-organic food. What the Chileans see is opportunities in other countries because they are willing to pay. They don't currently have much in the way of political strife, but they emerged from significant difficulties and are now trying to put themselves into the global game in a big way.

[cakadu]

Danno: you have alittle to much organic fertilizer on the inside of your boots.

Politics is what causes stravation agmonst the millions not the lack of food. If we gave the food away they would still go hungery, price has nothing to do with the problem. We done need a speech on which food is more nutritional then the other either. Human ego is the problem.

Life will always be a struggle for most of us creatures of mother nature and techicnology and common sense must prevail if we are to progress as a human race.

[DanMoore]

Krnl,
It is that limit focus of thinking that lead to this mess. Politics is under the thumb of the money. The money is in the hands of big business; you know the guys you buy the seed, fertilizer, chemicals and prescriptions from. The poor at the bottom have not the money to buy beyond the basic flour and rice. As you say, even if the food is given away, the local government gives it to those least in need. DO REFRAIN from the abusive expressions; you and I are not the only one reading these.

[DanMoore]

Danmoore, sorry if I have abused you. Your sensitivity brings on censorship for an expression that was meant to be humorous.I will be more careful in the choice of my words for the minds of the sensitive and for the eyes of the innocent.

If large corporations are such criminals of society, may the computer that you are using evaporate right in front of you, for it was made by one of those profit taking and money gouging big corporations that are so sinfull. Plus the computer is an unhealthy object made from plastic,metal chemicals and inundating you with radiation and electrical fields. Those coporations are going to take our money and then suck the very life right out of us.

Most everything that we have today is the result of big publicly traded corporations. The wealth is huge in the free world and it is for anybody to have including farmers if you don't limit yourself to unfounded ideas and beliefs.

Keep an open mind and watch others who are pospering and apply the knowledge to your own well being.

I will put the above message into another choice of words that I hope will play with your sensitive mind and touch your funny bone. Try to keep the organic fertilizer on the outside of your boots.

The Kernel (Sorry have a good day)

[countryguy]

Kernel,I just re-read this thread and have a couple questions for ya.Who declared gmo food the safest food in the world?Do YOU honestly think such a declaration can be valid considering the fact that gmo foods have only been in existence since the mid 90's?There are rats that have been tested that have shown intestinal changes after eating a diet of gmo potatos.

PS.Take it easy on me eh!

[cakadu]

Like many urban myths that refuse to go away, this potato study is a number of years old already and was proven by others in the scientific community to be severly flawed in methodology, hence the results cannot be substantiated and in the case of science experiments, replicated.

In recent months there have been other findings that those in the scientific community have been able to show have been flawed in terms of references quoted - they didn't exist - reference studies being misquoted and the list went on.

As one can guess, the scientific community is also divided on this issue and has some very polarized viewpoints. What we need are credible, statistically significant tests i.e. that they are correct 19/20 times, that are in turn peer reviewed for accuracy.

For those of us that can remember back to when canola was known as ****seed, there was a particular component in it that could not be digested by humans, so they genetically modified it using traditional plant breeding techniques so that it could be utilized by humans. It has been going gangbusters ever since.

I do maintain that I am neither for or against GMO's (although I dislike the use of that term, because everything is genetically modified over time and we have been eating a very popular genetically modified product for years - canola). What I want to see is sound, logical, credible information that comes to me in non-scientific jargon so that I have something that I can base my decisions on.

[cakadu]

I couldn't agree with you more Cakado. Thanks for your input.

The Kernel

[jensco]

Me three!!!