sugar beets, must we stay in the dark ages

[zbiker]

i guess i am confused, having grown up in an agricultural background i assumed the being progressive was trying to ADVANCE the human condition, not hold it back. but i am seeing folks that have no understanding when it comes to terms such as genetics, selective breeding, cross pollination etc.
take for example the crossing of Hereford and angus breed cows, to produce a new genetic breed of livestock with the meat production of an angus, and the efficiency of Herefords. Is this not akin to what we are facing today with our current food markets, trying to feed the most we can by progress ??
i know buzz words like organic,all natural and the like are touted by various groups and i haft to agree that it is a nobel goal. but if new breeds of crops are not introduced that are disease/pest/chemical resistant, where do you think our food supply would be today.
after doing research concerning the new round-up ready sugar beets that have been introduced, it strikes me that if we stop and look at the lowly sugar beet ( which was not introduced in the u.s till 1830) that almost anything that improves the ability to meet the demand would be to our benefit.
the main fight over sugar beets today seems to be that an organic grower is afraid his beets will be cross pollinated by the new round-up ready beets producing a " tainted " beet seed.
It is unfortunate that the two camps have not gotten together prior to calling in the environmental groups and their herds of lawyers to discuss the possibility of alternating seed production years. since beets do not produce seed on a yearly basis ( only every other year) seems to me that the smart thing to do would be to take turns. organic one year,round up ready the next.
of coarse that would be to easy, why not just drag the federal courts into it and let the lawyers make a little money
as pointed out by investigators " they are both eventually the same beets, one simply has a better tolerance to pesticides IF one decides to use pesticides.
can anyone here honestly say that they can taste/see a difference in the sugar the use daily and tell if it is from this type of beet vs that type of beet ??
it's not simply about corporate profits, it's also about being able to control our own sugar market and food consumption. both could slip away far easier than one might think

[leftstreet]

1. Well hell, I'll give you a K&R

You don't once mention Teabaggers, plus I've never given much thought to sugar beets

[Denninmi]

2. Frankly,

I can't tell the difference between beet sugar and cane sugar side by side. Coming from Michigan, it has been mostly beet sugar all of my life, and I'm happy to support our local industry in Michigan's Thumb, about 90 miles north of me.

[BrklynLiberal]

12. Beet sugar looks a bit yellower when they are side by side...and it is cheaper than cane

http://articles.sfgate.com/1999-03-31/food/17683415_1_sugar-industry-beet-and-cane-california-beet-growers-association

[abelenkpe]

3. I love beets

am eating my aunts famous beet salad for lunch, and can honestly say. I don't know what kind of beet it is. It's yummy tho. :)


Beets, peppers, fresh spinach, feta cheese.....yummy!

[BrklynLiberal]

13. Sounds delicious. I love beets as well . I always slice them up into my salads.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. So basically you're asking farmers to cut their crops in half.

I don't see it happening.

[kestrel91316]

5. It's not necessarily about the taste. It's about being the change we wish to see

in the world. If we want a world where agricultural workers (and that includes farmers) are not exposed to deadly chemicals, then it behooves us to reject food grown with those chemicals. The fact that said chemicals won't turn up in our food, or that the food might taste better or be more nutritious, is an added bonus.

With respect to genetically modified crops and livestock - there is no comparison between hybrids created through selective, but natural, breeding and those created in a laboratory by extremely expensive technology that puts genetic material from species not remotely related into embryonic cells to create a Frankenstein monster. Tinkering with genetics this way has already proved to be a Pandora's Box chock full of ways to irreparably damage ecosystems. And I for one don't want to see vegetarians or vegans forced to consume animal proteins found in a plant/animal hybrid. I also don't want to see Jews and Muslims forced to consume pork proteins when they are engineered into other species.

Genetically modified crops and livestock products MUST be clearly labelled so that consumers can exercise their absolute right to know what they are putting into their bodies and supporting with their consumer dollars. Genetic pollution caused by pollen drift from GMO crops must be handled as the serious crime and tort that it is. Only then, and also by denying such techniques any subsidies by the taxpayer, can we see just how well they do in the free market. My prediction is that under such conditions they will be miserable failures and go the way of the dodo.

[BrklynLiberal]

16. Well said. The law of unforeseen and/or unintended consequences is immutable.

Blowback is a bitch.

[scarletwoman]

65. Applause!

[Beetwasher]

6. You Rang?

And welcome to DU!

[Speck Tater]

7. You miss a lot of important points

(And that doesn't even count nit-picking over your bad spelling)

First, it has not been established that Roundup Ready crops are safe for human consumption. There is a growing body of evidence that they contain toxins that can cause long-term health problems in humans.

Second, if a farmer's business depends on his organic certification then having his seeds contaminated with GMO garbage could put him out of business.

Third, even if the neighbor is not an organic farmer, Monsanto can and WILL sue the crap out of his for replanting his own contaminated seeds. Monsanto is in the business of bankrupting any small farmer who does not play their game.

Just a few references for people interested in truth before propaganda and people before profits:

http://industry.bnet.com/food/1000488/companies-block-gm-sugar-beets-but-for-the-wrong-reasons/
http://truefoodnow.org/2010/03/16/court-rules-in-gmo-sugar-beet-case/
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/Monsantovsusfarmersreport.cfm
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/Monsanto-Prosecuting-Farmers12jan05.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W2J6fzfP50
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1074730973352879542#

[Better Today]

10. You say it so well, I'll just say, "Yeah, ^"

[mike_c]

14. more anti-science nineteenth century fearmongering....

There is little CREDIBLE body of evidence suggesting that inserted anti-herbicide genes are toxic to animals. Likewise Bt expression. There is only manipulated, anecdotal, unscientific, and contrived evidence promulgated by anti-science fearmongers.

[Better Today]

22. So you have an issue with just one out of three considerations, and can't provide a link for your

opinion. Well, I'm all worked up in believing a thing you type, NOT.

[mike_c]

24. LOL-- a short lesson in logic, my friend....

I said there is no credible evidence blah blah blah. The operative word there is "NO." What do you want me to link? There are no links to "no evidence."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Well, to debunk your other two points...

"Second, if a farmer's business depends on his organic certification then having his seeds contaminated with GMO garbage could put him out of business."

This was addressed by the OP with his alternating crop scheme. What he would do every other year, I don't know.

"Third, even if the neighbor is not an organic farmer, Monsanto can and WILL sue the crap out of his for replanting his own contaminated seeds. Monsanto is in the business of bankrupting any small farmer who does not play their game."

This is a myth.

[mike_c]

27. self delete....

Some days I should just keep my mouth shut.

[Dora]

31. deleted

Because communication counts!

[mike_c]

37. you're right....

I'm grading zoology exams today. Makes me grumpier than snot.

I deleted it. (scuffs feet)

[Dora]

Understood.

I'd rather you take your grumps out here, than on those exams. Keep on keeping on.

[Speck Tater]

35. Not a myth. Here's the documentation

http://www.livevideo.com/video/Smokescreen/1C4FB64D50354B9A856504954B453CC9/the-world-according-to-monsant.aspx

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. It is a myth.

Monsanto has successfully sued about a half a dozen farmers, all of which purposefully planted Monsanto crops in attempts to get around the license.

Percy Schmeisser is a liar and a fraud, and that's why he keeps losing in court.

[Better Today]

39. Really, and I see no links to your opinions either.

On the second, I'm curious how every other year #1 how does the farmer make any money on their year off. #2 how do you stop incidental seed spreading from the GM crop to the organic. It isn't just wind, it can be critters, and birds, and some insects. All of which are required, but can't be controlled as to what is spread.

[zbiker]

41. how the money is made

takes some ingenuity, beet seed is planted part of the crop is then harvested or left to go to seed IN IT'S SECOND YEAR, it never flowers in its first year. that is what makes it so easy if these folks would just put there heads together and work TOGETHER.
i am not suggesting that anyone be forced to choose one over the other, or that anyone be forced to eat meat as the above poster has eluded too :O, simply wondering why a federal judge does not say to both parties " ok you kids figure it out and play nice or i'll make you stand in the corner"
i may be just a dumb old farm kid but even i know that feeding everyone is important, and you haft to know your product and your market to make it in todays society.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. Yeah, that's the same problem I have with the OPs plan.

I say fuck it, grow GMOs year round.

If some organic farmers crops get contaminated and s/he loses money, fine, he can sue the contaminating farmer for damages if he can prove it in court. Same goes if some farmer has his GMO crops contaminated with pollen from an organic farmer.

[zbiker]

52. mind you i am no expert

I'm not exactly sure it's possible to contaminate from organic to gmo, i may be wrong here but it would be akin to breeding something back to what it already is, I'm not sure if the ability to breed a beet back to being susceptible to round up is possible, but it may very well be.
since beets are self pollinating, and only produce seed in their second year of growth, simply alternating crop cycles with your neighbor i would think would do the trick unless one hell of a wind storm came up and some pollen flew for miles.
as mentioned before, i'm no expert, i just see what works in the field here

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. If it's possible to go one way, it's possible to go the other.

If the glyphosate resistance trait is ending up in the organic farmer's field, there's no reason the glyphosate susceptible trait can't end up in the other guy's field.

[Speck Tater]

33. Bt corn leaches toxins into the soil. That's established fact.

How much sense does it make to engineer plants that kill insects indiscriminately when the whole ecosystem depends on insects to maintain balance? That is nothing short if insane arrogance on the part of man.

We WILL destroy our ecosystem. That much I'm pretty certain of. Just more evidence that the human race does not have the intelligence it takes to avoid self-inflicted extinction.

And what is the reason for this rush to GM crops?

More profits for Monsanto.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/6/monsantos_harvest_of_fear
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/educational/watch/v8968165kYRdfmYC

And I'm not anti-science. I'm a retired engineer with multiple graduate degrees in science and engineering, and I love technology. I just believe that in THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, the risks are too great considering that if a major mistake is made and a seriously dangerous gene is released into the wild there may be NO POSSIBLE WAY to stop the damage, and the possibility remains that the whole ecosystem could be poisoned, or the whole human food supply tainted with something that reduces fertility to zero. We ALMOST did exactly that with DDT.

There's a big difference between being an alarmist and being justifiably alarmed. Please do some real research and don't just sleep thorough this one. By the time you find out you were wrong to trust Monsanto it could be too late to save the planet. Why take that chance just for the opportunity to brag about how infallible science is, and how smart you are for backing science? It's not about science vs anti-science. Plenty of legitimate scientists have serious questions about the safety of GM crops, so taking either side does not put you "on the side of science" and "against the powers of darkness ans superstition" as you seem to be implying. Nor does taking one side over the other prove how much smarter you are than the unwashed masses.

This is too important an issue to just take Monsanto's profit-oriented word for it. Do you trust the profit motive with your life? With your children's lives and your grandchildren's lives? That's a position only a Republican could love.

(ed:typo)

[mike_c]

38. yup-- highly specific target INSECT toxins that are naturally occurring...

...in soil anyway, often in pretty high concentrations. Where do you think Bt comes from, anyway? Soil bacteria.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. How about Bt that gets sprayed on non-GM crops?

I mean, the whole point of Bt crops is that it reduces the need for spraying.

[mike_c]

48. no, the point of Bt is that it's a "natural control...."

edit-- my bad-- I totally need to pay more attention to what I'm doing today. I'll leave the response because I think it's valuable in this thread, but I think I misunderstood your attempt, and certainly misunderstood who your response was directed to.

---------------------------------------

Bt still needs to be applied unless it's expressed by transformed plants-- it doesn't reduce spraying without transformation. Or did you respond to the wrong post? I'm sure you know this stuff.

Bt is one of the great success stories of biocontrol. It's a naturally occurring compound that's absolutely non-toxic to vertebrates at insecticidal dosages and comes in highly specific strains that target specific pests. Vertebrates (and most non-hexapods, as far as I know) don't even have the receptors necessary for Bt toxicity. It doesn't get much better than that. Unfortunately, insects still develop resistance, albeit more slowly than resistance to things like chlorinated hydrocarbons, and Bt is overused just like most other pesticides, natural or not. THAT is my primary objection to Bt transformations, but it's somewhat balanced by the benefit of not having to use energy intensive application technology.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. Right, SpeckTator is arguing that Bt-engineered plants leech Bt into the soil.

Except Bt-engineered plants greatly reduce the need for Bt spraying.

[texastoast]

50. That reminds me

Of what my mom said about burning gasoline as a mode of transportation. When I asked her why her generation didn't think about what the planet would be like with 10 billion people all wanting to drive fossil-fuel burning cars and breathe at the same time, she said, "Oh, that's for your generation to figure out. We brought you the cars. You worry about the fumes."

There wasn't much credible evidence back then either, but there was a huge lack of foresight.

[mike_c]

51. lack of foresight about WHAT?

That's the point. Without evidence of problems, foresight becomes unreasoned fear.

[texastoast]

66. Absolutely not

Foresight is a result of thinking based on experience. And humans had lots of experience with burning things and observing the resultant residues--in their homes, in their eyes, in the flavor of their foods, when traveling on coal or wood-burning trains. So, knowing that, how could a science-based thinker miss thinking about long-term consequences of burning millions of barrels of oil? Fear, pfft. It's greed in the moment, not giving a care to the future if it means sacrificing profits.

Another example would be giving drugs to pregnant women, when science had understood for a long time that the body is nothing but a system of tubes with the purpose of exchanging nutrients and filtering waste. A complete, irrational faith placed the the medical profession caused many babies to be born deformed or otherwise handicapped.

When are we Americans going to think seven generations ahead (exempting, of course, the Amish and Native Americans who have had a clue all along)? That's not anti-science, it's pro-wisdom. And it is pro-wisdom to talk about the real problem behind the "need" for genetically modified foodstuffs, and that is too many people wanting too much stuff.

[MattBaggins]

18. We had one of the scientists who helped with round up ready crops

talk in one of my College Biology classes. He told us they had a huge compost pile that was considered bio waste where they were throwing all their experiments. They dug through this crap looking for bacteria to find genes for round up resistance.

[mike_c]

20. that's pretty much the way it's done....

We find the genes that degrade oil spills and chemical pollutants the same way-- go to the source and look for bacteria. They are among the most adaptable and versatile machines on the planet. Bacteria nearly ALWAYS find a way before humans do!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. Of coarse.

[BrklynLiberal]

15. lol

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mike_c]

19. I can spell, I've been here pretty much since the beginning...

...and I ALWAYS engage the anti-science crowd whenever I get the opportunity. AND I have the credentials to know what I'm talking about.

The OP is correct, at least within the bounds of rational opinion. The argument about GMOs is a lot like the argument among teabaggers about socialized medicine-- they abhor it, but are happy to benefit from it.

[StopTheNeoCons]

Not talking to or about you....the OP is wrong..../nt

[kestrel91316]

29. There are abundant reasons to reject GMO's that do not fall into the

anti-science category. See my post above in this thread.

Let Monsanto be forced to pay for any harm their products do to other farmers, take away their subsidies, and let the consumer deide if they want to buy their product. And don't try to sneak foreign proteins into foods where those with personal belief systems about such might be denied their rights.

Really, the whole idea of sneaking pig genes in where Jews and Muslims might not be aware of them and therefore might consume them makes my blood boil, and I'm neither Jew nor Muslim.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Not really, no.

Do you actually know any Jews are Muslims who are upset about the possibility of pork genes in vegetable crops? I mean, do you understand the nature of kosher/halal?

Or is this just an issue you've made up?

[mike_c]

34. I sort of agree with you 100 percent...

...and have argued vociferously against most of big ag's business models. My beef is with the folks who trot out the GMOs-are-evil arguments, most of which are indeed anti-science and basically pretty ignorant of what genetic engineering is and what good it does.

I say I "sort of" agree with you because rejecting Monsanto's business practices is NOT the same as rejecting GMOs. In fact, GMOs are not the problem at all-- big ag is.

[kimmerspixelated]

55. Agreed!

[timo]

11. sorry gotta correct u

herbicide, round up is a herbicide, not a pesticide, one kills weeds, one kills bugs.

[zbiker]

42. oops, you are correct sir, my typo :)

[Javaman]

17. meh nt.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. Why not?

Keep in mind, the whole sub-literate angry pitchfork-wielding villagers afraid of Frankenstein's monster and anything else they cannot understand thing is not a valid answer.

[Javaman]

64. I said, "meh!".

I grow my own organic veggies and save my own seeds.

So, I say, meh.

[KamaAina]

21. You do know how "Roundup Ready" works, right?

The plants are specially engineered to be resistant to one herbicide, Roundup, produced by -- you guessed it -- Monsanto.

Basically, the entire field is hosed down with Roundup, which proceeds to poison everything in sight, except for the specially engineered plants. Not exactly a subtle approach to weed control. Kind of like using a cannon to shoot a butterfly.

And, of course, Monsanto wins on both ends. The farmer has to buy the special seed AND the Roundup from them. It's a win-win! :sarcasm:

[StopTheNeoCons]

26. And WE eat the food that's been growing in a puddle of RoundUp chemicals...nt

[mike_c]

30. sometimes the ignorance around this topic hurts my head....

Puddles of Roundup? :rofl:

[zbiker]

43. yep, it's astounding sometimes

what folks think goes on in the ag world.
honestly, as i mentioned earlier that terms such as organic, chemical free,along with a whole host of others are as a whole misunderstood by the public at large, but what ever makes them feel good i guess.
it's probably a good thing beets can swim, i would hate to see one drowned in a pool of anything :)

[kimmerspixelated]

53. mike C, I love you, but

why is it okay to eat food that is grown in toxic conditions? And why is it okay to applaud any kind of GMO foods-period? I understand, maybe from a scientific point of view, it's pretty cool what can be done in the lab... well, in Jurassic Park, it was pretty cool what was done in the lab as well, but remember when Jeff Goldblum's character exclaimed, " They never asked..SHOULD THEY?" I think the repurcussions of Frankenfoods could be horribly devastating and global. We just now got to a place where most folks realize they should always seek organic foods over pesticide-y foods.

Let's keep embracing this kind of purity for the sake of the planet and for man and woman-kind!!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

56. It's not "toxic conditions."

Round-up isn't toxic to human beings.

"And why is it okay to applaud any kind of GMO foods-period?"

Because GMO food are good, and the complaints against them are mostly lies and fear-mongering.

"well, in Jurassic Park, it was pretty cool what was done in the lab as well, but remember when Jeff Goldblum's character exclaimed, " They never asked..SHOULD THEY?""

Remember that time in Maximum Overdrive when all the trucks and cars and lawnmowers become even and start mowing over people and stuff? Well should they cars and trucks and lawn mowers?

"I think the repurcussions of Frankenfoods could be horribly devastating and global."

You think that cancer is caused by fungus and that AIDS isn't caused by HIV.

"Let's keep embracing this kind of purity for the sake of the planet and for man and woman-kind!!"

Purity uber alles?

[Better Today]

57. It's not toxic to humans, huh? Link provided below.

http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/poison/roundup-grass-and-weed-killer-poisoning/overview.html

This article discusses poisoning by swallowing weed killers containing a chemical called glyphosate.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

58. Oh for fuck's sake.

That's what to do in case people swallow bottles of pure round-up. Like, for example, in the case of a suicide attempt or a toddler getting a hold of it.

Table salt will kill you if you swallow a can of Morton's table salt.

[Better Today]

59. It says "swallowing," it doesn't say how much or how often. And eating food

with Roundup sprayed on it is considered "swallowing", is it not?

Yes, it does imply drinking rather than swallowing. However, you said it isn't toxic, then you exaggerate your response and say "bottles" as though one bottle or a portion of a bottle wouldn't be enough to poison. So do you know how much?

As to the table salt, I'd be curious how much table salt in one sitting could actually cause death. Then I'd like to see that amount in a mound and imagine if anyone, no matter the circumstances, would willing or accidentally eat that much salt. I think not, so again careless exaggeration to make a point, thereby making the point invalid.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. It says swallowing of roundup, as in the actual household chemical.

"And eating food with Roundup sprayed on it is considered "swallowing", is it not?"

In this context, no, and it's an absurd, intellectually dishonest claim.

"As to the table salt, I'd be curious how much table salt in one sitting could actually cause death."

It'd probably take less salt to make a person sick than it would glyphosate.

The reason glyphosate kills (some) plants is because it inhibits the shikimic acid pathway. This pathway is simply not present in human beings, or any other animal, and because it's poisonous to plants it does not mean it's poisonous to anything else.

And even the effects of drinking a bottle of the stuff are due to the various ingredients used in the formulation of Roundup.

[Better Today]

61. You and I will never agree, and that's the point. We're just asking that y'alll

leave ours in the state we prefer so we will continue to have a choice.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

67. If you won't agree with facts and honesty...

that's not my problem.

[mike_c]

62. salt will kill you too if you consume it that way....

Please. That's just common sense.

And let's be clear-- I'm not advocating herbicide use-- I've worked for years to educate folks and limit herbicide applications, and more so for pesticides. I don't want to eat glyphosate any more than you do. That's basic food safety consideration and there are application rules to protect the public. Maybe those application rules need to be tightened-- that's a discussion that should be informed by rational and systematic data collection, not by unreasoned fear of new things. And the data so far-- the solid data-- do not support the notion that GMOs are terrible "frankenfoods."

My arguments here-- and in previous threads-- have been in defense of genetic engineering and GMO foodstuffs-- not in favor of poisoning people. That's the point-- most GMOs are just as nutritious or more so than non modified equivalents, have increased yield (feed more people), store and ship well (feed more people) and so on. Yes, there are also lots of drawbacks too-- I won't even buy supermarket tomatoes unless I'm desperate-- but heirloom tomatoes are not going to feed the human population of this planet. AND I understand that that is a whole other conversation-- and not the topic of this thread, so I won't go further down that road.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. There are many suppliers of glyphosate.

The patent expired years ago, and there are many generics out there.

In fact, I've read somewhere that Monsanto is getting out of the glyphosate business.

That said, I don't know what the big issue was with making a crop resistant to its own herbicide.

The farmer doesn't have to buy anything s/he doesn't want to.

[Speck Tater]

40. I think that the fact that people can call on the name of "science" to justify their ignorance

is just further proof that the human race is doomed to extinction.

When the whole argument consists of "I'm smart" "I'm scientific" "I know more than you do" "you are anti-science" "you are ignorant troglodytes" then there is no discourse worth responding too. This, of course, means that that there is no discourse worth responding to in 99.97% of all Internet posts.

When it comes right down to it nobody on the entire Internet really knows a damn thing about anything. And that includes me. We all just repeat things we've been told by some authority we trust, and then we just take whatever we're fed on faith. That's why Internet debates never result in anyone changing their minds. We're all trying to throw facts at faith, and that's utterly pointless.

How many of you just took it on faith what the charge of electron is? How many of you have actually performed the Millikan experiment yourselves? If you haven't done it with your own two hands then you're just taking it all on faith, and that makes you no better than anyone else here. Just another fundamentalist who believes whatever he's told.

So if you haven't done the genetics, if you haven't at least gotten a graduate degree in ecology or genetics then you are not qualified to have an opinion on the subject. (Yes, that includes me. I confess, I am not qualified to have an opinion on the subject. But at least I have the good sense to know that.)

[mike_c]

44. "So if you haven't done the genetics..."

"...f you haven't at least gotten a graduate degree in ecology or genetics then you are not qualified to have an opinion on the subject."

I have, and I'm a working ecologist and academic biologist. Not, I might add, a corporate biologist.

I'm not sure how to comment on the rest of your response. I basically agree, I think-- I just don't like the ramifications. Human knowledge and understanding are cumulative processes, and it didn't take long after the paleolithic for the cumulative experience to become more than one person could ever hope to emulate. And the process itself-- at least the scientific process-- is designed to be iterative and self exploring, so that weeding out wrongheadedness happens more-or-less automatically, although the rate is not guaranteed (er, um-- Aristotle?). But THAT'S what absolves us to some degree of the accusation that we all "just take it on faith anyway." Scientific progress normally tests and retests those "articles of faith" as much as it can.

[zbiker]

47. agreed, i do not consider

my self an expert in any way shape of form, i only have a working knowledge of what does and does not work in the field. but even this does not qualify me as an expert. as i mentioned in my starting post, it just saddens me that something that could well be a boon for us, is so misunderstood, thus being shot down by those who would consider themselves progressive to mankind as a whole.
oh well, time to go disk a field and prepare to start planting, i still have a nation to help feed

[Canuckistanian]

63. I think all economies whould move back to the "honey standard"

Like they had during the Iron Age. Much less stress worrying about "global markets" or "marketing boards".

[piedmont]

68. No, the main fear is that ANY non-Monsanto farmer will be sued by Monsanto...

for planting seeds contaminated with Monsanto's patented genes. Farmers who save some of their seed to plant the next year's crop (just like farmers have been doing for thousands of years) can be sued if Monsanto's genes contaminated those seeds by pollination. That ain't right, and it's increasingly pooling the control of our food into the hands of a few giant corporations.