>>Unfortunately, we already have surplus crop and other produce. In order to > keep the price up, >>surplus is destroyed.
> I goggled for that in the US, and it referred to this happening during the > Great Depression, when prices were so low during the deflationary era that > it wasn't worth the cost of bringing them to market. Since then, farmers > have been paid to leave land fallow. Lately, it's been much better. > Farmers are paid to plant land with the greatest risk for erosion with > grasses that are superior for soil retention. That's one reason why, on US > farms, topsoil is increasing. Yup, I checked, right. In the EU the overproduction problem had been solved by 2007. However: regardless if we destroy surplus or get paid not to produce it, it won't help feed more people. >>Monsanto has proven that genetically modified crop is dangerous. > I've seen some extraordinary sketchy studies on this, but nothing > substantial. With 95% or so of the US eating food that has been genetically > modified, then we should see the effects with real science. I've checked the > latest study of organic food vs. non-organic, and absolutely no health > benefits were found with organic foods. Yes, residue pesticides exist on <snip> That wasn't the danger I meant. >>Yes, genetic modifications have a long history. Yup, "trial & error > breeding". > Genes don't care how they are modified. Dan, you still think like a scientist. You need to think like a greedy idiot to understand what I mean. :-) In historic times, 232 different races of domestic pigs could be found in Germany. In more modern times, this was reduced to one single race (the most efficient, short-term money-wise). Nowadays, a few "old races" seem to have re-appeared. The real problem is that if you base you base your country-wide farming on a single race of crop, diseases can lead to crop failure or mass mortality. Country-wide. Diverse redundancy would have helped. The problem are not genetic modifications by themselves, but the reasons *why* and *how* it is employed. It's used to maximize short-term profits. There's a risk to it, as mentioned above. But, what the heck, if anything fucks up, the state will bails us out again. Yup, not only bankers think that way, farmers as well. > The poison you talk about is roundup. And, yes, if I drank a bottle of it, > I'd probably be sick. But, I've used it on weeds. Spray it on grass, and > the grass dies, but spray it on weeds 3 inches from grass, and the small > amount that gets on the grass doesn't hurt it. If Roundup were that bad, > wouldn't we see the effects on the laws of folks who use it, on the animal > life in the area, etc? That's what they said about DDT, too. However, I'm still suspicious. Monsanto apparently prefers buying politicians over addressing my doubts and concerns. While their product safety tests have their merits, I find them a bit...simplistic for a technology on which a complete country relies on for feeding its population. - Klaus _______________________________________________ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
