[Default] On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:30:32 -1000, in or.politics you wrote:
>
>"Corky K"
yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:0pvd04lr7ravbmabk506h6dd85oic0ms2r@4ax.com...>> [Default] On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:06:44 -1000, in or.politics you wrote:
>>
>>>I think you are missing the point. The population of the world is
>>>increasing. More people, means more people to feed. More people to feed
>>>means you need food to feed these people. But we hve a basic problem.
>>>Land
>>>to grow the foods that are needed to feed this growing population, is
>>>limited, i.e. the world has used just about all of the land that can be
>>>used
>>>to grow the food we need to feed this growing population. So, unless you
>>>can figure out a way to provide the food needed for this growing
>>>population
>>>(trranslation: get more food out of each acre of land), sooner or later,
>>>you
>>>won't be able to feed this growing population. And "if" you cannot feed
>>>this growing population, people will die.
>>>
>>
>> No, I understand the point exactly, Jerry. But the question of how to feed
>> the
>> masses is a very complex one. Technology has provided us with one answer
>> and it
>> is being used. But with that answer, more questions come. It is a very
>> complex
>> issue. As I drove around the Big Island, for example, I saw pastures with
>> wild
>> cane growing and realized that these were once cane plantation fields and
>> are no
>> longer able to be used at all for growing because of several factors,
>> including
>> the slash and burn methods of harvesting and the lack of real irrigation.
>> But it
>> really all comes down to what the growable areas of land will be used for,
>> monoculture and lack of diversity aside. If there is a choice between
>> growing
>> for energy (bio fuels) or growing food to feed the masses, which do you
>> think
>> will be done?
>
>At this point in time, some countries like the United States are diverting
>some of their land to produce ethanol. But the United States has one big
>advantage that some countries do not have. They can produce more food than
>their population needs. So, they can afford to use that land for the
>production of ethanol. Having said that, when you divert your land to
>produce ethanol, you are not using that land for the production of food.
>Then the old supply/demand problem rears its ugly heard. Less land being
>used to produce food, means the cost of food rises. Less land used to
>produce food also means what was a situation where this country produced a
>large surplus of food items like wheat, will be reduced, and perhaps reduced
>substantially. A reduced production of wheat, means that we will not be
>helping countries that we send that surplus wheat to, to feed their
>population, we will no longer send that wheat to. In other words, there is
>no free lunch. Someone pays the price....
>
>Especially when a farmer receives a far greater sum for his crops
>> if they are to be used for bio fuels. Energy will always win. But that
>> wasn't
>> the subject of this thread, the increasing lack of diversity in our food
>> source
>> and how Monsanto and companies like it are contributing to such was. Your
>> opinion? Is genetics really the well thought out answer? Or just the short
>> term
>> band aid?
>
>It is what we are talking about. Companies like Monsanto are in the
>business to figure out a way to increase the yield per acre. If you can
>increase the yield per acre, then the impact of what we were talking about
>is less. A higher yield means you can produce more wheat for instance, on
>one acre of land. Which in turn means that you can use some of your land
>for the production of something else, like biofuels without any significant
>impact on the food supply.
I agree with most everything you have written, Jerry, but with the impact thing
I don't think it was thought through enough. The impact of being able to produce
more food through genetics isn't only that less people will be without. There is
a cost factor to every new technology. That is what we are discussing. What is
that cost factor? Well, with genetics there are many costs. It is a HIGHLY
regulated industry. With regulation comes higher costs. But we probably still
win with the final price. With genetics we are also losing diversity like crazy.
That is a slippery slope. With genetics we creating new species of vegetables
that have a gene or two that was not in there by nature's (or God's if you are
religious) design. That has several impacts. Take for example tomatoes that are
genetically modified with a fish gene to survive colder temperatures. If you are
allergic to fish, you suddenly start showing the same symptoms when you eat the
tomato. Since there is no regulation that geneticly modified foods must be
labeled as such, there is no way of knowing before you eat the food if you will
have an allergic reaction to the rogue gene or not. Food allergies are
increasing as a result. Labeling foods as genetically modified (and with what)
would be a solution, but the FDA doesn't want to do this. They don't want the
purchasing public to know what they are eating. The only true way of being sure
is to buy organic, as the regulation is very defined and GMO's are strictly
forbidden. One big impact, speaking of Monsanto is the Roundup Ready (TM) crops.
They can handle extremely large amounts of pesticides, thus having less crop
losses. But the residues of those pesticides remain in the fruit and veggies
that are grown. The levely are more than substantially higher than pre
technology. This means more pesticide residues ingested and ultimately more
health problems for America. Higher health costs. And, with the increased
spraying of Round Up, the other weeds and cover crops that are there become
resistant over the mid run, making super weeds that resist the very pesticides
that were designe to kill them. We have to put these issues and others that I
haven't mentioned on a scale against the benefits of the technology. Gene
manipulation is one way of making more crops and more food. Is it the only one?
Probably or definitely not. But there is big money behind it and it is being
done without mention to the buying public. In a land like the USA, where choice
is an advantage over, lets say. a Third World country, I find the lack of
information about what we are eating shameful. Thus I buy Organic. I would
gladly accept and purchase a food that was technologically changed if they were
forthright about what was done and which genes were used. I also have a food
allergy and must be careful about what I eat. Organics is the only option to do
this until the FDA gets a clue about consumerism. But they believe that since
the whole Picowaved veggies fiasco, that it is better not to tell the buying
public. Thus we pay the prices outlined above and more.
** Posted from
http://www.teranews.com **
