> [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?

> 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.