(P.S.) Mary, 2 of those are government links. Because your so sure of "the comprehensive interpretation of science;" why don't you decipher and explain to rest of us idiots, what the report is about, in my last link? (Oh wait, could it be about MRL'S?)

 I have a hundred more of these links. I have to play this B/S game everyday; don't tell me, I don't know what I'm talking about. (BTW, I detest the Left and the Right equally. So you can save your "Fundie" comments for the Tea-Baggers.)

I agree there should be strict MRL, based on publically funded toxilogical studies, on all foods no matter where they came from. There also should be (and is) restrictions of pesticide use with regards to environmental impact of course based on non-biased peer reveiwed scientific research.

I don't understand "My argument on GM food is NOT the argument against GM food."

But,i do also agree that all gm crops should be tested by publically funded researchers. Of course the data should guide government regulations.

So far so good, more money for toxicologists.

Do I think that we will benifit economically? Well, biotech is a massive industry and involves billions of dollars. The fact that overgrown corporations are destroying the lifes of many lower income bracket people (farmers or not) is not an issue contained in the ag sector. The main force that is pushing farmers to large scale high input farming is the fact that they are trying to grow commodities for global market and not food for a local market.

These are problems with the market not with GE technologies. GM crops are safe for consumption and have had a positive impact on the environment (do not confuse the impact of GM crops with the industrial ag context you usually find them in).

If we want to produce safe and reliable food for our growing population with less of an impact on the environment farms are going to have to be a reasonable size, with good management and less inputs. We need to be growing good local food, not global commodities. To accomplish this i believe we will need a massive influx of basic plant bio and plant breeding (GM and "conventional") research. A wide variety of modern crops with pest resistances, environmental stress adaptions, better nutritional content etc. adapted to all the climates we have on this continent (and other) will be needed. This technology needs to get to farmers as fast and as cheaply as possible.

There are some very big problems with the US subsidy system. It absolutely has to be fixed. The point i am trying to make is that these problems originate from the way the market is set up and NOT the science of GM technologies. They often get lumped together as the same problem, they are different issues.

"(To me,) it sounds like you stand to benefit from GM-crops; nothing wrong with that. I just have a lot of reservations about selling-out small farmers." I think we all stand to benefit from GM-crops, what we need to do is figure out how to use them best and assure we keep our small farmers.

For full discloser: I am a grad student being paid by a public grant for biodiversity research. I grew up on a small farm that uses GM crops.

I have tried to make my points as clearly as possible.

There are problems with the market in the US. These problems you mention, corruption, etc. are not contained to the agricultural sector. The science behind GM technologies should not be lumped in with these problems. Diamonds can cause wars but you would never blame the geochemical processes that form diamonds for those wars, you blame selfish people and the civilization they are found in.

If you want non-biased research then advocate for more publically funded science.

By assure we keep our small farms I mean that we need to reduce the pressure to go large scale high input farming by promoting the growth of local food (not commodities for the world market).

Doing this with more people and less of an impact on the environment will require extensive breeding and use of all the tools breeders and researcher have available.

I would have appreiciated if you had read my comments more thoughly to try to understand them and ask for clarification when needed. I feel have addressed your responses in a coherent and in a point by point manner. Seeing that you are clearly stedfast in your position and that I have gained nothing new from this conversation I say good-day.

As a farmer in Iowa, I have planted the change from open pollinated corn, to hybrids, to GM corn. I never realized I was contributing to a conspiracy. (please laugh at this point). We as farmers made a living and I am proud to say we have fed the world.

I do remember at the peak of the hybrid corn, chemical application era that a flood or heavy rain would move or concentrate the chemicals to the low lands. When the water was up a person could smell the Atrizine and bug chemicals in the water, ground, and air. I am sure the safety of those chemicals were never tested at those concentrations.

In regard to set aside acres that program is more positive than negative today. I have set aside acres and filter strips. The program takes the land that is "at risk" first. Steep side hills that would experience severe erosion are encouraged to be bid into the program. Filter strips are grass areas along streams that capture silt eroding from the crop acres. As a side note we have native grasses and wild flowers planted on the set aside acres.

I remember prime farm ground being in set aside years ago.

Are the GM crops safe?  I don't know.  Government and Big business don't lie but rather operatein half truths. They only acknowledge the half of the truth that supports their conclusion.

True sustainable foods will be a reality when it looks more like cell phones than the space program. Every one has to grow something every day all the time. It needs to be an extension of ones self, on ones mind all of the time, indespensable to life, and constantly nurtured and attended, like a cell phone. Not an issue remotely observed and a product of science and Government.

Grow something people.

Mark, I really like your cell phone analogy.

I've also personnaly noticed improvement in environmental health on my farm after switching to RR beans and corn. Going to a no till rotation leaves cover on the fields all winter, protecting them from errosion and supplying habitat for wild-life. This also means we (and not just my farm but everyone around) could put the really tough chemicals. In the last 15 years since we have started using these crops there has been a huge increase in all type of wild life from frog and rabbits to deer and cyotes.

Are GM crops safe? I would confidently say that there is no compelling evidence that they are unsafe, either theoretically or expereimentally. These crops have one extra protien in a soup of tens of thousands of protiens.

Mr. B, I understand what you are saying; shouldn't have said you were lying. I do bring some bias into my argument, (obviously.) Although, it shouldn't be directed toward you.

  I am one county over from the Delta Water Controversy, (California.) Here, farmers and environmentalist, are the equivalent of oil and water. Because our, "California's," Government has created this 200,000 acre dust bowl, taxes in my county went up.  If I sound paranoid, it's because I am.

 The science behind this controversy is "questionable," but has also been interpreted by a bias party. Now, farmers and farm workers stand to lose their land, jobs and lively-hoods. 

My question is obvious: "How long will it be until they make their way into my county and bankrupt our economy?"

Mr. Knudsen, here in "The Salad Bowl," it's not a matter of growing something. More so, the methods being used to grow, is what is under attack. 

L. S. Hope

I am not familiar with your situation in California. That is one reason I enjoy conversations with people in other parts of the country.

The methods of Big Business, Big Government do perplex me. Years ago I did see large areas of non irrigated land in Iowa being taken out of production while incentives were being offered in the irrigated areas of Nebraska, Colorado and Arizona. with the shortage of water in these areas and cost of production, it never made any sense to me.

I do get tired of the paper work people making decisions for the people working the land. All these people draw a paycheck researching and studying how things should be done. At the end of their career they haven't grown a single thing and the study they made a living on, is superseded and replaced by the next person replacing them. This is where my comment came from on "grow something". Nothing creates appreciation better than dirty hands.

The other point of this is that there are 3 power identities. Big Business, Big Government, and the people. The people can only increase their influence by getting involved.

You make reference to parties, One party believes Big Government working with Big Business can solve the problems. The other party believes Big Business working with Big Government can solve the problems. I don't see the difference anymore.

As proof of this look on the Governments web page for Government contracts an individual can bid on. Last time I looked I found 6 totaling a few million dollars out of a trillion dollar budget.

TARP dollars went to the banks because it is impossible to inject money into individual loans. These loans have been bundled and resold. It would be impossible to reassemble each loan and inject money into it. (We were told this by the last two presidents and Big Business.) Every month people inject money into an individual loan when they make a house payment. Loan the TARP money as a second mortgage to the home owner can put it against their property and keep their house. Offer no principal or interest payments on the second mortgage and that is the stimulus and auto bailout plan.

My point in showing this is that the people are not being directly involved in the solution.   

Corn is being turned into fuel. That is why people are starving. We aren't being told the brewers dried grain which is a byproduct of the alcohol process is going to feed people and animals.

I have been deceived by the parties and Big Business to many times to give either of them exclusively Horns or Halos.

Fortunately we still have the third choice of the people. 

That is a tough one when work is leaving an agricultural area. In the rural areas of Iowa we have had a .5% annual decline in population for over 40 years. I would guess that only 1 out of 10 farms are left in the rural areas today.