>
>Dale wrote:
>
>> I'm kind of mystified by your reaction. Mainly they were urging farmers
>to
>> be careful and avoid contamination. What exactly did you disagree with in
>> that posting?
>
>Hi Dale,
>
>Gosh, you are the 2nd mystified person I've heard from today on this post,
>so perhaps some elaboration is in order.
>
>Yes, the ag agent is suggesting separation of GE corn from non-GE corn.
>First, this is the LEAST of additional costs for the farmer in this
>scenario, and should be considered in choosing seed for the season. Maybe
>possible for some farmers - separate storage facilities, but for smaller
>farms, probably unlikely. The 660 ft. "buffer" is something I'd sure be
>hard-pressed to see in my area of Wisconsin. Corn, etc. is planted right
>into the ditches here...often creating an actual road hazard! Every inch of
>taxed property is used for production. And he even suggests that 250-300 ft.
>is really sufficient based on wind direction "and other factors" - give me a
>break, pretty vague, subjective stuff there. My neighbors plant corn with in
>60 feet of my land & they aren't going to quit (lowering their bottom line)
>because they're worried about contaminating MY crop! Sorry, but that's the
>way it is. That's why our farm is listed as a plaintiff in the Greenpeace
>suit.
>
>The insinuation made by this agent (saying that Europe, etc. have NOT YET
>approved GMOs) is misleading...as if its just a matter of time, rather than
>a matter of public outrage & pressure against it, which is really the case.
>In fact Nestle & Unilever (a couple of the biggest food producers in the
>world) have just announced they will NOT be using GE components in their
>foodstuffs - and Cadbury has followed (Hooray!!) see:
>http://ens.lycos.com/ens/apr99/1999L-04-28-03.html
>
>Saying its acceptable, if you're feeding it out, is further reason for
>concern IMO. Typical big biz, big ag jive...if you're giving it to a cow it
>doesn't matter. Regarding milk & meat, as if the body of a cow somehow
>negates the effect or "cleanses" the contamination of GE feed she
>ingests..that it will not be long before milk (and meat tissue) from a
>GE-fed cow will also be detectable through testing.
>
>And the most irritating part to me is the advice to keep abreast of
>developments at your local elevator...lets say the local elevator is ok with
>GE now, but in the fall, the policy has changed? What new bans will be in
>place at harvest time? Why risk it? And ultimately, who is risking what
>here? It's not the ag agent...he just says, "oops, sorry", its not the
>elevator, they'll refuse the grain...its the farmer, as always, left holding
>the bag (of grain) Are grain elevators going to create separate handling as
>well, strict cleaning of bins, etc? Sounds like organic standards to me.
>Nope, they will simply not accept it...too costly.
>
>Who pays the bill when bins of grain are contaminated by the non-GE farmer
>who's corn was crossed & he assures the elevator its "clean", but
>contaminates tons of export-bound corn...yup, that farmer will be paying
>too. Just as a dairy farmer who contaminates a truckload of milk with
>antibiotics pays for the entire load (and carries milk-contamination
>coverage under his farm insurance policy) some farmers are going to get hit
>hard before this is over...and it will probably be the ones who aren't even
>using the GE seed! I suggest to you that insurance companies will be looking
>long & hard at this issue before long.
>
>So this is why I'm disturbed. It does not matter one little bit if you are
>"on top of the situation", informed. Once that corn is in the ground...its
>done. If you don't have animals to feed it to, you're stuck. If you're a
>grain farmer, you have taken a far bigger risk than is necessary. The
>writing is on the wall, and the ag agents should be presenting both sides of
>the issue, rather than doing everything they can to keep this technology
>alive & well in this country, the last stronghold of biotech.
>
>So my biggest complaint is the lack of a rounded picture for the farmer, so
>that he can make an intelligent decision. Its a subversive advertisement for
>Monsanto, their seed, their chemicals and the destruction of the environment
>that they peddle. The ag agent has a responsibility to suggest the best
>farming practices known to him/her. To digress to suggesting ways in which
>to possibly minimize financial (and environmental) disaster is unacceptable.
>
>Hope this helps you understand my concern...
>
>Julie
>
>
>
>To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
>"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
>"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
>"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>
>All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
>http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail
>
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail