I do hold in "high regard" A. D. Pickett's viewpoint, quoted in a posting by
Bart Hall:
<As pointed out previously, these effects may exhibit themselves very
slowly and several years may elapse before the final results become
known. ... the present methods used by investigators are entirely too
empirical and should be regarded with acute skepticism. This applies
not only to the work of the scientific staffs of industrial
organizations, but to that of government officers as well.>
What I want to know is, where can I find proof (or at least evidence) for
another Pickett statement:
<. . . overall percentage losses of crop to disease, insects, and weeds is
actually *higher* that it was in the1930s.>
I have read a number of equivalent statements over the years, but never one
that cited a source or even a reference.
Can anyone tell me where to look to see if it's possible to verify these
increased % losses? And if they can be verified, can they counter the
agritexperts' view that if you can double the yield, you can suffer these %
losses and still have a substantial net gain?
What concerns/frightens/terrifies me is the scale of today's experiments,
when only time can tell us whether the results are beneficial, harmless, or
disastrous.
Nature's evolutionary experiments start out small and spread slowly, if it
all. In contrast, biotech reportedly covered 50 million U.S. acres with GM
plants in its third year of experimenting.
Thanks for listening, feedback would be nice -
Betty Ann Gras
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