So, our worst fears about GMOs have come true. But should we still be afraid? This article starts by saying "This might not even be a problem at all," then describes how genetically engineered canola is sprouting up all along roadsides in North Dakota. As it turns out, "These genetically engineered canola plants have been found growing along roads in Canada, where canola is widely grown, and in Japan, which imports the crop." Doesn't this mean lots of other crops will soon follow suit? One scientist offers in conclusion that plants like corn and soybeans, also preponderantly GMO-based, are "super-domesticated and they just don't really like to go wild." So maybe we'll get used to only certain GMOs alongside our roads?
Interesting facts and information about the mainstream perceptions of biotech produced foods, GMO, and the like. On one side, they've got a huge percentage of the market cornered (86% I think), which likely strikes fear into the heart of many anti-biotech folk. On the other hand, you have a lot of scientists saying that GMO crops are no more likely to produce more than conventional - why then, are we doing it? To stop weeds, that are already coming back with greater resistance? However you analyze it, an interesting article (and a recommended source - people often write off the Christian Science Monitor because of the first word in its name, but its not a religious news source, it is very high quality, and they have people reporting from all over the world. They do very good analysis of global energy issues, and I would highly reccomend their coverage of China's growing green economy. They've done a lot of work on that)
There is a concern whether or not this years set backs for the biotech company (famous for use of GMOs) Monsanto shows a downward trend of creating genetically engineered crops.
An article run recently in the Portland Tribune details the price disparity between the local fruit of farmers markets and the local fruit sold at other shops throughout Portland. On one end are the sometimes obscene prices of farmers markets, tailoring to a predominantly wealthy white clientele, and on the other, you have prices at fruit stand shops that are for a blue collar society, sold at often over half the cost of farmers markets. A strange economic situation underlies the difference. Are Portland's own renowned farmers markets, cherished by so many, tailoring exclusively to rich white folks?
I think this is an important topic to address, however after reading the article I still agree with one of the comments another reader posted at the end of the article:
"Many assumptions are made in this article about "local" produce. I would have asked some additional questions such as "What is your definition of locally produced?" Also, what are the labor practices on these farms? Of course I would choose $.89/pound over $1.50/pound unless that means the farmer is paying low wages to workers. What agricultural practices are these farmers using? We have an unrealistic idea of the true cost of food because of decades of subsidies and genetic modification. I'm willing to pay more to purchase beautiful, fresh, non-gmo, organically produced food by workers receiving a living wage. I'm willing to support small farmers and I like knowing that my money is going directly to the hand that grows it. It is true, many farmers markets are more expensive than traditional grocery stores and other outlets but they are offering much more than just a grocery shopping experience. It's a social, community building event."
I also posted a response to the article:
"I would like to second "local4food"'s comment. There's a bigger problem at hand here. We really shouldnt be focusing on getting the best deal for our food when we already have such a warped idea of the true cost of food. As someone who has both lived and worked on farms and grown a good deal of my own food, there's no way I can look at a bag of tomatoes and not think they're work $3 per pound... at least! Food is such an amazing resource. Shopping at farmers' markets makes me pay more attention to the amount food I buy and be more mindful of how much its really worth to me. I feel better too, knowing that the people who provide me with it are receiving the minimum compensation for their work. We should treat those who feed us with the upmost respect, not like measly vendors who ought to compete themselves nearly out of bus
This article highlights a new solution that's "already being spear-headed by farmers on the ground." It preserves biodiversity, alleviates hunger, addresses malnutrition, protects against drought, and produces sustainable yields... a miracle GMO? No... traditional vegetables? Who knew?
"Many indigenous vegetables use less water than hybrid varieties and some are resistant to pests and disease without the use of chemical inputs, which are expensive both financially and environmentally."
Does is seem surprising, odd, and even a bit backwards that the idea of using traditional crops and biodynamic farming is presented as a new and innovative idea?
"While what we eat is important, what may be even more essential over the long term is preserving knowledge about how to plant, grow, and cook what we eat." It MAY be more essential...?
Group items tagged 
