Modern Environmentalism: Is It Doing More Harm Than Good?

[aquitaine]

It seems to me that more often than not modern day environmentalism, such as greenpeace, sierra club, etc,. are not really contributing much in the way of constructive solutions to problems but rather are just getting in the way. Take for example GMO, even though one of its main goals at this time is to produce the same amount of crops using less harmful input, they religiously oppose and instead try to push hideously inefficient "organic" farming which leads to more habitat loss, more deforestation and other stuff that is bad for people and the environment.


That's not to say they don't do anything right, trying to end high destructive fishing industry practices or saving old growth forests for example is highly benefitial. But food and energy are two very critical issues that HAVE to be solved for our very survival, so with that in mind are they doing more harm than good overall?

 

[daveb]

The reason they're aginst such things is because the GMOs can spread through nature, contaminating the natural environmnet in unforeseeable ways.

These genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can spread through nature and interbreed with natural organisms, thereby contaminating non 'GE' environments and future generations in an unforeseeable and uncontrollable way.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/genetic-engineering/"
This makes sense (their opposition, I'm not taking a stand right now on GMO) given their stated purpose of environmental protection.

 

[AlephZero]

The reason they're aginst such things is because the GMOs can spread through nature, contaminating the natural environmnet in unforeseeable ways.

You don't need GMOs to do that. Examples: cane toads and rabbits in Australia, Japanese knotweed pretty much anywhere outside of Japan (where there are insect predators that keep it in check), etc.

IMO The issue is simple, though the solution is not so simple: given a world population where millions if not billions of people don't know much science but do know the story of Chicken Little, public opinion says Chicken Little should make all the big policy decisions.

 

[daveb]

You don't need GMOs to do that. Examples: cane toads and rabbits in Australia, Japanese knotweed pretty much anywhere outside of Japan (where there are insect predators that keep it in check), etc.

Very true, but I imagine they'd claim, "but that's natural, and has been happening for eons, so it doesn't harm the overall biosphere, whereas GMOs are manmade, and we don't know what they can do."

In other words, there's an answer for everything.

IMO The issue is simple, though the solution is not so simple: given a world population where millions if not billions of people don't know much science but do know the story of Chicken Little, public opinion says Chicken Little should make all the big policy decisions.

Unfortunately true.

 

[cosmographer]

An issue I almost never see properly raised is that of population reduction. In my opinion the most crucial corrective needed. In concert with competing growth economies continued population growth will only keep exacerbating our problems.

Of course we run into all kinds of reistences here. Entrepreneurial freedoms and reproductive freedoms are things we're snugly married to as a culture. Capitalist modes of production are continually propped up by competition on the world market. You can't risk getting left behind at the levels of integration we've reached. Decrease population, shrink economy - bad news in a competetive system.

 

[drankin]

An issue I almost never see properly raised is that of population reduction. In my opinion the most crucial corrective needed. In concert with competing growth economies continued population growth will only keep exacerbating our problems.

Of course we run into all kinds of problems. Entrepreneurial freedooms and reproductive freedoms are things we're pretty married to as a culture.

How do you suggest we go about reducing populations? You may quickly find out why this is not an "issue" that is "properly raised".

 

[turbo]

GMO crops are a big issue in central Maine. We have a very large cohort of organic farmers who work very hard to provide sustainable food-crops and keep their certification as organic farmers. GMOs make this tough because insects and wind can cross-pollinate the crops. Part of the reason that this is important is that the MOFGA members are protecting crop diversity by growing heirloom varieties of tomatoes, corn, peppers, etc, and their efforts can be ruined by unintentional cross-pollination. Many of these farmers provide seed-stock to purveyors of heirloom vegetable seeds. It's important that we not lose this diversity, though we'd never know about the risk if we only listen to Monsanto.

Link to Fedco seeds, which is a reliable source of heirloom vegetable seeds. They get their seeds from the MOFGA members.
http://www.fedcoseeds.com/

Link to the organic farming association.
http://www.mofga.org/

"Organic" is not just a popular buzz-word thrown around to pry more money from consumers. The organic movement serves a valuable purpose - one that is often lost on nay-sayers. If we allow Monsanto and the other agri-giants to monopolize the seed-business, our nation's food security will be at risk because of the loss of genetic crop-diversity.

 

[daveb]

More importantly, when cross-pollination does occur, Monsanto then sues the farmer for patent infringement, which to me is the biggest issue with GMO. I'm still not quite decided on the environmental impacts of GMO (even though I prefer organic because it supports sustainibility), but I'm definitely against the patenting of food then sueing when this cross-pollination occurs.

 

[cosmographer]

How do you suggest we go about reducing populations? You may quickly find out why this is not an "issue" that is "properly raised".

If I understood your meaning your response demonstrates well just how readily inflamed the question becomes. I don't have good answers, I only know that not raising the issue is irresponsible. But to be sure, you wouldn't necessarily have to go about it in coercive or even violent ways? Growing humanity while exploiting ecosystem services into unlivable conditions is what is on the horizon, while today people are working to feed, clothe, luxurize just those growing populations. It's a horrible paradox for sure, either way it's ethically very uncomfortable.

 

[drankin]

If I understood your meaning your response demonstrates well just how readily inflamed the question becomes. I don't have good answers, I only know that not raising the issue is irresponsible. But to be sure, you wouldn't necessarily have to go about it in coercive or even violent ways? Growing humanity while exploiting ecosystem services into unlivable conditions is what is on the horizon, while today people are working to feed, clothe, luxurize just those growing populations. It's a horrible paradox for sure, either way it's ethically very uncomfortable.

It's a subject for another thread. But someone has posted before about how there is a relationship between developed countries and birth rate. As a country becomes more developed the birth rate declines.

 

[cosmographer]

It's a subject for another thread. But someone has posted before about how there is a relationship between developed countries and birth rate. As a country becomes more developed the birth rate declines.

I am aware of that, but equally observable is the positive correlation between development and ecological footprint per individual. But you're right, sorry for sidetracking. On topic: I think categorical environmentalisms can be counterproductive. What I mean by that is groups and organizations that have already made up their mind in relation to certain kinds of problems. In practice it's never kinds of problems that have to be negotiated, but specific questions pertaining to specific cases. Environmentalism could become less obstructive if it inserted itself more actively in the processes of finding solutions for those.

 

[Alfi]

How do you suggest we go about reducing populations?

I don't have good answers,

The answer in easy. Two people, two children. ...repeat for three generations.
implementation of the answer ... now that's some problem.

 

[drankin]

A little too socialistic for my taste but for kicks, everyone gets a baby ticket. If you don't want one, you can sell it to someone who wants it. Kind of a capitalism with a social agenda, the baby trade.

A new section on craigslist. :)

 

[mege]

A little too socialistic for my taste but for kicks, everyone gets a baby ticket. If you don't want one, you can sell it to someone who wants it. Kind of a capitalism with a social agenda, the baby trade.

A new section on craigslist. :)

Doesn't China already do this? (Legally limit births, not the baby exchange part :p)

The largest problem that I see with the major environmental groups is that they're trying to 'skip steps' towards conservation. As many in the thread have alluded to - change isn't an overnight process. Sure, it's a good thing to be mindful of the impact of environmental hazards, but the type of action advocated is often unproductive to the point of being non-applicable (ie: the OP's hinderance). What's the carbon footprint of using E85?

 

[WhoWee]

GMO crops are a big issue in central Maine. We have a very large cohort of organic farmers who work very hard to provide sustainable food-crops and keep their certification as organic farmers. GMOs make this tough because insects and wind can cross-pollinate the crops. Part of the reason that this is important is that the MOFGA members are protecting crop diversity by growing heirloom varieties of tomatoes, corn, peppers, etc, and their efforts can be ruined by unintentional cross-pollination. Many of these farmers provide seed-stock to purveyors of heirloom vegetable seeds. It's important that we not lose this diversity, though we'd never know about the risk if we only listen to Monsanto.

Link to Fedco seeds, which is a reliable source of heirloom vegetable seeds. They get their seeds from the MOFGA members.
http://www.fedcoseeds.com/

Link to the organic farming association.
http://www.mofga.org/

"Organic" is not just a popular buzz-word thrown around to pry more money from consumers. The organic movement serves a valuable purpose - one that is often lost on nay-sayers. If we allow Monsanto and the other agri-giants to monopolize the seed-business, our nation's food security will be at risk because of the loss of genetic crop-diversity.

Fedco looks like a good place to buy your garden supplies. IMO - that's the strength of the organic movement - the 3 acre and under market.

 

[aquitaine]

GMO crops are a big issue in central Maine. We have a very large cohort of organic farmers who work very hard to provide sustainable food-crops and keep their certification as organic farmers. GMOs make this tough because insects and wind can cross-pollinate the crops. Part of the reason that this is important is that the MOFGA members are protecting crop diversity by growing heirloom varieties of tomatoes, corn, peppers, etc, and their efforts can be ruined by unintentional cross-pollination. Many of these farmers provide seed-stock to purveyors of heirloom vegetable seeds. It's important that we not lose this diversity, though we'd never know about the risk if we only listen to Monsanto.

This here is part of the problem, particularly wth the GMO debate is that it always starts off as a debate about science but then very quickly it turns into an adventure into anticorporatism.

"Organic" is not just a popular buzz-word thrown around to pry more money from consumers. The organic movement serves a valuable purpose - one that is often lost on nay-sayers. If we allow Monsanto and the other agri-giants to monopolize the seed-business, our nation's food security will be at risk because of the loss of genetic crop-diversity.

Good thing we use science to preserve what we have and modify new organisms when we need to.

 

[turbo]

This here is part of the problem, particularly wth the GMO debate is that it always starts off as a debate about science but then very quickly it turns into an adventure into anticorporatism.
Good thing we use science to preserve what we have and modify new organisms when we need to.

I am not anti-corporate. We have to balance the rights of small farmers against the rights of corporations, though. When small farmers are trying to preserve and boost heritage vegetable availalability and seed-stocks, and the big agri-giants are trying to crush them, the federal government should step in. If you have a 25-100 acre farm, and you are being stomped on by Monsanto or ADM, you are going under. There is no other result that is foreseeable. Small farms (and local produce) have been the backbone of this country for hundreds of years. There is a concerted effort to eliminate this. If you don't care, that's fine, but I have friends who have devoted their lives to farming, and I care about them.

 

[mege]

I am not anti-corporate. We have to balance the rights of small farmers against the rights of corporations, though. When small farmers are trying to preserve and boost heritage vegetable availalability and seed-stocks, and the big agri-giants are trying to crush them, the federal government should step in. If you have a 25-100 acre farm, and you are being stomped on by Monsanto or ADM, you are going under. There is no other result that is foreseeable. Small farms (and local produce) have been the backbone of this country for hundreds of years. There is a concerted effort to eliminate this. If you don't care, that's fine, but I have friends who have devoted their lives to farming, and I care about them.

If the 'heritage vegetables' don't compete well against what the agri-giants offer, then why should they be perpetuated except just for the sake of perpetuation? Is it 'GMO pollution' that's really happening or is it market squeeze? (I don't really know much about the industry, except what's been posted here)

 

[Ryumast3r]

If the 'heritage vegetables' don't compete well against what the agri-giants offer, then why should they be perpetuated except just for the sake of perpetuation? Is it 'GMO pollution' that's really happening or is it market squeeze? (I don't really know much about the industry, except what's been posted here)

Because non-GMO foods might in the end become the only really healthy option (the effects of GMO are relatively unknown). If this becomes the case, and all non-GMO foods have been destroyed because of agri-giants squashing little farms... well, then we have a problem.

The agri-giants aren't going to suffer because of these small farms, and certainly aren't going out of business any time soon, so why not let them continue growing medium amounts of produce?

 

[mege]

Because non-GMO foods might in the end become the only really healthy option (the effects of GMO are relatively unknown). If this becomes the case, and all non-GMO foods have been destroyed because of agri-giants squashing little farms... well, then we have a problem.

The agri-giants aren't going to suffer because of these small farms, and certainly aren't going out of business any time soon, so why not let them continue growing medium amounts of produce?

For sake of arguement: isn't this exactly what the OP is talking about? We're bending over backwards to prevent the 1 in long-shot 'it could happen' disaster?

 

[daveb]

If the 'heritage vegetables' don't compete well against what the agri-giants offer, then why should they be perpetuated except just for the sake of perpetuation? Is it 'GMO pollution' that's really happening or is it market squeeze? (I don't really know much about the industry, except what's been posted here)

They do compete. You can see that this is the case since there is a market for organic foods. True, they don't compete as well as the really inexpensive stuff the large agri-business units, but they still have a market. the problem arises when those large agri-businesses put pressure on competition not through market forces, but through other means such as patent infringement.

 

[russ_watters]

...the effects of GMO are relatively unknown...

That's absolutely ridiculous. GMO foods have been around for decades and are extrordinarily well studied, particularly considering most of our grown food is GMO!

 

[russ_watters]

Anyway, to more directly answer the OP:

It seems to me that more often than not modern day environmentalism, such as greenpeace, sierra club, etc,. are not really contributing much in the way of constructive solutions to problems but rather are just getting in the way.

How is that new? That's what the more radical environmentalists have been like since the movement started. If anything, some are starting to wake up and realize how foolish they were, particularly as it relates to nuclear power. As we've seen with GMO foods in this thread and with nuclear power, too often environmentalists pick their causes based as much on the politics as the environmental implications of the issues. I think that was borne of the turbulence of the 1960s. Nuclear power was improperly connected to nuclear weapons and as a result, environmentalists opposed what they logically should have embraced.

Here's an ex-Greenpeace member who discusses the flaws in environmentalists views on both issues: http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2005/2005_10-19/2005_10-19/2005-18/pdf/41-45_18_ecotaver.pdf

 

[aquitaine]

I am not anti-corporate. We have to balance the rights of small farmers against the rights of corporations, though. When small farmers are trying to preserve and boost heritage vegetable availalability and seed-stocks, and the big agri-giants are trying to crush them, the federal government should step in. If you have a 25-100 acre farm, and you are being stomped on by Monsanto or ADM, you are going under. There is no other result that is foreseeable.

Monsanto's customers are not just big agri-businesses, they do sell to small farmers. The reason they have such a hold on the market is because they make products that people like. No one forces them to use GMO, they do it because it is better than what they were using before. It's also not like Monsanto is the only GMO seed company, there are plenty of others.

Small farms (and local produce) have been the backbone of this country for hundreds of years. There is a concerted effort to eliminate this. If you don't care, that's fine, but I have friends who have devoted their lives to farming, and I care about them.

Lets not forget why the industrialized world transitioned AWAY from that model: Because it wasn't working. It didn't produce the yields we have now and it also left whole nations prone to cyclical famines. That's right, famines, as in people starving to death, like the Great Finnish Famine that was caused entirely because climate variances. Can you imagine something like that happening in Finland or any other western nation today?

Just because someone dedicated their life to something doesn't mean it was a good choice.

How is that new? That's what the more radical environmentalists have been like since the movement started.

True but back then there were many very serious and very real problems with the environment that needed a strong responce, which they achieved through the bipartisan clean air act, clean water act, the endangered species act, and also the EPA. Also back then the nuclear industry was less mature and did have some serious problems with it, but today that has largely been resolved. To some extent they essentially worked themselves out of the job, and you know what they say about idle hands.

 

[CAC1001]

GMO crops are a big issue in central Maine. We have a very large cohort of organic farmers who work very hard to provide sustainable food-crops and keep their certification as organic farmers. GMOs make this tough because insects and wind can cross-pollinate the crops. Part of the reason that this is important is that the MOFGA members are protecting crop diversity by growing heirloom varieties of tomatoes, corn, peppers, etc, and their efforts can be ruined by unintentional cross-pollination. Many of these farmers provide seed-stock to purveyors of heirloom vegetable seeds. It's important that we not lose this diversity, though we'd never know about the risk if we only listen to Monsanto.

"Organic" is not just a popular buzz-word thrown around to pry more money from consumers. The organic movement serves a valuable purpose - one that is often lost on nay-sayers. If we allow Monsanto and the other agri-giants to monopolize the seed-business, our nation's food security will be at risk because of the loss of genetic crop-diversity.

I think it depends. Genetically-modified crops play a very important role in terms of allowing us to grow a lot more food using less land (which is good for trees that can re-grow in areas where they were once cut down for farmland). Organically-grown crops use a lot more farmland because they are so much more susceptible to insects and so forth; we'd never be able to grow the food we do today if all of its was grown organically. In addition, organic food is often grow using manure, which is festering with bacteria, as opposed to crops grown using nitrogen fertilizer.

That said, I am not claiming that big agriculture corporations don't do evil things, in particular companies like Monsanto.

I am not anti-corporate. We have to balance the rights of small farmers against the rights of corporations, though. When small farmers are trying to preserve and boost heritage vegetable availalability and seed-stocks, and the big agri-giants are trying to crush them, the federal government should step in.

How would the federal government go about stepping in? (I'm not saying they can't, I just mean, what should they do?). Are the agri-giants seeking to crush them in a purely free-market manner, or by abusing the system? Because big corporations remember are notorious for being able to lobby the government, when it "steps in," to act in a way that benefits them.

If you have a 25-100 acre farm, and you are being stomped on by Monsanto or ADM, you are going under. There is no other result that is foreseeable. Small farms (and local produce) have been the backbone of this country for hundreds of years. There is a concerted effort to eliminate this. If you don't care, that's fine, but I have friends who have devoted their lives to farming, and I care about them.

The thing is, while many industries that are lightly-regulated still consolidate, almost every industry that gets a heavy hand involved via the federal government becomes consolidated. My concern about the government stepping in would be that the big agricultural corporations would then lobby for all the regulations to be beneficial to themselves and also likely heavy-handed, so that then small farms would have to comply with a bunch of hurtful, expensive regulations, which would thus make the industry even easier for the big agricultural companies to consolidate and thus dominate (this is the major concern about the new financial regulation that will be coming onto Wall Street).

Also, as quitaine pointed out, there are reasons why the agricultural industry evolved the way it did.

 

[WhoWee]

I am not anti-corporate. We have to balance the rights of small farmers against the rights of corporations, though. When small farmers are trying to preserve and boost heritage vegetable availalability and seed-stocks, and the big agri-giants are trying to crush them, the federal government should step in. If you have a 25-100 acre farm, and you are being stomped on by Monsanto or ADM, you are going under. There is no other result that is foreseeable. Small farms (and local produce) have been the backbone of this country for hundreds of years. There is a concerted effort to eliminate this. If you don't care, that's fine, but I have friends who have devoted their lives to farming, and I care about them.

my bold

Turbo, what type of crops are you referring to - corn, wheat, barley, and soy?

To be competitive, the 25 to 100 acre farmer might consider alternative/specialty crops that sell for a higher price and are outside the scope of the so-called agri-giants. While often considered to require more labor, proper planning often reduces additional costs.

 

[turbo]

my bold

Turbo, what type of crops are you referring to - corn, wheat, barley, and soy?

To be competitive, the 25 to 100 acre farmer might consider alternative/specialty crops that sell for a higher price and are outside the scope of the so-called agri-giants. While often considered to require more labor, proper planning often reduces additional costs.

All kinds of fruits, vegetables, grains, etc. They are stable, reliable old varieties that breed true, so you can save your own seeds and replant from year to year. Sustainable seeds that breed true are not in the interests of the large agri-businesses. They want farmers to have to buy seeds from them year after year.

Look up the on-line catalogs for Fedco Seeds (a cooperative) and Johnny's Selected Seeds, and note how many heirloom varieties that they carry. Most of the organically-certified and heirloom seeds come from farms in this area, and are grown by members of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA), the oldest and largest consortium of organic growers in the country.

the UN's FAO studies genetic diversity of food crops, including the possible loss of options to deal with changing climate, ecosystems, etc when diversity is lacking. http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/focus/2004/51102/article_51107en.html
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=36564&Cr=biodiversity&Cr1

MOFGA and it's cousins are certainly not the only organizations to preserve genetic diversity in food crops. There are seed banks all over the world, but this is the one most people have heard of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault

 

[aquitaine]

All kinds of fruits, vegetables, grains, etc. They are stable, reliable old varieties that breed true, so you can save your own seeds and replant from year to year. Sustainable seeds that breed true are not in the interests of the large agri-businesses. They want farmers to have to buy seeds from them year after year.

Good job sidestepping all my points.

 

[Alfi]

Good job sidestepping all my points.

Was that a compliment? If it was, then please ignore the following. :)

otherwise

Your sidestep is just another persons counter argument. ( a good one imo )

Look up the on-line catalogs for Fedco Seeds (a cooperative) and Johnny's Selected Seeds, and note how many heirloom varieties that they carry.

Did you do as asked, and 'look up' the asserted statement?

 

[Evo]

Did you do as asked, and 'look up' the asserted statement?

Alfi, if you're going to quote someone, please do it correctly and post the quote with the link so that the rest of us have some idea of what you are talking about.

The way you posted it looks like you are saying the second quote is part of the same post as the first quote. It isn't.

 

[Alfi]

my error .. thank you for correcting me.

 

[Sheets]

An issue I almost never see properly raised is that of population reduction. In my opinion the most crucial corrective needed. In concert with competing growth economies continued population growth will only keep exacerbating our problems.

One way to address this in our country is through immigration restrictions.

The Sierra Club had a battle on restricting mass immigration 15 or so years ago with the restrictionists losing. Mass immigration restrictions unfortunately seems to be tied too closely with racial politics and probably won't make a comeback with environmental groups.

 

[mege]

One way to address this in our country is through immigration restrictions.

The Sierra Club had a battle on restricting mass immigration 15 or so years ago with the restrictionists losing. Mass immigration restrictions unfortunately seems to be tied too closely with racial politics and probably won't make a comeback with environmental groups.

I don't see the relationship to enviornmental concerns? The immigrants are going to have their same childbearing habits in their homeland or in a newland.

The only relationship I could see is that immigration, in this sense, generally involves an increase in the quality of life and thus increases life span, more consumption/consumerism, etc.

 

[klimatos]

But food and energy are two very critical issues that HAVE to be solved for our very survival,

Not necessarily. Some humans will always get as much food and energy as they want. Others will not. That's natural selection at work.

 

[Prairie]

Monsanto's customers are not just big agri-businesses, they do sell to small farmers. The reason they have such a hold on the market is because they make products that people like. No one forces them to use GMO, they do it because it is better than what they were using before. It's also not like Monsanto is the only GMO seed company, there are plenty of others.

I don’t know if you’ve ever farmed, but the primary desire of the market is actually for cheaper products. Farmers have always been caught needing to increase production to keep up with that market pressure. For example according to the University of Illinois data between the years 1980 and 2006, wheat prices had historically averaged around $3.08/bushel. Peaking at $4.08/bushel in 1980 and $4.25/bushel in 1996 and dipping to their lowest levels at $2.11/bushel in 1999 and $2.16/bushel in 2000. But generally commodity prices have continued to fluctuate on average around the $3.08/bushel range over those 26 years.

Oddly, in recent years, since 2008 by the looks of it, commodity prices have been spiking and yo-yoing quite anomalously. Ah those nasty commodity speculators. But the point is that inputs have always been an increasing cost whereas commodity pricing has remained fairly consistently within its range. In order to maintain a level of per acre return on investment it becomes necessary to make it up through increase production. Enter higher yielding GM products with their herbicide and pesticide tolerances. Why is Monsanto, a chemical company, in the seed industry? Often GM products have brand/patent specific tolerances. It’s the razor-razor blade analogy of creating demand. It isn't in the seed where they find their profits but in the chemicals that service those crops.

Lets not forget why the industrialized world transitioned AWAY from that model: Because it wasn't working. It didn't produce the yields we have now and it also left whole nations prone to cyclical famines. That's right, famines, as in people starving to death, like the Great Finnish Famine that was caused entirely because climate variances. Can you imagine something like that happening in Finland or any other western nation today?

Just because someone dedicated their life to something doesn't mean it was a good choice.

Well, that’s a real oversimplification. The reason smaller family farms have gone the way of the Dodo bird is that the system was forcing farms to become larger (corporate). As noted above, in order to maintain a reasonable farm income farms needed to get bigger. The per acre profit margins are just not there for a small farm to comfortably support a family. Regrettably, where a million acres once supported a thousand families can now only support about half that today. The great Finnish famine? Lol... we don’t subsidence farm anymore. Most farms service the larger economy now.

I grew up on a mixed grain/cattle farm, and later I grain farmed for myself for fifteen years. It got to a point where my off-farm income was the only thing helping to keep my farm afloat. Given the state of commodity pricing at the time. Where many of the farms around me were negotiating million dollar operating loans, I did the only wise thing and got out. That was almost twenty years ago now... wow.

I never grew GM crops. But I did see them coming. And I knew that I didn't want to become even more dependent on the chemical companies any more than I already was at the time. In essence I was already working for the chemical, fertilizer, oil, equipment, and grain marketing companies. These guys had taken the lion's share of my gross revenues. And I'm sure the situation isn't much different today.