1. 30-08-2008 12:39

It would be really nice if NAWG would consider the opinion of the consumer while deciding whether or not to plant GM wheat. I, for one, will not buy it. And I know many others who will reject it.  
But even if the GM farmers and brokers lose a sector of their consumers, I'm sure they are confident that they can still find a market for the staff of life as a biofuel to burn up in our cars. Very sad. At a time when we should be conserving our soil biomass, we are willing to burn it up in smoke. How is that any better than slashing and burning the rainforest for a few years of farming? And of course, a direct result of the US's biofuel policy in South America is more deforestation. To make up for the grain and land we have allocated to biofuel, they are destroying a corresponding parcel of rainforest to fill that deficit. Maybe you can get the public to overlook that fact now-- maybe the farmers don't even understand it because they do not directly see it. But that doesn't make the consequences any less devastating. This article, and indeed this website, tell us just a part of every story, leaving out the far-reaching and impending repercussions. Our farming and commerce systems are all interrelated in this global economy and ecology. Our soil quality will suffer for biomass harvesting; overtime, the nutrients and humus will need to be replenished in order to grow more crops. Is that factored in to the biofuel equation? Farmers in Brazil and other countries are planting in more sensitive areas to make up for the portion that goes to biofuel production here--and there. The whole environmental system suffers. The giant rainforests are the lungs of the planet. They absorb far more CO2 than any seasonal fields farmers plant and the soils can not be maintained. Beyond that, rainforests and other natural lands have many other irreplaceable ecological functions. The biofuel scheme is, in its very essence, destructive. But many in the US do not see it and the mainstream American press hardly ever reports it; so, I believe the people support a policy they do not fully understand. It isn't visible to them. But one day, it will become painfully obvious. And then, it will be too late to remediate--and we will still need to develop an alternative fuel source anyway, if we can still use one. So why not do it right the first time? We should not be wasting our precious soil resources and food crops for fuel--especially with people struggling to make ends meet and in many places, our fellow human beings are starving to death! Doesn't that matter at all? It\'s hard to believe that policy makers don't understand this. Instead, the short-term gain blinds them to the long-term and current risks. So much misinformation and talking around the real issues fuels this agenda. I think they have already converted the books to biofuel for fear someone will read them and spread the word; we know they have gagged most scientific dissent in the EPA, etc. Does anyone really believe we are solving our energy and political crises by turning our food source and the land that supports it into fuel? Do you really have such blind faith in Biotech to feel certain that they will find a way to save us from this folly just in the nick of time--because we aren't there yet and all the chips appear to be in the pot. It's long past time to invest in sustainable agriculture and energy sources. Even at this late hour, we continue to plow down the wrong road faster than ever, sowing the seeds of an ecological misfortune that we will surely reap tomorrow. Then what?

Guest