> From: "Bill Pearce" <bs.pearce@xxxxxxx>
>
> Although there is a good case for organic and artisanal foods, it is not
> likely that sufficient food could be produced to support our population
> levels.
Ah, you've been sampling more of the Monsanto-Cargil Kool-Aid!
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=organic+food+yield
If you're going to state your beliefs as fact, at least do a Google first and
acknowledge that there's considerable controversy in your position!
I think you've got it completely backwards: if we continue with food systems
that are almost entirely supported by non-renewable fossil fuels, it is
unlikely that sufficient food will be produced to support not only future
population levels, but also our current population level.
In other words, business as usual is going to mean more and more starving
people.
(And the following quote came up entirely at random.)
----------------
Major crops genetically modified for just two traits — herbicide tolerance and
insect resistance — are ravaged by super weeds and secondary pests in the
heartland of GMOs as farmers fight a losing battle with more of the same; a
fundamental shift to organic farming practices may be the only salvation. --
Mae-Wan Ho
:::: Jan Steinman, EcoReality Co-op ::::
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|