Before the WWII war chem industry was converted into the post-WWII ag chem industry, organic ag was the only ag that fed the world.  So much for "never."  It is likely to be that way again as the cost of feedstock for chemag goes up and response to application thereof declines.

And, in a pre-emptive for-what-its-worth, I'd be happy to compare my "country people" bona fides against anyone's.

carbon black said

"What are the fossil fuel inputs of fertilizers and pesticides? Anybody who thinks that's getting cheaper just speak right up"

like do some reading - GMO replaces the need for some or most  pesticides.

Absolutely nothing!  Say it again.

Allegedly it can feed and fuel the world.  Instead it is starving the world.  Farmers in India who feel they must go deeply into debt for GMO seed, commit suicide at record rates when they come to a harvest that doesn't pan out.

The family land is lost, starvation and poverty is all that is left, so the men kill themselves.

GMO is corporate crime against nature, on the genetic level.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

The argument that evil latte sipping greenies are starving the worlds poor by denying them GMO's is completely bogus.

Who owns the genes? How many have the Ag science corporations invested in developing and patenting the genes?

Does anyone seriously think that the "kind and benevolent" Ag corps are going to give their technology to poor starving people for nothing?

What a joke!

Think about this; Ag corp X splices in a gene for resistance to virus Y. Virus Y now only affects 1% of crop instead of 20%. Whoops, in a few planting generations, virus Y has now strengthened and again affects 20% of crop. Back to the drawing board for Ag corp. This is a viscious cycle that ensures continued dependence on Ag corp for version 1.X of crop seeds.

If anything, GMOs are going to feed less and less people simply because the technology is more expensive.

The world has enough food. Rich people waste enough food to feed those that don't have enough. That's the real problem.

Want to solve world hunger? - give those poor people some food - then teach them how to grow their own using sustainable permaculture. They can't afford the oil and chemical fertiliser for broad scale monocrops but they have human power.

How do you plow, plant and tend the mine-detector tobacco without entering the minefield?

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

The divine power of "free" markets has now taken over the course of evolution itself?  Will we have a bubble in this area?

What will that look like?  Will it remake nature in a corporate image?  GMO tree farms instead of forests?  GMO fuel crops instead of prairies?  GMO food crops grown on dead posoined soil?

Will lining up economists against a wall stop it?  Is it worth a try, even if it doesn't work?  Hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

PermieWriter wrote...

"Are you pro-GMO folks getting paid by the transgenic lobby, or are you just indulging in wishful thinking?"

I don't consider myself pro-GMO. I don't blindly support or defend every GMO created or thought of. There are useful GMOs, useless GMOs, and dangerous GMOs. I'm pro reducing harm to the environment by rational research and application of technology and not ignoring something useful for ideological reason. If there is a non-GMO solution, fine. If GMOs can help, fine.

I'm a researcher who creates GMOs for producing large amounts of useful enzymes that can displace chemicals or energy-intensive process and GMOs that reduce the use of fungicides for growing food. I'm not paid by some  transgenic-plant lobby or indulging in wishful thinking.

"How do you plow, plant and tend the mine-detector tobacco without entering the minefield?"

The goal is not growing tobacco as a crop. No need to plow, plant in rows, and carefully tend it and keep it free of weeds. In fact, it was chosen because it grows taller than the weed, so it will be clearly visible.

The fine seed could be scattered over the field, where it will germinate and grow among the weeds. You'd have to ask the specific researchers whether it can cope with the competition or might require watering where this will be tried. My experience with tobacco suggests that it can pretty much take care of itself -- if you don't care about the quality of the leaves -- if you scatter the seed and water it.

Again, the goal is to use it as an indicator of where the mines are, not maximize yield and/or quality of tobacco leaves. Tall spindly plants with bug-eaten leaves would do the desired job.