In sci.med.nutrition Mooshie peas wrote:
On 21 Aug 2003 03:41:31 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

You have a related problem - another unnatural agricultural procedure that
was warned about: feeding meat to cattle, causing spread of BSE.

Feeding meat to cattle is NOT "unnatuaral". And "unnaturalness" has
nothing to do with BSE.

Cattle have several stomachs to digest cellulose. The food is
supposed to be well digested by the time it reaches the intestines.
Feeding even grain causes an increase in E.coli.

When have cows eaten meat, except perhaps their own placenta?

Scrapie infected sheep byproducts were fed to cattle. There was a
jump of the problem to cattle as BSE. Then it spread fast through
cattle. Isn't that it?

the article is so grossly simplistic as to be fatuous

Such statements as we often see from the agbiotech sector, that we have to
get up production to feed the world are rather stupid. There are surpluses
aren't there?

Not where the folks are starving, and that's what counts.

The folks are stariving because they cannot pay the world market
prices for the food, because they do not have work. There are
surpluses of food.

Work is what is needed, and the chance to learn about
nature. It is a very tough way of having farmers learn about nature by
having them coping with giving their allegiance to herbicide tolerant
crops for more profit but finding that they have to spend a whole lot more
since the weeds have become tolerant.

Where has this happened? Other than the natural level of weeds
becoming tolerant of different circumstances

Whereas there was competition between various types of weeds before,
Roundup has killed ones except those which it can't and those now
have a free reign.

If new herbicides are developed the same thing will happen again and the
farmers will go under further.

Go under what? Are you saying that weed control is a useless activity?

You admit it depends on the economics. Roundup Ready is suppoed to
make it cheaper. But it hasn't because of extra applicaitons and
other herbicides required.

The FAO is pushing non-GM for the developing countries.

URL so we can read why?

Actually not just non-GM, rather pushing organic.

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y4137E/y4137e05.htm#P6_90

That is quite long. They are even quoting such as:
"once agriculture comes to be regarded as a health service the only
consideration in any matter concerning the production of food would
be: is it necessary for the health of the people? That of ordinary
economics would take a quite secondary place"

Now I see some
farmers in UK are working like third world farmers for very low hourly
rates.

Are you confusing deregulation/globalisation with technological
progress?

The technological progress of GM is aimed at, and is achieving the
goal, of increased wealth of a limited group of technology
companies.

If poor famers get the notion of selling to their folks about them
that is quashed pretty quickly by dumping.