OK, here is where I, as a farmer, have corrections and/or objections to a number of the statements made in Charles' reply.  I'm debating how to proceed, because so many statements were made, it would take me the rest of the month to gather all the data to refute them all.  But here goes a quick sampling:

1. Yes food wastes of 1/3 of the total American supply is a generally accurate number, when all stages of soil-to-table of food production is considered.  I can provide data from a variety of agencies, including the USDA, FDA, various recycling entities, and various food processing organizations.  Which set(s) of data would be considered "valid" and which would not?  I've heard all those agencies used as proof, then heard all of them refuted as being "slanted", at which point it turns into a question of what data we choose to believe.

2. Then the statement is made that food waste is actually good news.  Um, that's an opinion that a whole lot of people don't agree with.  So do I debate on that point or not?   How do we debate opinions without it simply turning into a shouting match?  I already know I don't want to put time/effort in that conversation since it would merely be opinion A vs opinion B, so I won't engage on that one.

3. Then the statements about GM crops being used to boost yields so that we cut down fewer forests, nope.  Lots of different motivations to use GM, ranging from disease resistance, pest resistance, improved nutrition, cost savings, test & eval of new varieties, novelty items for niche markets, etc.  Many are using GM crops to maintain yields in the face of new disease/pest/weed pressures, not to increase yields.  The argument could be made that other agricultural production methods would give the same improvement as the GM, and there have been a few studies where exactly that comparison was made.  When I've seen those studies provided as examples of how we don't need GM to solve production issues, the audience will accept the study, or not, based on whatever priorities they already had.  In other words, if they already favor the use of GM, they'll claim the studies don't apply to them for X, Y Z reason.  If they're already a fan of those other production methods, they'll say "yea, we've known that for 400 years".  So again, I'm not sure what studies to offer, or what data to offer.  I've never seen anyone change their opinions on that one.  But the claim that all GM is simply used to avoid cutting down forests is amazingly simplistic.    

4.  That also brings up the issue of land use here, versus land use in other countries.  The issues of land use here, and land use in other countries, is comparing apples to oranges.  I'm not even going to get into talking about land use issues in other countries; we'd be here for three weeks just on that topic alone.  As for land use in THIS country, there are a lot of different facets.  We are losing farmland here for a variety of reasons, but one of the biggest is the conversion of farmland into recreational properties (think golf courses and soccer fields), more housing developments, shopping malls, parking lots and roads.  We're also losing farmland as various counties restrict farming activities on properties where flooding, erosion, wildlife protection or other non-farming concerns trump the farm production.  Finally, and this part is bizarre, some parts of our country are experiencing explosions of forestland specifically because farmland has gone fallow.  One of my resource management professors once said that most land east of the Mississippi will revert to forest if left alone for as little as 20 years.  So the statement that GM crops in THIS country are used to avoid cutting down forests?  Nope.  Vast amounts of data show otherwise, and again I'm debating how much and from what source, and how long it would take to compile it just to prove a point.  There comes a time when my time is more valuable spent doing other things.

5.  The issue of food safety and food waste are totally separate issues, so I consider them one at a time.  Ironically, so many advances have been made in food safety procedures at the production and processing ends of the spectrum, that the burden of additional improvements is now on the consumer end of the spectrum.  In short, people don't handle their foods very carefully, and most cases of foodborne illness now occur in the home, due to improperly handled foods.  If you want data on that, the FDA has loads of it on their website.  The regulations handed down by both the FDA and the USDA have dramatically improved food handling at every stage of production from prepping the field prior to planting, to the time it leaves the grocery store.  If there's any doubt about that, go Google four terms: Good Agricultural Practices, Good Manufacturing Practices, HACCP, and the Food Safety Modernization Act.  The vast majority of producers, even down to the itty bitty players like us, fall under at least one of those sets of regulations and/or best practices.  Even when they are not regulations, they are functionally requirements because our markets won't buy from us without those certifications.  In fact, producers' options for selling foods without having at least one of those certifications are rapidly contracting down to zero.  Yet the consumer remains unregulated, and in a way they never can be regulated.  But read any recent assessment of food safety issues in THIS country, and the bulk of improvements yet to be made fall into the realm of consumer education.  Don't drink that milk if it's been sitting in the trunk of your car for six hours in the hot sun (yes, that exact situation resulted in 19 people going to the hospital with E. coli back in 2005, in one of the worst cases of milk contamination in my region).  Don't leave your dinner leftovers on the countertop, then eat them at room temp two days later.   Stuff like that is what keeps food safety regulators up at night.  

Food waste, on the other hand, IS a production issue, and a processing issue, and a consumer issue.  It occurs at every point in the food chain.  Some of it is considered "abundance disease", meaning we have such a wash of cheap foods, who cares if it's wasted?  Food or food ingredients may sometimes be wasted due to being rejected during inspection for food safety reasons, but not very often.  The entire purpose of the four sets of production practices I listed above, is to avoid having foods become contaminated to begin with.  And producers and processors are strongly motivated to avoid that, because the more we produce and sell, the more we get paid.  More often, it doesn't meet consumer "eye appeal" standards.  Keep in mind that many of the "use by" stamps you see on foods, are not there due to regulatory pressures.  They are marketing statements.  A bag of Oreos has a half-life measured in years, but it's got a "use by" stamp on it.  The only stamps which are regulatory-driven (at the moment) are meats, dairy and eggs.  Everything else is a marketing ploy to scare the consumer into replacing that six-pack of soda with a fresher six-pack of soda.  

The above list was just a partial response to a whole string of claims made.  And frankly, this is a big part of why I almost left the list awhile back.  So many statements being made, which sound plausible, but when you live and work in the industry they stand out as being totally unfounded.  I sometimes wonder whether we could devote an entire season of Mythbusters just to the claims made on the list.  I applaud the folks who ask for data, but it's maddening when those same folks then turn around and make unfounded claims of their own.  One of the questions I keep asking myself as I read these messages is "how much time do I want to spend, refuting yet another set of statements?"  In the past, I haven't had the time/energy to spend much time on this at all.  Right now, with the above list, I stand ready to back up every one of those statements if folks really want to see it.  But perhaps folks who are interested, should go look into it in more depth for themselves.  That way, it goes from being an argument, to being educational.  I would only ask that folks stop and think "Ok, how am I going to back up this statement?", BEFORE they make it.  
Kathryn Kerby
Frogchorusfarm.com
Snohomish, WA

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html