> But as far as GE crops, there have not been any yet approved 
> specifically to increase yields, so that was a rhetorical question.  

Utterly false - the sales pitch for every advance in agricultural technology
promises higher yields.  If those yield increases are not delivered, then
the "advance" was illusory to the grower, and the higher cost a waste of
money.  There is no "approval" required to increase yields, as that is the
inherent expected result of using the GMO traits sold, such as "Round-Up
Ready".

> The anti-GMO activists have made it too expensive 
> for university scientists to get their precision engineered
> cultivars through the regulatory process, meaning that 
> only Monsanto, et al, have the money to do so.

This is precisely the sort of statement that gets one branded a "shill" as
it is a deliberately misleading (or "profoundly uninformed", I'm not sure
which) argument.  University scientists do not EVER attempt to get anything
through the regulatory process.  Even the patent process is handled by the
Universities these days, as they see ideas as a profit center, and have
dedicated teams of patent attorneys.

Their universities license the raw patented R&D to a for-profit company, and
the company takes the PROJECT and turns it into a PRODUCT, which is then
submitted for regulatory approval.  There is a vast difference between a
PROJECT, which kinda works in the lab (on a Tuesday, if it is raining), and
a PRODUCT that is sold to the public, under regulatory approval.  The big
difference in GMOs is that the many positive enhancements proposed by
University researchers don't make very good PRODUCTS because starving people
have no money, and rich people are not willing to pay more to feed them,
even if the logistics could be worked out, which is the bulk of the problem
in feeding starving people.  There's already FAR MORE than enough food
grown, the problem is getting some of it to people who will die from
starvation due to this lack of logistics support.

"There is enough food in the world today for every man, woman and child to
lead healthy and productive lives, yet hunger afflicts one out of every
seven people."  (quoting the UN World Food Program, which intones this truth
on every document they produce, such as this one -
http://web.mit.edu/idf/WFPBrief.pdf )   Things like C-17 Globemasters and
Lockheed C-141 Starlifters are the primary missing piece of the puzzle in
feeding the unlucky disaster victims and the chronic poor, not weed or pest
resistance.  Heavy-lift, short-runway slightly obsolete aviation technology
is the hot topic among people who actually give a damn about feeding the
starving, not "GMO crops", and you can't attend a single charity event
without hearing this over and over from the experts who try, mostly in vain,
to explain why the event is raising money to mostly deaf ears, many whom
seem far more interested with what Joanne is (almost) wearing.

Maybe soon, someone will really produce a practical GMO drought-resistant
plant that actually survives drought.  Anything, a begonia would be nice,
just to show it works in practice.  The work done in corn (and maize)
"drought tolerance" has helped no one, as it is only marginally useful.  

> The two main GE traits used to date are for 
> herbicide resistance and pest protection--
> neither of which is specifically designed to 
> increase yields, nutritional value, or other 
> desirable traits.

But both were, and still are, claimed to increase yields as their raison
d'etre, so when the studies show those gains to be marginal at best, what
motivation does the grower have to continue to use them?  Oh, yeah - that's
right, I forgot... the grower has little choice in the matter, as he cannot
easily acquire non-GMO seedstock due to the "consolidation" of the seed
companies into subsidiaries of the Agro-Chemical companies.

But feeding the poor is NOT made easier by implementing the GMO traits
currently on the market.  It's a game of forklifts and pallets, one that
larger-scale beekeepers should recognize as eerily familiar - the actual
work is getting things where they are needed on time.



> Well your right about not being qualified to discuss moderen 
> farming..  Nice to see someone admit it.  Kudos for that.

Yes, while Carl Nielsen's "Moderen" (The Mother), Opus 41, is a fertile
field for some discussions, I am not that interested in Danish patriotic
music.  

What I actually said was "This (increased yields from GMO crops) is a very
involved debate in which I am not prepared to participate", which was a nice
way of saying that I can't find my clown nose, which I am required to wear
when engaging in such debate, so as to not lend any imprimatur of legitimacy
to the position of the opposing side via my participation in said debate. 

             ***********************************************
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