Kathryn,  simple issue,  anyone who doesn't like the debate can ignore it,  so don't worry!  It is a valuable discussion,  even if its only you and I reading and rest assured its not,  I had this discussion with several lurkers this last week.



Its interesting reading the "waste sites" My opinion is quite simply they are ridiculous with numbers. The links you sent show the USDA ECONOMIST  says 21% consumer.  Possible  valid number,  but look a bit at 2 points.
First,  definition.

	Food Safety:
	The FDA is the leading agency in American food safety policy and enforcement.  Their FAQ's page covers more about causation, regulation and prevention:
	http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/ucm247559.htm 
	USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) defines food loss as the edible amount of food, postharvest, that is available for human consumption but is not 	consumed for any reason. It includes cooking loss and natural shrinkage (for example, moisture loss); loss from mold, pests, or inadequate climate control; a	nd food waste. 
	In some of the statistics and activities surrounding recycling, the term “waste” is stretched to include non-edible (by humans) parts of food such as banana 	peels, bones, and egg shells.

Look close at the definitions,  Loss from shrinkage,  non edible parts such as bones and peels.....If you want to call that waste  well then your going to come up with some insane numbers.

I was poh pohed for mentioning food safety,  Well I consider discarding spoiled food or moldy cheese as "safety"  Most organizations call it waste.  I would somewhat agree,  as maybe a better job could have been done in selecting and storing.  On the flip side,  I know that everyone along the chain so far has done everything possible to get it to me as fresh as they can.  So you could say its just inherent risk.  Spoilage is a fact of the food chain. Food safety is part of that.  The freshness dates are designed to help.  We can debate and improve the implementation,  but bottom line is the goals are fresh safe food.  No grocery wants to throw out food  its lost revenue.  But the freshness dates are a tool to keep the grocery store from selling you chicken that’s been frozen for 2 years,  or milk that’s been in the cooler for 2 weeks already.  The REAL goal of that program?  To keep the grocery store from selling you food that’s about to be bad,  which you would have to waste.  The IDEA is to make the stores and manufacturer get lean and only stock the amounts they can sell fresh in a timely manner.  And impose a penalty to them for violating that  principle..


The reality is that every step of the way, everything possible to get that food to the consumer is in fact done.  Missed crops, spoilage and culls cast every step,  from the cost to procure or produce, to the cost of disposal.  Simple economics keeps us driving towards that goal.  Even in our own homes,  for example after the kids are gone,  you adjust the amount of milk you buy.  You try to avoid huge leftovers.  Not a person out there who doesn't  think a bit before scraping food into the trash.   By the same token I don't think an intelligent person would ever count banana peels eggshells and coffee grounds as waste.

But lets get to the heart of the discussion,  obviously we can do better, and I seriously believe everyone tries to do that.  Every step of the way, no one wants to throw good food away,  to say that they do is just ridiculous just as I believe the people who tout 40%  just want to make headlines or gather funding.





	Land Use/Forestland Losses
	http://www.fao.org/docrep/article/wfc/xii/ms12a-e.htm 

This link is a bit odd,  and not related to the points I make.  First off it’s a paper submitted and a disclaimer from the FAO is right at the top,  but most importantly,  its has no facts on the US AG picture,  which is what I thought we were discussing.



	The second link is a report generated in 2005 by researchers at the University of Michigan, about farmland areas in the United States and what factors drive 	farmland loss.  It's a long report, but it provides a few graphs at the end, and a conclusion on page 16.  Of particular note, one of their conclusions 	(visible on page 17) was that "Agricultural productivity simply does not have any impact on the farm land acreage."  That one was startling to me, because 	that's often used as a justification for many new production tools (not just GMOs).  I'll be looking for verification of that.  In the meantime, here's the 	report: 
	http://business.pages.tcnj.edu/files/2011/07/liu.thesis.tcnj_.pdf 

This link has me baffled as to what your trying to say??  The page is based on LOSS OF FARMLAND,   they are saying we are losing farmland despite increased gains in yields.  Are you trying to say that taking farmland out of production is a bad thing?  That we should live with more cultivation and less yields??  I would find that a slightly odd argument when the general consensus is more natural areas is better.   I guess you might make the argument that we could reduce chemical use if we farmed more ground.




	Why GMO's are Used


 	Of particular interest to our conversations: 

	In the United States, the single biggest reason for using GMO crops is to provide herbicide resistance

Interesting slide.  When in fact most GMO is intended to provide INSECT RESISTANCE.  I have not seen any much on herbicide resistance other than roundup ready there may be some more but  not aware of it. 

	Only three crops (corn, soybeans and cotton) use the vast majority of GMO varities 

Of course,  these are the big three crops in the world.  No one in their right mind will spend time on GMO for chick peas at this point in time.  Although there is a lot of work being done in the areas of citrus and potatoes right now.

Keep in mind INCREASED YIELDS PER ACRE is the only metric.  Not sure what you think the motive actually is,  but the yardstick is always the same,  input cost vs output yields.   All Farmers are measuring and looking at the numbers  all the time,  trying to find that magic formula based on soil types weather and markets.



	So my takeaway from that is that land use, food waste, crop trends and regulatory trends will all affect honeybee health in some way, because bees are living 	in the systems we're manipulating.  For that matter, so are we.  At which point I would describe honeybee survival rates as one more canary in the coal mine.  	If they're struggling to survive in an environment where they used to thrive, then something has changed, and we'd better figure it out 


Agreed,  but just what are you suggesting we should be changing???  My point is that the farming system we have is working,  and land use is going down despite growing populations by increasing yields,  better pesticides and herbicides and GMO being the basis for that improvement.  And we are doing so and not doing any sort of irreversible damage,  and in fact are getting better and better.

Charles

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