Trying this on my phone, so any typos mean I need a new contact lens. (Optometrist said I have "Presbyopia", but I told him that's impossible, as the family has been Lutheran since Martin Luther.) >>> Some would and do say Ruskin is a shill for these guys. >> No, no one has ever said that. > Of course, someone has. Easily verified. If it is so "easily verified", why is no such verification offered? So, specifically who HAS said that? Who, what, when, and where, please. >In fact, I have been accused myself of being a shill for Big Ag. It is fairly easy to avoid such accusations, one must simply give fair consideration to both sides of a debate point, and remain open to both new information AND views that oppose one's own. ("On the other hand, I have... more freckles...") Speaking for myself and those who I have asked, most of us wait in vain for a chance to "sell out" to wealthy shadowy interests, but no one ever seems to call, so everyone crestfallenly continues to apply for miniscule grants and stipends to support their research. > I realize that agriculture will need to > evolve and incorporate new technologies, > such as new and more environmentally- > friendly pesticides, precision breeding of > crop cultivars (AKA genetic engineering)... Significant gains have been made with better irrigation and fertilizers and aggregation of small holdings into larger, more tractor-friendly farms, but have new pesticides or genetic engineering really increased yields over the older pesticides and non GMO-hybrids? This is a very involved debate in which I am not prepared to participate, but the mere fact that there is a heated debate tells me that the impacts are neither clearly positive nor significantly positive. So, mechanization, yes; better irrigation control, yes; satellite data controlling the manure spreader feed rate at a resolution of 3 meters, heck yes; but new pesticides and genetic engineering seem to have not delivered on the promise: http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/roundup-ready-crops/ http://tinyurl.com/y9zx77ly >> The good news is that people tend >> to want to buy stuff, even at much >> higher prices, that can be proven >> to be ethically-produced, > Another dandy mistruth. Not even close to reality. > anyone who checks facts will see that. Another claim not backed up with anything in the way of evidence. So let's check some facts, as suggested... Nielsen does good surveys... http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2015/health-minded-global-consume rs-put-their-money-where-their-mouths-are.html http://tinyurl.com/y6wh629n How about the "Beef: It's What For Dinner" Folks? http://www.producer.com/2017/03/consumers-willing-to-pay-premium-for-organic -natural-beef/ http://tinyurl.com/y7d9eboh How about in Britain? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/19/sales-of-organic-food-so ar-fruit-vegetables-supermarkets http://tinyurl.com/hahxwud And why do you THINK Amazon bought Whole Foods? http://www.marketwatch.com/story/are-personalized-amazon-prime-membership-pa ckages-on-the-way-2017-06-19 http://tinyurl.com/ycb6o7q9 I could go on, but anyone can find this, it is in the newspaper every week, and at the grocery every day. *********************************************** 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