Cargill’s GMO segregation plan angers producers

Farmers angry over Cargill’s intention 
to certify some food ingredients as GM free

The tweet seemed innocent enough.

Cargill was announcing its intention to expand its existing relationship with a verification body to certify that certain food ingredients it uses are not genetically modified.

“We work closely with the #NonGMO Project & hope to have even more Cargill ingredients verified in the near future,” said the company.

That tweet set off a firestorm of angry responses from farmers across North America, including one from Cherilyn Nagel, a farmer from Mossbank, Sask., and director of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association.

“Oh no you didn’t! @Cargill – explain the hypocrisy! I’m shocked and appalled. Sad. Mad. Ticked off,” she wrote.

Nagel, who explained her anger in an interview following her tweet, said she is annoyed that Cargill is proudly trumpeting that it has partnered with a group that is anti-GMO.

“Their goal appears to be the elimination of this type of technology,” she said.

Nagel has made it her goal to talk to consumers and “give them the real dirt” on what’s happening on farms today. She thought agribusiness companies were on board with that agenda.

“I was under the impression that our industry was doing a fairly good job coming together to generate messaging that works for everybody,” she said.

ADVERTISMENT

“When I see a company like Cargill, that is an integral part of our grain business, coming out and taking that kind of position, pandering, if you will, to this Non-GMO Project, I was hurt by that. I was offended by that.”

Randy Giroux, Cargill’s vice-president of food safety, quality and regulatory, said its affiliation with the Non-GMO Project is strictly limited to the company’s rigorous verification process.

“This is the most requested third-party certification among our food and beverage customers,” he said in an email.

Giroux said there is no bigger supporter of GM technology than Cargill and it shares the belief with most farmers that GM ingredients are safe to eat.

“I want to reiterate, we do not share the Non-GMO Project’s position on GMOs and would welcome other viable options in the marketplace,” he said.

“We are unshaken in our belief in the safety of GMOs and are wholly committed to our GMO partners.”

Ron Bonnett, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, said farmers recognize there is a demand for non-GM, organic and hormone-free products and that those products need to be certified.

“I think those certification systems have to be transparent and unbiased and I think that’s what the big issue is with the company that they’ve hired is that it’s far from being unbiased,” he said.

ADVERTISMENT

Cargill uses an identity preservation and testing program to ensure its non-GM ingredients live up to the claim.

The company has a long list of ingredients that have received Non-GMO Project verification, including high oleic canola oil.

It sells the ingredients to food and beverage manufacturers interested in putting a non-GM claim on their products.

Bonnett said farmers are in-creasingly trying to be proactive with consumers on social media forums because they are tired of being vilified for their farming practices.

“I think they’re getting frustrated,” he said.

Bonnett said farmers are reducing their carbon footprint by growing GM crops that use fewer chemicals and produce more food on the same acre of land than conventional crops.

“When you use all the tools that you have at your disposal and then something like this comes out, I think it just feeds on that frustration,” he said.

ADVERTISMENT

  • richard

    Industry was told three to five years ago that consumers wanted labelling…..Consumers were told they were “misinformed” and “uneducated”……The market is now telling industry that THEY were misinformed and uneducated……As per usual, one ignores the market at their own peril.

    • Stephen Daniels

      Sure good to see Cargill cash in on this segment.

      • ed

        They, (Cargill), and many other companies will definitely have to do something. This segment of the market place, as you have pointed out, is one that is obviously an attractive piece of the action right now. Now that this is moving out of the closet, it will grow quickly, changing the status quo paradigm forever. We live in interesting times for sure. Money talks, BS walks.

  • RobertWager

    Yes nothing says “education” like “fear marketing”

    • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

      Why do you use fear marketing to push the transgenic seed sales of chemical companies …

      • Stephen Daniels

        You mean like Tony Mitra and that Samsell guy use it to sell books?Pot calling the kettle black.Seriously can someone tell me how those two busy research authors have time to be on a facebook site for an ag paper of which there would be hundreds more similar ag media newspapers in the USA which they also must monitor for the key word ’roundup’?

        • ed

          The best never rest. While you are sleeping, they are changing the world.

      • ed

        It use to work. But as the duped catch on, it does not work so well. Change is good!

    • StopGMO

      Do you honestly think being transparent and unbiased is considered fear marketing? All we want is GMO labeling. Why do you feel labelling GMOs is fear mongering? So do you also think anything on a label like, water, sugar, flour, salt, ect., is considered fear mongering also? LOL! Heck, even my mattress lists everything it contains. Is this too much to ask for Wager? Cargill just like Monsanto, Bayer etc., is never to be trusted anyways and your buddy Bonnett is 100% wrong in this article .

      • RobertWager

        “We are going to force them to label this food. If we have it labelled , then we can organize people not to buy it. ” Center for Food Safety

        Personally I believe GM foods must be banned, but labelling is the most efficient way to achieve this. Since 85% of the public will refuse to buy food they know is genetically modified, this will effectively eliminate them from the market just the way it was done in Europe.” Joseph Mercola

        The burning question for us all then becomes how and how quickly can we move to healthy organic products from a 4.2% market niche to the dominant force in American food and farming? The first step is to change the labeling laws. Ronnie Cummins

        Would you like more quotes from those who are pushing the GE labeling issue?

        • Harold

          I see that you employ the same tactics as the fake news does; take cherry picked statements and provide no back ground details to the conversation. I know of Dr. Mercola and of the other quotes and they are directed at those who do not want GM food but who are held back by labeling laws. The quotes were not directed to those who wish to consume GM food. Is this your conspiracy uncovered? Men uncovering GE by full force of the law is a Conspiracy now? It used to be men behind closed doors conspiring to keep information from the public. It was more like those who did not want exposure or labeling. Do you have a good reason for GE details hidden? Do you have a problem with labeling? We know what is gained in secrecy. Give us your reasons for force feeding the public GE against their will. Apparently when the public is not being breast fed by the GE nipple this offends you. Is it democracy you hate?

          • ed

            Good points.

        • ed

          Labeling is a good idea. They did it with tobacco. Some people still smoke, if they think it is safe for them personally.

      • ed

        Yes!

    • richard

      ……..and nothing says failure like “denial” of the disruptive power of change…..

    • Harold

      Yes, it seems that GE’s “fear marketing” and “Education” has been surpassed.

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        Foolish thing to consider that farmers buy due to fear mongering. Dishonest as well.

        • richard

          Fear is the entire basis of agribiz marketing to insecure farmers………where have you been for the past twenty years????? And who is being dishonest?

        • Harold

          It is foolish to believe that anything is fear just because someone else says it is. Farmers are not motivated by fear they are motivated by profit. If there is no profit then they are no longer motivated but neither are they in fear. If the farmer invests his money into a crop and there is a failure of any kind, then there is fear but that fear is a tool and the motivator to various resolves. The term “fear mongering” as used is dishonest and is used by the dishonest. I agree with you Eric. Further, to say that the consumer is motivated by “fear mongering” is equally as dishonest. A farmer is a consumer as well, and will he/she accept that their outside purchases were based upon the “fear mongering” from others or was it based upon the facts of the matter. Facts do not lie but fact set in propaganda do.
          Fear (fact) Mongering (propaganda) “fear mongering”.
          Anti- (propaganda) science (fact) Anti-science Anti- (propaganda) GMO (fact) Anti-GMO.

        • ed

          Buying a product like a fungicide is much like buying a life insurance policy. You don’t buy fungicide hoping for crop disease but more for the possible protection in case of, just as you don’t buy life insurance in the hopes that you die. Fear mongering to exaggerate the possibilities of both perils is a great way to affect the consumer of these products to buy much more, (up sell if you will), than they require, if they need any, and that is frankly about as dishonest as it gets.

      • ed

        Indeed!

    • ed

      Cargill has done a lot of that in the past, but the all mighty dollar is powerful and they are leading because of it. Don’t be left behind is the lesson here.

    • ed

      Yes, and the consumer aside from some false advertising and fraudulent labeling lives in a free market. The farmer is totally captive to a complete and utter fraudulent market place. Much more so now when our direct to customer CWB is gone I must add. Because of this, the farmer has to wait for the tail to wag the dog for change to occur. The consumer is dictating with his $$$ dollars and the almighty Cargill is listening. They have no choice. There will be small premiums to get the farmer to comply and switch, he will make a bit or lose less at least dusing the transition and then it will settle back to where it is financially now. The consumer gets what he wants, the farmer works hard and struggles financially, and the Cargill of the world get even more financially bloated with quarter after quarter of record high net profits funded by the consumer dollars and the farmers non forced, free market will, slave labor. Life is good and in balance again my ‘Grasshopper’.

  • SageThinker

    The GMO industry has a propaganda machine in operation that reacted to this tweet in a shrill scornful way to make a point to protect their public image. It’s all such a PR flap. How dare they choose to label some items non-GMO?

    • Stephen Daniels

      Anti GMO industry seems to have an even bigger propaganda machine.

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        You are likely correct. But as they have squat for facts to back them up. They will go screaming to the land of luddites soon.

      • ed

        Yes and like the system that they promote, they are far more honest, and much more efficient with their honest messaging. Lying takes a more expensive game plan to come off as truth, and to date the food corps. have had more stolen money to do that with. Thankfully times are changing for the better now.

    • ed

      It is finally coming evident that the consumer is always right. the consumer is also smart, and informed in our modern world. They do not enjoy being treated with contempt. The pendulum is swinging back, and has been for awhile now. Stay tuned on this one. It is trending and viral, full of steam and surprises.

  • “Bonnett said farmers are reducing their carbon footprint by growing GM
    crops that use fewer chemicals and produce more food on the same acre of
    land than conventional crops.” That is untrue. More and more pesticides are being sold each year. Look at Monsanto’s Annual Report. And as far as decreasing the carbon footprint? Well, considering that each teaspoon of soil contains 6 billion microorganisms responsible for using and converting the remaining carbon taken in by the plant, there is less carbon sequestration with GM farming as glyphosate is a BIOCIDE and a patented antibiotic, so all those wonderful little organisms in the soil don’t stand a chance. I seriously don’t understand people that are defending this technology, unless of course they are being paid to lie. Even then, I wouldn’t be able to do it — not for any amount of money.

    • Gmo Roberts

      You fail to account for the millions of more acres that are in production versus ten years ago. Looking at Monsanto’s report you will also notice that they bring in the majority of their income from non pesticide sources, namely seed and tech fee revenue. As for glyphosate being an antibiotic? If it was a good one then doctors would be prescribing it. In reality it failed. Even then no more than is used per acre it wouldn’t have any effect as evident by the record crop yields over the last few years.

      • ed

        And.. don’t forget to mention that farm debt rises dramatically each year, foodor food mimicker products prices keep rising year on year, and cancer rates increase and agri-food/ pharmaceutical chemical and chemo sales profits spike every fiscal quarter. Life is good when it is a sunny day, there are no mirrors to look in, and your head is located in sand or worse.

        • Gmo Roberts

          In the sand? well there is a lot of sand here, but you have really missed the mark. Farm debt rises? Try not to deal with those kind of farmers since they are obviously very bad managers. The ones I deal with are worth millions in both land and equipment. Many spend winters at the beach. Cancer rates keep rising? Sure, because we all die of something. As the leading cause of death, heart disease declines something else must rise. You seem ready to blame a lot but are unwilling to actually look at the real reasons.

          • Stephen Daniels

            Like you say Gmo Roberts life span is increasing as we live longer than previous generations.So that’s why when the extra years we live are factored into cancer rates ,rates of cancer are actually decreasing not increasing.And like you say we will all die of something.

    • Stephen Daniels

      Considering organic yield averages are about half of yields of farmers using chemicals even without GMO’s so it is true.

      • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

        Incorrect, In my experience organic always yields more when the best germplasm and the best techniques are applied.

        Research from University of Michigan that Organic production can yield 3 times as much as non-organic on the same sized land

        The 2010 USDA corn survey that found the production costs were slightly less for organic corn and value per acre was much higher as graph below illustrates.

        Synthetic NPK can lead to slightly higher short term yields but as the longer studies such as the 10yr UC Davies or the 30 yr Rodale study indicates the improvement in soil of organic methods including cover crops, companion planting and rotation create far more productive soil. The Scientific American article Dirt Poor shows that chemical agriculture is a failure.
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7b24a20452cd8493bcae8f3a8bed2e5212a6478e00c20c77e7a2477e012ff325.jpg

        • Stephen Daniels

          Wow it is so obvious you don’t farm or have organic neighbours who grow 3 bushel an acre crops.

          • John Wayne

            My family has grown organic wheat for our own consumption. My wife and I have grown 1/2 acre of wheat per year. Last year I produced 87 bushels an acre. Before you call bu-l sh-t. let me inform you how we work the magic. Seeding rate is important, 4 bu/acre, 1/2 acre is on organic cattle manure. When the wheat is in the 3rd leaf we will put a light insulation of straw packed, this will kill the weeds. Plus we irrigate. Last year, no fusarium or leaf disease. My seed is Neepawa wheat which is ancient, if you are interested maybe we should connect. Only problem is you won’t like the price, $500 per bushel.

          • ed

            Yes John, with the CWB gone, these guys seem happier with $5.00 per bushel. Hey guys, you probably are not told how smart you all are or get enough kudos, respect and kind words. Do you

          • Bruce

            Well done, John Wayne. Yes, some organic growers are able to produce organic wheat with a yield of 30 bushels an acre. With organic wheat price and low input costs you can easily make more profit than conventional wheat growers.

          • ed

            Way more. And less people die.

          • ed

            Please stick to fact here would be the hope. The ag. industry is out of touch and out of time at this point. There is some light however as the piece has pointed out. Great work.

        • ed

          Yes, it is much like ag. in some areas of the world where they destroyed the soil in just a few short centuries. Not good, or easy to see until mostly too late.

      • ed

        Organic yields are mostly higher, and of course far more profitable with the recent demand spike for real food from the vast populations in the well educated and capitalized urban centers. Knowledge is power for sure.

        • Stephen Daniels

          On what planet are organic yields higher ?So you are claiming farmers are spending dollars on fertilizer and chemical to achieve lower yields than going organic.That is plain ridiculous and an affront to common logic.

          • ed

            Yes it is ridiculous, but they still do it. Intense ag. is a lot of work and is much tougher to accomplish on large mega corporate farms. It is easier to run large lower acre farms than intense ones with higher yields. That is the nature of the business as of late, but the demand for the better product is now changing that now. Stay tuned.

        • Bruce

          The yields might not be higher ed. But the profit surely is.

    • ed

      Bonnett is just parroting and towing the corporate line. Nothing new for farm groups. Farmers pay, talking heads play, wine, dine, and waste some time.

  • Rob Bright

    Good on Cargill! I’ll still avoid their mass produced, factory-farmed, food-like substances, but I have to give them credit for listening to consumers and not kow-towing to the massive industry propaganda that supports agrochemical/biotech corporations.

    • Harold

      I believe that you are giving Cargill far more credit than they deserve. Cargill as a Corporation either adds a product to increase their overall revenue or they add a product to cover diminishing profits of the products held. Their directions come from the consumer traits, sales, and projected sales, which is why the public is heavily monitored, and to that monitoring; the public are Fed Industry propaganda. (they spy on us for a reason: propaganda) The propaganda is a corporate survival technique. The Corporate do not listen to the public; they listen to the money or they go broke. The “we care” propaganda is for the TV ads to help the public gain their feigned warm and fuzzy feelings. Take away their money and see if they become volunteers at the “soup kitchens” in their spare time; there is no money or power there. People can complain all they want, but it is when the people are refusing to buy; they listen. Do they listen to people or do they listen to the money? This is why GE is hidden in food and labeling of it is rejected; It is about listening to the money and the propaganda to cover it. Honesty sells itself without controversy. Cargill is only reacting to the Money; there is no public credit earned.

      • SageThinker

        You’re probably right on this. The converse is that the biotech and agrochemical industries are also 100% motivated by money — not morality or correctness or kindness. The agrochemical and biotech industry propaganda machine is massive and they distort and abuse science to get their way, which means continuing and growing sales of their products like glyphosate and GMO crop seeds. They follow the money, and moreover they engineer the shortest path to the most money, which often entails the use of propaganda and gaming of science and regulation.

        • RobertWager

          Or better yields, less environmental impact and more sustainable practices do.

          • Harold

            Yields and sustainability are about profit, and Environment is about liability costs. When liability costs outweigh profits then there is no product. The word “environmental” in your comment is misplaced; it is: less liability impact.

          • ed

            No evidence of that has helped the consumer help Cargill take these bold moves. Funny how that works.

        • ed

          They are following the money now. This would have been a tough A&W type of decision, but at least they cut from what has traditionally worked of late, to what will work now. Good on them, sort of at least.

        • Harold

          May I add more weight to your argument if you will? I claimed that we are heavily monitored and that “You can complain all you want”. In more detail, people through media such as this one, and Facebook etc, offer consumers positive or negative opinions free of charge to the corporation who are monitoring them in real time. Company paid surveys are entirely a no match. The positive opinions create free salesmen on behalf of the corporation and word of mouth is very powerful. When the negative opinions arise their propaganda team goes into action. Corporate “experts” release their crafted news and then flood the media. Minions, and we know who some of them are, show up amongst the various public opinion medias and repeatedly share the monologue of the corporation; the attempt is to create a pillar standing between the communications of those holding a negative opinion. The minions do not present stand alone comments and facts, they only stand between negative opinions and this is how they are spotted. However, let’s not forget the other minions. The corporation plays both sides; they also place planted “fools” on the opposing side to create a mistrust that in turn sharpens the corporate monologue and image therefore drawing in the “fence sitters” or perhaps the un-educated. (Rest assured that the Government spying is doing the same) Why do they do this? I said that they only listen to the money. Why; because money represents an embarrassing fragility of the corporation. Lower the sales by 10% and you have a loss of 100 million dollars. Lower the sales by another 10% and you have a loss of 500 million dollars. Accelerating losses are very harmful to corporation and corporations are that fragile. It is a “no-brainer” that you would spend 1 million dollars to prevent the loss of 500 million dollars. (propaganda, lobbying, etc.) When propaganda no longer works, you will see a shift similar to what Cargill has done. Propaganda lies but book numbers do not.

      • ed

        Well, the consumer is now refusing to buy. It is finally trendy to be honest. This will change everything. The jig is up on this one, but they will dream up other campaigns. Consumer vigilance is always required.

        • Stephen Daniels

          No worries cost will keep too many consumers from switching.

    • ed

      I will give them a bit, but knowingly purchasing from them is not on the radar yet.

  • patzagame

    Dear Cherilyn,Cargill doesn’t really give a rats’ a$$ about your livelihood..it’s all about profits!

    • ed

      Yes, they will bend to the consumers wallet, if they can’t warp his mind towards them. It is truly all about profits.

  • Harold

    They speak of GM “fear mongering” but yet look at who is actually afraid of a GM label and GM exposure. They’re not so clever twist of facts wouldn’t you say. Actions seem to speak louder than their own words.

  • Harold

    The natural state plant never needed a label in the first place and still does not need a label today. The organic label is a clever tactic placed upon food to create a burden and hardship for those producing – Natural State – food. Only the alternative to a natural state needs to be labeled and identified. The “root” of a GE plant is the – Natural State – plant. Without the natural state, a GE plant is not possible. A clone is made from the original state and not the other way around. The original state is not renamed after the process, but in stupidity we have accepted the term “organic”. Now “organic” needs a label and a description and now “Organic” becomes an alternative created from out of thin air. Imposed word play is behind it all. Both GE and Natural state ARE BOTH ORGANIC and therefore accepting the word Organic now both need separate descriptions and controls borne out of thin air. On the other hand, by accepting only the true term – Natural State – only GE clones need a description, controls, and labeling. Who do you suppose wanted us to blindly accept the term “Organic”? You can be certain that it was not science but it was collusion between Government and GE corporations who stand the most to gain.
    Jarrod, you are correct in your assessment

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    That isn’t what he said. He merely used these individuals as examples of the type of dishonest tactics the antis commonly use. … . Please look up straw man.

    • richard

      Fact is he didn’t say anything….but he did imply the usual fear, loathing and envy of those trapped in a tired old script……..

    • Harold

      The straw-man was a figure borrowed from the wizard of Oz. One should look at the whole story. Your straw-man is placed out of context. What was the straw-man seeking? (i’m not speaking of the fairy tail- I do know the straw man that you are referring to)

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        … I didn’t use a straw man argument. Richard did. I have looked at the whole story. GE crops are as safe as any. The nongmo project is disgusting. And less informed folks who want to avoid GE crops can do so buy using nongmo or organic labels.

        • Harold

          You said “please look up straw man”. If I had done just that, you would have in fact brought the “straw-man” into your argument. Are you claiming that someone else wrote your comment? A straw man represents a “dead man” or a Corporation. (nom de guerre) Where did Richard err? I also wonder where the “less informed folks” education files are kept so that I too can validate your claim or do we just go by your intellectual say so. I do not want anything to do with GE crop and I do not want it hidden in my foods. I do not want Glyphosate in anything that I consume. Tell me how my personal “project is disgusting”? Now we will take your opinion and multiply it by 100 thousand; can you in anyway see where you are standing? Tell me how being less informed is being more informed? Don’t you want to see your proud labels all over town? Incredibly those involved solely into agriculture believe that they are the Hub of all knowledge and a well growing plant expresses this fact; Is this true? I wonder how you became so bold as to call me the less informed? Typically, no fact carries the day.

  • RobertWager

    Yes its too funny how the anti-GMO crowd (most are on this forum ) complain its all about money and then ignore how their industry is all about money.

    • Harold

      Very observant as always Robert; I don’t know of any industry that can survive without money. Perhaps the Organic “crowd” (“most are on this forum”) should do away with the money and then choose not buy GMO product; very funny Robert. Does it occur to you in any way that the money concern is about ill-gotten gains? Are the monetary gains of robbery, deception, and secrecy a money concern? What about paying for something that is kept hidden from you; is that a money concern? What about paying the Corporation money to hide their product from you; is that a money concern? It is all about the money Robert. This may be all too funny to you, but I am not laughing.

    • ed

      Farmers, conventional or not frequently do their jobs way below the cost of production. Zero profit, or negative big time. Check national farm debt states. Big agri biz does not and will not do this. And they will not now as the sands shift. Thus Cargills shift in policy. The consumer has all the marbles and Cargill and all the others don’t want that getting through to a farmer. The money net must broaden and get a finer mesh under these new consumer realities and that is what is happening. It is pretty simple really. They all knew it would eventually happen, but delaying propaganda has been very profitable, but is running out of steam. The farmers are always just pawns in the game. Nothing new here.

  • ed

    … Farmers are dumber now than they have ever been, and are ‘smart phone” radicalized more as the days go by. Being a farmer, I find it sad, embarrassing and somewhat shameful. Pride, greed and arrogance are at Triple AAA all time highs and tech savvy competence is only a part of the problem. It is a total and utter disconnect. Farmers are really as the saying goes, “Too broke to pay attention”. Rich and poor at the same time. Don’t feel bad, it happened in Ancient Egypt as well.

    • Harold

      The only time that I shall call a farmer Dumb is when my dumb words and dumb actions do not teach. The only time that I will accept a farmer calling me dumb is when the farmer’s dumb words and dumb actions do not teach. There are intellectuals and there are intellectual idiots. The Intellectuals study all subject matters and the intellectual idiot unstudied, parrots the headlines of what the Intellectuals say. In the most part the public are educated by the Intellectual idiots and our public disconnect is study. The reason a dialogue often fails amongst the public is because the monologue from the Intellectual idiot is the most often quoted.
      Surely you are a witness.

  • ed

    That makes no sense! With GMO high fructose sugars in almost every single product on a shelf, and real sugar as the alternative, I am struggling to see your point here.

  • Denise

    This sounds all well and good but are they still going to desiccate the crops with glyphosate- based herbicides before harvest?
    http://www.organicconsumers.org/news/even-harvard-urges-eating-organic

  • Denise

    Does anybody know if desiccation is allowed within the Non-GMO Project standards?
    non-gmoreport.com/articles/grim-reaper-many-food-crops-sprayed-with-weedkiller-before-harvest/

  • Gmo Roberts

    … You think expensive vacations are the end of farmers? No, the smart ones are able to do it, the bad managers actually don’t do that many. They do much worse as buy new equipment when it isn’t needed. Ever buy a piece of green paint? A new John Deere sprayer is over three hundred thousand, a combine is just as bad. Good farmers keep their equipment in shape and only buy when necessary. Another big downfall to poor managers is cash rent. When corn was eight dollars the bad greedy ones were more then happy to overpay for ground. Most are now brought now that corn is a more realistic four dollars. …

    • ed

      Cargill thinks that $2 would be even more realistic and as you say, that would get us down to the even smarter more efficient farmers. $1 corn would further get us weeded out to only the most brilliant.

  • Gmo Roberts

    Lol, take away alcohol and obesity and you would do more to improve health than any other thing.

    • Harold

      I would laugh too but I don’t get the punch line. Is it that you mistakenly placed a substance with a symptom and thought they were the same? That would be a Joke but not a funny one.

  • Gmo Roberts

    Ok so what is your point if I may ask?

    • Bruce

      My point is GMO Roberts. Most people do not give other people bank information. But any grain farmer with millions of dollars of machinery and millions of dollars of land. Will not get a loan from a bank for the major part of their assets. It also may be as ed writes. These people are multi millionaires when they sell their grain farms.

  • Harold

    I believe that when people try to back their belief by presenting the facts that they often times discover in their study that they have been lied to. I also believe that when a person cannot decide who to believe that this frustration often leads them to study. Study is not the act of receiving handouts from the Intellectual idiots; study is the act of handing your paper to the intellectual. Ignorance is no study at all and is the blind acceptance of the opinions of the majority. I believe that the learned are starting to increase in numbers to the dissatisfaction of the Corporate. The recent move by Cargill is a signal that one cannot ignore.
    Higher consumer taxation is the delight of the GMO sector as is punitive measures placed against the competition. Further the “organic” sector keeps the GMO sector affordable and without organic, the price of GMO product would skyrocket. The “end game” of the GMO sector is Obvious: Complete food and pricing ownership. Organic cannot be patented and therefore cannot be owned or controlled by a global entity. This is the fact that drives the GMO nonsense BS against the Organic sector. Farmers are having some success with GMO but in turn they do not understand what they are giving away. Unfortunately for the GMO Industry, health concerns have arisen to force them back whereas public awareness of pending global ownership and control of our food itself should have sufficed. Take away Patents and the corporate disappear, but the science to create GMO does not. You cannot take away patent from organic because there are none so therefore the corporate remains intact and GMO science is introduced passively and cautiously and without hurry. Remove the patents and imagine how much of the BS would disappear overnight. Monsanto in Court would be “a no-body” when GMO encroaches upon someone else’s land. Instead GMO not patented would only be a scientific concern which would lead the product back to the drawing board of science.

  • ed

    Many farmers that succumb to the lack of above the cost of production annual operational financial losses, sell the farms and walk away with millions of dollars. That is not a point that is easily contestidle or particularly relevant here. Rich doctors still want to get paid, right. Modern ag. not only makes that tough to have happen, but it also raises the need for them there rich doctors.

  • Stephen Daniels

    No farmer I know Ed but keep dreaming in technicolor.

  • Harold

    Now that you have corrected your statement, I can agree with you.

  • Gmo Roberts

    So you are upset about pesticides not gmos? Is that correct?

  • ed

    Jack Daniels. They are blending corn with many products now because farmers are willing to glut up the marketplace with it and sell it cheap. It is predominantly a GMO product.