<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for The Green Plate Blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.thegreenplate.org/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.thegreenplate.org</link>
	<description>How we can transform our lives and heal our world, one bite at a time.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 21:41:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Global Trade Conundrum: The Case of Quinoa by Quinoa: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly &#124; Small World Supper Club</title>
		<link>http://blog.thegreenplate.org/2011/11/quinoa-global-trade-conundrum/#comment-1779</link>
		<dc:creator>Quinoa: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly &#124; Small World Supper Club</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 21:41:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.thegreenplate.org/?p=1414#comment-1779</guid>
		<description>[...] (But if you&#8217;re curious, check out this one from Time and this thoughtful blog post from The Green Plate.) It&#8217;s got me wondering about what my responsibility is as a consumer here in the United [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] (But if you&#8217;re curious, check out this one from Time and this thoughtful blog post from The Green Plate.) It&#8217;s got me wondering about what my responsibility is as a consumer here in the United [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Dragging Monsanto To Justice by jytdog</title>
		<link>http://blog.thegreenplate.org/2011/01/dragging-monsanto-to-justice/#comment-1772</link>
		<dc:creator>jytdog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 19:18:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.thegreenplate.org/?p=1014#comment-1772</guid>
		<description>Can you please provide just one example of a case where Monsanto followed a &quot;strategy of suing farmers whose fields were contaminated by GMO, for “patent infringement”? &quot;   You are talking here about someone with accidental contamination - where seed blew onto his or her land and grew up with the rest of the crop and was sold as a commodity, right?   Just one example would be interesting to see.    It is my understanding that Monsanto only carries out lawsuits when a farmer purposefully plants patented seed without a license, or when someone sells patented seed for use in planting without a license.   So I would be interested in just one example.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can you please provide just one example of a case where Monsanto followed a &#8220;strategy of suing farmers whose fields were contaminated by GMO, for “patent infringement”? &#8221;   You are talking here about someone with accidental contamination &#8211; where seed blew onto his or her land and grew up with the rest of the crop and was sold as a commodity, right?   Just one example would be interesting to see.    It is my understanding that Monsanto only carries out lawsuits when a farmer purposefully plants patented seed without a license, or when someone sells patented seed for use in planting without a license.   So I would be interested in just one example.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Prop. 37 on GMO-Labeling: The Referendum, The Propaganda, Its Backers &amp; Their Lies by jytdog</title>
		<link>http://blog.thegreenplate.org/2012/10/gmo-the-referendum-the-propaganda-its-backers-their-lies/#comment-1771</link>
		<dc:creator>jytdog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 19:06:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.thegreenplate.org/?p=1556#comment-1771</guid>
		<description>Hi Sorry I didn&#039;t see that you replied or would have come back sooner.  first, thanks for replying.   Now..

1)  Thank you for acknowledging that there would be serious re-organization needed.  That was my point - this re-organization will cost money - it is not just the cost of changing a mass-produced label. 

2) when you say &quot;(why would they, BTW, if GMO are as harmless as they’re claimed to be?)&quot;  I think you  know that perception is not the same thing as reality.   There is no doubt that a lot of consumers  are afraid that food from GMOs is somehow dangerous.  That does not mean it actually is.  But fear is a big driver of choices people make.  Retailers are very attuned to how people choose.   And retailers themselves are driven by fear that consumers will turn away or that activists will cause problems for them, if they stock food with GM labels.  Again, this does not mean that the food is actually dangerous.    You can get from fear to change of behavior without touching the truth about the feared thing.   Happens every day. 

3) Wow I am surprised that you say &quot;the whole point&quot; is to &quot;isolate and exclude GMO crops from the food chain altogether–even encouraging farmers to stay clear of GE seeds and, as the case may be, go back to conventional non-GE seeds.&quot;  Pro-labelling folks usually just talk about giving consumers a choice.   Good to know your real goal!  It does make the stakes more clear, you are right.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Sorry I didn&#8217;t see that you replied or would have come back sooner.  first, thanks for replying.   Now..</p>
<p>1)  Thank you for acknowledging that there would be serious re-organization needed.  That was my point &#8211; this re-organization will cost money &#8211; it is not just the cost of changing a mass-produced label. </p>
<p>2) when you say &#8220;(why would they, BTW, if GMO are as harmless as they’re claimed to be?)&#8221;  I think you  know that perception is not the same thing as reality.   There is no doubt that a lot of consumers  are afraid that food from GMOs is somehow dangerous.  That does not mean it actually is.  But fear is a big driver of choices people make.  Retailers are very attuned to how people choose.   And retailers themselves are driven by fear that consumers will turn away or that activists will cause problems for them, if they stock food with GM labels.  Again, this does not mean that the food is actually dangerous.    You can get from fear to change of behavior without touching the truth about the feared thing.   Happens every day. </p>
<p>3) Wow I am surprised that you say &#8220;the whole point&#8221; is to &#8220;isolate and exclude GMO crops from the food chain altogether–even encouraging farmers to stay clear of GE seeds and, as the case may be, go back to conventional non-GE seeds.&#8221;  Pro-labelling folks usually just talk about giving consumers a choice.   Good to know your real goal!  It does make the stakes more clear, you are right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Prop. 37 on GMO-Labeling: The Referendum, The Propaganda, Its Backers &amp; Their Lies by Laetitia Mailhes</title>
		<link>http://blog.thegreenplate.org/2012/10/gmo-the-referendum-the-propaganda-its-backers-their-lies/#comment-1770</link>
		<dc:creator>Laetitia Mailhes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 19:17:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.thegreenplate.org/?p=1556#comment-1770</guid>
		<description>Food companies who can&#039;t prove that their products contain less than 0.5 percent of GMO will simply stick a &quot;Contain GMO&quot; label on their packaging. That&#039;s pretty straightforward. Those who DON&#039;T want the GMO label out of fear that consumers will shun their products altogether (why would they, BTW, if GMO are as harmless as they&#039;re claimed to be?), will have to travel the difficult route of reorganizing their supply chain indeed. And that&#039;s kind of the whole point... A reorganization that would isolate and exclude GMO crops from the food chain altogether--even encouraging farmers to stay clear of GE seeds and, as the case may be, go back to conventional non-GE seeds. Hence the expected nationwide impact of this local, state measure.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Food companies who can&#8217;t prove that their products contain less than 0.5 percent of GMO will simply stick a &#8220;Contain GMO&#8221; label on their packaging. That&#8217;s pretty straightforward. Those who DON&#8217;T want the GMO label out of fear that consumers will shun their products altogether (why would they, BTW, if GMO are as harmless as they&#8217;re claimed to be?), will have to travel the difficult route of reorganizing their supply chain indeed. And that&#8217;s kind of the whole point&#8230; A reorganization that would isolate and exclude GMO crops from the food chain altogether&#8211;even encouraging farmers to stay clear of GE seeds and, as the case may be, go back to conventional non-GE seeds. Hence the expected nationwide impact of this local, state measure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Prop. 37 on GMO-Labeling: The Referendum, The Propaganda, Its Backers &amp; Their Lies by jytdog</title>
		<link>http://blog.thegreenplate.org/2012/10/gmo-the-referendum-the-propaganda-its-backers-their-lies/#comment-1768</link>
		<dc:creator>jytdog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2012 22:17:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.thegreenplate.org/?p=1556#comment-1768</guid>
		<description>I just looked at the Joanna M. Shepherd-Bailey paper you linked to.   Crazy.  So - think about this.   Farmers in America sell their crops to local aggregators (elevators) who mix them all up.   The elevators in turn sell the crops to companies that turn them into food ingredients -- the companies mix crops from many elevators.   The ingredients (for example, corn oil) are in turn sold to companies that put them into food (say, poptarts) or use them to cook food (say, potato chips).   Another level of mixing.   For the labelling law to work, there is going to have to be a dramatic (!) reorganization of the entire food chain.   This is not something trivial like slapping a label on a package.  For pete&#039;s sake, think for a minute!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just looked at the Joanna M. Shepherd-Bailey paper you linked to.   Crazy.  So &#8211; think about this.   Farmers in America sell their crops to local aggregators (elevators) who mix them all up.   The elevators in turn sell the crops to companies that turn them into food ingredients &#8212; the companies mix crops from many elevators.   The ingredients (for example, corn oil) are in turn sold to companies that put them into food (say, poptarts) or use them to cook food (say, potato chips).   Another level of mixing.   For the labelling law to work, there is going to have to be a dramatic (!) reorganization of the entire food chain.   This is not something trivial like slapping a label on a package.  For pete&#8217;s sake, think for a minute!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Europe gives in to the GMO lobby by April Barcenas</title>
		<link>http://blog.thegreenplate.org/2010/07/europe-gives-in-to-the-gmo-lobby/#comment-1766</link>
		<dc:creator>April Barcenas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:41:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.thegreenplate.org/?p=80#comment-1766</guid>
		<description>Went to the hearing yesterday in Sacramento on passing prop 37 (GMO labeling) and it seems all the panel was worried about was if people could be sued! One leading member of the panel was using his phone pad while the people for it were giving their statements! Talk about sickening!! What is more important, our health or money?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Went to the hearing yesterday in Sacramento on passing prop 37 (GMO labeling) and it seems all the panel was worried about was if people could be sued! One leading member of the panel was using his phone pad while the people for it were giving their statements! Talk about sickening!! What is more important, our health or money?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on European Victory Against GMO by Jeffrey P. Colin</title>
		<link>http://blog.thegreenplate.org/2012/01/european-victory-against-gmo/#comment-1734</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeffrey P. Colin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2012 04:44:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.thegreenplate.org/?p=1454#comment-1734</guid>
		<description>Please consider spreading the word about my petition to get President Obama to mandate labeling for GMO Foods in the United States. Thanks.

http://www.change.org/petitions/president-barack-obama-issue-an-executive-order-requiring-labeling-of-all-gmo-foods</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Please consider spreading the word about my petition to get President Obama to mandate labeling for GMO Foods in the United States. Thanks.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.change.org/petitions/president-barack-obama-issue-an-executive-order-requiring-labeling-of-all-gmo-foods" rel="nofollow">http://www.change.org/petitions/president-barack-obama-issue-an-executive-order-requiring-labeling-of-all-gmo-foods</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 24/7 Raw Milk Dispenser (French Tale) by Ed Hartz</title>
		<link>http://blog.thegreenplate.org/2011/10/247-raw-milk-dispenser-french-tale/#comment-1727</link>
		<dc:creator>Ed Hartz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2012 05:05:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.thegreenplate.org/?p=1366#comment-1727</guid>
		<description>Who makes the best raw milk vending machines interested to sell to New York?

Please send response to: bioenergetics@earthlink.net</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Who makes the best raw milk vending machines interested to sell to New York?</p>
<p>Please send response to: <a href="mailto:bioenergetics@earthlink.net">bioenergetics@earthlink.net</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Let&#8217;s Save Our Farms! by Jon</title>
		<link>http://blog.thegreenplate.org/2010/12/lets-save-our-farms/#comment-1724</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:45:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.thegreenplate.org/?p=828#comment-1724</guid>
		<description>This is what you call misinformation.  

Let&#039;s see what&#039;s wrong with this comment.
&quot;Sadly, conservation easements are targeting the small family farmer because often times the small family farmer does not have the full understanding of the implications of conservation easements on the future of the farm.&quot;
1.  Conservation Easements have been placed on property spanning from 5 acres to 10,000 acres - everything ranging from small organic farms to vast swaths of timber land or critical wildlife habitat.  All land trusts, by law, require willing landowners who want to work with them to seek independent legal and tax advice.  By the time the easement is signed, and long before that,  there is little misunderstanding as to what it stands for.  

&quot;Conservation easements are a death sentence to the family farmer and are driving them in to extinction.&quot;  
2.  Farming is booming again in places like Vermont, all over New England, the pacific northwest and other states in large part because of conservation easements.  Every conservation easement is tailored to the needs and desires of the landowner.  A conservation easement that is placed on a farm will almost always include language that allows the farmer and future farmers to do anything they want as it relates to farming without having to ask permission from the land trust.  And if it doesn&#039;t, it&#039;s probably because the landowner wanted it!  The land remains in private hands and on the tax roll.  All that the land trust holds is an easement on future development rights, and in the case of the arid midwest, the water rights if they are important to the conservation values.  Building a chicken coop on your farm that was conserved for agricultural purposes is perfectly OK under most easements, by the way.

&quot;As numerous legal scholars and policy experts have argued, conservation easements that bind landowners and their descendants&quot;
3. Yes, they bind them from subdividing their properties.  That is the point of conserving their land.  If you want your family farm to be subdivided upon your death because your kids can&#039;t pay the estate tax, that is your right.  But it&#039;s also the right of other people to want to conserve their property they spent a lifetime protecting and nourishing.

&quot;PLUS, try selling your farm once it is burdened with an easement. It is becoming nearly impossible for a buyer to get loan with an easement, title insurance or any kind of insurance on these farms that ultimely [sic] are worthless. &quot;
4.  Jessica, all someone has to do is take 5 minutes to search some databases and you will see MANY conserved properties that are selling like hotcakes, farms included especially when an OPAV is included.   Many people don&#039;t want to live in subdivisions.  They want to see wildlife on their property, they want to hunt on their property, they want to live a traditional life.  Buying a property with a conservation easement on it allows you to do that - all for a bargain price!  And as it relates to this article, many young farmers can&#039;t afford land unless there is an easement on it due to the skyrocketing prices and the initial cost of starting a farm operation.

Land Trusts are non-profit, locally owned organizations that are run and managed by your friends and neighbors and often have deep ties to your community.  Call them rabid environmentalists if you want, but really they are true conservatives.  They are people that want to see land as it was intended to be and always has been - open, nourishing, and productive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is what you call misinformation.  </p>
<p>Let&#8217;s see what&#8217;s wrong with this comment.<br />
&#8220;Sadly, conservation easements are targeting the small family farmer because often times the small family farmer does not have the full understanding of the implications of conservation easements on the future of the farm.&#8221;<br />
1.  Conservation Easements have been placed on property spanning from 5 acres to 10,000 acres &#8211; everything ranging from small organic farms to vast swaths of timber land or critical wildlife habitat.  All land trusts, by law, require willing landowners who want to work with them to seek independent legal and tax advice.  By the time the easement is signed, and long before that,  there is little misunderstanding as to what it stands for.  </p>
<p>&#8220;Conservation easements are a death sentence to the family farmer and are driving them in to extinction.&#8221;<br />
2.  Farming is booming again in places like Vermont, all over New England, the pacific northwest and other states in large part because of conservation easements.  Every conservation easement is tailored to the needs and desires of the landowner.  A conservation easement that is placed on a farm will almost always include language that allows the farmer and future farmers to do anything they want as it relates to farming without having to ask permission from the land trust.  And if it doesn&#8217;t, it&#8217;s probably because the landowner wanted it!  The land remains in private hands and on the tax roll.  All that the land trust holds is an easement on future development rights, and in the case of the arid midwest, the water rights if they are important to the conservation values.  Building a chicken coop on your farm that was conserved for agricultural purposes is perfectly OK under most easements, by the way.</p>
<p>&#8220;As numerous legal scholars and policy experts have argued, conservation easements that bind landowners and their descendants&#8221;<br />
3. Yes, they bind them from subdividing their properties.  That is the point of conserving their land.  If you want your family farm to be subdivided upon your death because your kids can&#8217;t pay the estate tax, that is your right.  But it&#8217;s also the right of other people to want to conserve their property they spent a lifetime protecting and nourishing.</p>
<p>&#8220;PLUS, try selling your farm once it is burdened with an easement. It is becoming nearly impossible for a buyer to get loan with an easement, title insurance or any kind of insurance on these farms that ultimely [sic] are worthless. &#8221;<br />
4.  Jessica, all someone has to do is take 5 minutes to search some databases and you will see MANY conserved properties that are selling like hotcakes, farms included especially when an OPAV is included.   Many people don&#8217;t want to live in subdivisions.  They want to see wildlife on their property, they want to hunt on their property, they want to live a traditional life.  Buying a property with a conservation easement on it allows you to do that &#8211; all for a bargain price!  And as it relates to this article, many young farmers can&#8217;t afford land unless there is an easement on it due to the skyrocketing prices and the initial cost of starting a farm operation.</p>
<p>Land Trusts are non-profit, locally owned organizations that are run and managed by your friends and neighbors and often have deep ties to your community.  Call them rabid environmentalists if you want, but really they are true conservatives.  They are people that want to see land as it was intended to be and always has been &#8211; open, nourishing, and productive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on US aims to create 100,000 new farmers by Bo Tipton</title>
		<link>http://blog.thegreenplate.org/2012/02/us-aims-to-create-100000-new-farmers/#comment-1721</link>
		<dc:creator>Bo Tipton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:52:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.thegreenplate.org/?p=1483#comment-1721</guid>
		<description>As a small farmer the thing that I do not see mentioned much is that if you plant one of Monsteranto crops you can not save seeds from the crop and grow them next year.  A Monsteranto GMO seed will not germinate if saved from a crop.  Each year you have to return to buy seeds again.  

So if the use of these crops continues to grow we are one year away from famine.  If something happens to the new seed supply the next year is worldwide famine because the seeds from the old crop will not grow.  No new Monsteranto seeds each year no crops.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a small farmer the thing that I do not see mentioned much is that if you plant one of Monsteranto crops you can not save seeds from the crop and grow them next year.  A Monsteranto GMO seed will not germinate if saved from a crop.  Each year you have to return to buy seeds again.  </p>
<p>So if the use of these crops continues to grow we are one year away from famine.  If something happens to the new seed supply the next year is worldwide famine because the seeds from the old crop will not grow.  No new Monsteranto seeds each year no crops.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
