Monsanto

[nvidiot]

Not only that, but they are probably operating on land that has been beat to death for 50+ years. It takes at least 3-5 years to even begin to start healing that land to a point where it can be productive without the costly inputs from Monsanto, Dow, Bayer etc...

Okay, at the risk of going OT, say we appoint you grand high poobah of human agriculture. You can do or demand any changes to existing regulations, systems, and corporations involved directly or incidentally in the industrial scale production of food.

What do you do?

 

[Mitchell314]

Okay, at the risk of going OT, say we appoint you grand high poobah of human agriculture. You can do or demand any changes to existing regulations, systems, and corporations involved directly or incidentally in the industrial scale production of food.

What do you do?

I personally invest in crops right before when prices soar.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Okay, at the risk of going OT, say we appoint you grand high poobah of human agriculture. You can do or demand any changes to existing regulations, systems, and corporations involved directly or incidentally in the industrial scale production of food.

What do you do?

Simple, Stop subsidising farmers to grow grains for livestock, biofuels, and vegetable oils. Then change the "food safety" regulations to apply to only the unsafe CAFO business model. Pay a dividend to carbon farmers (best done by properly grazed pastures). For everyone else restructure "food safety" to be results oriented.

For example: Raw milk. There are lots of regulations on milk requiring pasteurization. They are good regulations too. Because if you try and sell raw milk from a confinement dairy, you'll end up killing a whole lot of people. But clean pasture raised milk? Actually far safer and healthier raw than pasteurized. Pasteurization actually reduces its shelf life. So the regulations for that product should be completely different. Testing is good, because it is theoretically possible to be contaminated. But if it isn't then it doesn't need and shouldn't be pasteurised.

Another example: There is a regulation put in place to reduce the risk of mad cow. (Bovine spongiform encephalopathy) that requires cows over a certain age to be extensively tested and making the processing cost exceptionally high. So all your CAFO's will process the cattle before this deadline. Grass fed cattle have 0% risk of BSE, and take a bit longer to fatten to USDA choice or better. So while the regulation has been put there to reduce the risk of BSE, actually it increases the risk of BSE by preventing a much safer production method from competing. Why should grassfed be tested for BSE? It's impossible for grassfed to have BSE! What it does mean is that high quality grassfed costs a LOT more, just in processing fees. Cheaper to actually produce, far lower in pathogens, more beef can be produced per acre, far better for the environment, much better nutritional profile....the benefits list is long. But we actually subsidize grain and regulate processing so that the far superior and far safer product has difficulties competing. And why? Food safety regulations that make our food supply less safe!

Another example: poultry and Eggs. Again under the guise of "food safety" they are actually pushing for all poultry farms over 3,000 birds be required to be in a confinement house! Yet it is the confinement houses that cause ridiculously high pathogen counts thousands of times higher than a pasture raised bird. Lot of people don't know it but the pathogen counts are so high in CAFO poultry that there is significant counts of things like salmonella in the bloodstream of the birds. That means your eggs actually are contaminated INSIDE the egg, not just on the surface of the shell. No amount of washing the eggs will help. Pastured birds? Might get a little on the outside of the eggshell. Wash it and you are good. But the safety regs? They don't even test the inside. Why? Because if they did, it would cause 99% of CAFO egg houses to be shut down tomorrow. And the birds themselves? Most processing plants use as many as 20 to 40 chlorine dips per bird! Why? Because salmonella is in the blood the meat the bones..everywhere! A pastured bird? Rinse it once with clean water and you are 1000 to 10000 times lower bacteria levels than even the CAFO birds that were dipped 40 times in chlorine. But we regulate against the clean birds, in favor of the nasty filthy unsafe birds? Again food safety regulations that force our food to be unsafe.

Another example: Pork. Joel Salatin is famous for displaying his cost for his "elitist bacon". Why was he accused of being elitist? Because he charges 9 dollars a pound for bacon. But, 6 dollars a pound of his costs are simply meeting the regulations designed for the CAFO produced pork. His actual production costs per pound are lower than a CAFO. His pork also is far healthier, tastier and lower in pathogens. But to meet regulations designed for the unhealthy CAFO business model, he is forced to sell to the consumer at a far higher price.

Another example: Vegetables. This I know very well because I am a vegetable farmer. There are regulations on vegetable production that eliminate the possibility of the proper integration of animals into the rotation of fields, due to manure concerns. But those manure concerns are without exception based on CAFO manures, which also are 1000's of times more heavily loaded with pathogens (and pesticides etc). So instead of being able to raise animals to take care of crop resides and insect problems etc, I can't raise any animals on my vegetable farm ... without massive regulations eliminating my possibility of properly managing their manure! I'd be forced to deal with the manure in unsafe ways that would potentially contaminate my crops! I could break the rules and do it in a way that I know is safer, but then I couldn't be certified organic. Again, food safety regulations that force you to be unsafe. I won't do it, so I don't raise animals. I get mine from the farmer down the road who is so old and rebellious, he doesn't give a damn what the government says, he is going to raise his animals the best safest way and screw the food police.

I could go right down the list. There is probably 100's of over-regulation where it doesn't need to be, and under-regulation where it needs more. Sometimes even subsidies for the opposite of what needs done.

If you can't figure out reasonable regulations, then just scrap the whole thing and let farmers do what they know is right, yet hold them responsible when they don't, just market forces alone would fix the problem almost instantly. Not many consumers would pay more for food that is less safe and tastes worse. Litigation would eliminate the big nasty unsafe industrial producers in record time. They'd be dropping like flies soaked in DDT. Then they'd be replaced by sane methods of production.

ETA PS Just to show how this is linked to Monsanto.....Monsanto is a major supplier of the products needed for the unsafe industrial business models. They have a vested interest in the status quo and are willing to use the significant political influence to lobby that the unsafe industrial business models do not fail. It's not about ethically and safely produced food for them, it's all about manipulating markets to increase their profits. This is why most activist groups consider them evil.

 

[cosmicaug]

Your whole argument assumes that a no till system requires herbicides. It doesn't. Implied is that it is also more profitable, it isn't.

So sure, teach them antiquated systems and they can easily see through it and will always opt for the easier chemicals. But teach them more modern organic systems and you just might have a different result.

The problem is that your "modern organic systems" only equal conventional when you are operating under ideal conditions (idealized anything tends to beat real world anything) and are not properly accounting for all inputs.

See http://www.adn.com/article/20141124/organic-farming-does-not-benefit-environment-say-swedish-researchers and specially http://gmopundit.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/can-organic-farming-feed-world-its.html

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The problem is that your "modern organic systems" only equal conventional when you are operating under ideal conditions (idealized anything tends to beat real world anything) and are not properly accounting for all inputs.

Agreed. But what might surprise you is that under less than ideal conditions like drought, modern organic systems beat conventional hands down.

It's not magic BTW. It's the soil.

See http://www.adn.com/article/20141124/organic-farming-does-not-benefit-environment-say-swedish-researchers and specially http://gmopundit.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/can-organic-farming-feed-world-its.html

Your first link is a political link and thus it is impossible for me to figure out where the Swedes went wrong (assuming they actually have). If you could actually link something meaningful?

The second link is brilliant. Thanks for that. Especially that flow chart on nitrogen. Look closely at the chart. See grazing? Notice no nitrogen inputs at all? Then look at the CAFO feeding inputs. 10 from forages and 20 from feed crops and an additional 3 from residual feeds (food crop residue and waste).

That's 33 out of 60 Mt N/year that can be 100% eliminated by simply closing down the CAFO business model and converting those corn soy and hay fields to permanent perennial pasture.[1]

Then an even more interesting thing happens. Whenever the integration of animal husbandry can integrate with crop production, that drops even more. In my case I an running trials and pretty sure I can eliminate outside nitrogen inputs completely. (except from the atmosphere) Early results are very promising and I still just "simulate" animal integration due to the government regulations hampering my efforts. The template has been there all along though. No haber process nitrogen was used to turn the great plains and prairies of North America into one of the most fertile and productive ecosystems of the planet. Of course 50-100 years of agriculture has completely destroyed that. The question is if it is possible to use that template but in an artificial agricultural model instead of a natural biome. If we could turn a portion of that productivity into products we use for food and fiber, then we could easily blow all conventional agricultural systems out of the water.

Is it possible? To answer that you have to understand how the natural system functioned. In the great plains animals did impact the land, but the great herds like bison typically only migrated through once or twice a year for a couple days. Yet the land got progressively more fertile. The key is the micro-organisms and other soil biology like worms, insects etc.. acting in symbiotic mutualism with the plants. Yes some are pests but the vast overwhelming majority are beneficial. They also out number and outmass those huge herds by many orders of magnitude. The real key of nutrient recycling is the 3 way symbiotic relationship between soil biology, animals and plants. When that functions, there is no need for outside nitrogen inputs, not manure, not haber process nitrogen. Keep in mind I am not saying manure isn't needed, but not from outside the farm. The manure a farm produces simply needs returned to the farm. Now from a business POV this is critical. Nitrogen is a cost in most agricultural systems even most traditional (nominally organic) systems. But air is still free. So less cost means higher profit potential for the farmer. (of course the chemical companies are not going to be too thrilled, which is why they obviously haven't even attempted this line of research)

So here is what modern science based organic research has done: right off the bat eliminated over 1/2 the need of nitrogen inputs. Then by increasing the efficiency of the natural nutrient cycle over conventional systems, dramatically reduced if not eliminated nitrogen inputs from off farm. Next, reduced costs and increased profits. But that leaves one last question, can it feed the world even at this stage when its full potential hasn't even been reached?

Well as it turns out not only can it feed the world, it is probably the only technology capable of doing so. Now your link used the example of China and its failed attempt at agriculture. Keep in mind though China did absolutely everything wrong and still it wasn't until after their "Great Leap Forward" campaign that they had their great famine. Yes, thats right, the modernization actually caused starvation. Of course the so called "modernization" they did about everything wrong too! Over all China is about the worst possible example to use for both modern conventional and modern organic. That leaves the question, why did he use China as an example? Conspiracy theories anyone?

So instead, maybe look at a more scientific analysis?

Can Organic Farming Feed us all?

A fair number of agribusiness executives, agricultural and ecological scientists, and international agriculture experts believe that a large-scale shift to organic farming would not only increase the world's food supply, but might be the only way to eradicate hunger
.....
The Michigan results imply that no additional land area is required to obtain enough biologically available nitrogen, even without including the potential for intercropping (several crops grown in the same field at the same time), rotation of livestock with annual crops, and inoculation of soil with Azobacter, Azospirillum, and other free-living nitrogen-fixing bacteria.

So you get it? As a farmer, for me it is a no brainer. Less costs, higher profits, and bigger yields, all while steadily improving the fertility and ecosystem services function (including drought resistance) of the farm.

BUT Critically

For big agribusinesses like Monsanto it is also a no brainer. They can't build a business model where the farmer no longer needs their products. That's why all the resistance, and their collusion with a corrupt bureaucracy producing evil regulations like FSIS DIRECTIVE 6100.4.

 

[cosmicaug]

Agreed. But what might surprise you is that under less than ideal conditions like drought, modern organic systems beat conventional hands down.

It's not magic BTW. It's the soil.


Your first link is a political link and thus it is impossible for me to figure out where the Swedes went wrong (assuming they actually have). If you could actually link something meaningful?

You have a valid point here (though I'm not sure what you mean by "political"). I originally hadn't paid very close attention and, since I was looking at it on the Spanish language section of the FAO site, I had thought it was an FAO document. It's not. It's a brief article originally published in Eye of the Arctic based on a Swedish Radio interview (thankfully in English rather than, as I feared, in Swedish) that can be listened to at http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6020841 (just hit the 'Play' button at the heading of the article).

His statements are drawn from real world data in Swedish farms rather than from experimental plots. I suppose that, as the article you linked to below does, you could make a very valid point about how you cannot necessarily extrapolate the situation on the ground in Sweden to the rest of the world. However, I have a hard time believing that Sweden is going to be such a profound outlier that the situation in the world as a whole is going to be anything approaching a parity of protein production efficiency when comparing conventional and organic.

There exists a book that the articles mention but even if I was willing to throw a book into my reading list at the moment and even if I had easy access to it, I do not read Swedish. However, it appears to be the book at http://www.adlibris.com/se/bok/den-ekologiska-drommen-myter-och-sanningar-om-ekologisk-odling-9789187513534. The book authors also seem to be part, as authors and/or editors, of a 2006 academically oriented short book on the same subject titled Organic Crop Production - Ambitions and Limitations (Table of contents viewable here).

Also, when I thought the original article might be an FAO article I looked through the site and all I could find by them was a short sidebar in a 2013 Global Food Policy Report. It's nothing different from the radio interview and the David Tribe blog post and seems to be drawn mainly from that book they edited in 2006 that I mentioned earlier:

The Limits of Organic Food Production
HOLGER KIRCHMANN AND LARS BERGSTRÖM
The potential of organic agriculture to feed the world sustainably was a point of discussion in 2013[1]. Notwithstanding individual success stories, the question remains whether organic agriculture would be feasible and sustainable if it were practiced at a global scale.

Organic yields are between 25 and 50 percent lower than conventional yields, depending on whether the organic system has access to animal manure. The amount of animal manure available on organic farms is usually not sufficient to produce crop yields similar to those in conventional systems, even when green manures, such as legumes, are used. When organic yields reach levels similar to those in conventional production, they usually involve high nutrient inputs that are, to a large extent, transferred from conventional production. The rules that define organic agriculture —exclusive use of manures and untreated minerals as well as the avoidance of synthetic pesticides— greatly limit the potential to increase yields. Thus, the only way for organic agriculture to achieve the same level of aggregate output as conventional agriculture is to compensate for lower yields by expanding cropland[2]. However, accelerated conversion of natural ecosystems into cropland would cause significant loss of natural habitats.

Extensive organic production would also affect the type of crops that are grown and the food that is supplied to the market. For example, in Sweden organic crop rotations use a higher proportion of forage and legumes and thereby reduce the supply of cereals, potato, and oilseed rape[3]. These shifts affect human diets away from pork, poultry, and eggs and toward more red meat and dairy products.

Moreover, the demand for organic products is limited and mainly concentrated in North America and Europe —which account for 96 percent of global revenues in the sector—and in some rich countries in Asia, such as Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. Currently most consumers in poor countries are not willing to pay a premium price for organic products[4]. Organic production in developing countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America is mainly export driven[5]. If the agroecological, infrastructure, and market conditions are favorable, organic farming can be profitable for some of these export-oriented farmers in developing countries, but it cannot feed the world at a global scale.

Combining expected population growth and projected land use reveals that low-yielding agriculture is an unrealistic option for producing sufficient food in the future. Organic agriculture is subject to severe supply-side constraints, not least because of the lack of plant-available nutrients, and thus cannot be a major food source for the world. Further improvement of conventional agriculture based on innovations, enhanced efficiency, and improved agronomic practices seems to be the only way to produce sufficient and affordable food for a growing world population while minimizing negative environmental impacts[6].

Holger Kirchmann and Lars Bergström are professors, Department of Soil and Environment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden

***************************************
1 · See, for instance, R. Auerbach, G. Rundgren, and N. El-Hage Scialabba, Organic Agriculture: African Experiences in Resilience and Sustainability (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2013), www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3294e/i3294e.pdf; M. Bennett and S. Franzel, “Can Organic and Resource-Conserving Agriculture Improve Livelihoods?” International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 11, no. 3 (2013): 193–215, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2012.724925 .
2 · H. Kirchmann, L. Bergström, T. Kätterer, O. Andrén, and R. Andersson, “Can Organic Crop Production Feed the World?” in Organic Crop Production: Ambitions and Limitations, edited by H. Kirchmann and L. Bergström, 39–72 (Amsterdam: Springer, 2008), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9316-6_3 .
3 · Statistics Sweden, Yearbook of Agricultural Statistics 2012 (Örebro,Sweden: 2012), www.jordbruksverket.se/swedishboardofagriculture/statistics.4.68dc110a12390c69dde8000500.html .
4 · W. Edwardson and P. Santacoloma, Organic Supply Chains for Small Farmer Income Generation in Developing Countries, Agribusiness and Food Industries Series 2 (Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, 2013), www.fao.org/ag/ags/ags-division/publications/publication/en/c/171733/ .
5 · A. Sahota, “The Global Market for Organic Food and Drink,” in The World of Organic Agriculture, edited by H. Willer and L. Kilcher, 121–126 (Frick, Switzerland, and Bonn, Germany: Research Institute of Organic Agriculture and International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, 2012), www.fibl.org/fileadmin/documents/shop/1581-organic-world-2012.pdf .
6 · Kirchmann et al., “Can Organic Crop Production Feed the World?”

The second link is brilliant. Thanks for that. Especially that flow chart on nitrogen. Look closely at the chart. See grazing? Notice no nitrogen inputs at all? Then look at the CAFO feeding inputs. 10 from forages and 20 from feed crops and an additional 3 from residual feeds (food crop residue and waste).

That's 33 out of 60 Mt N/year that can be 100% eliminated by simply closing down the CAFO business model and converting those corn soy and hay fields to permanent perennial pasture.[1]

I doubt that anyone disputes that properly grazed pastures will perform better than improperly grazed pastures (though I reckon there may be some disagreement as to what proper grazing means and what should be grazed --I believe there's another thread on the subject somewhere around here and that you were one of the main participants and that you were advocating that wild land vaguely resembling anything like a grassland should have the poop graced out of it (into it?)).

I note that above and elsewhere in your post you make one of the very same nitrogen and land area accounting errors explained in the David Tribe article. Yes, grazing on the Great Plains is a way to bring in nitrogen into the food production system. There's no disagreement on this by anyone. However, in terms of efficiency, even if you are talking about great bison herds you are still talking about a system that relies on vast, vast expanses of land supporting relatively small numbers of bison (they may seem like high population densities but they are actually very low in relation to the land area they graze —that is, like you point out, they are dense over small areas an move a lot). In other words, you are using a very large area (your grazing land) to get little food output and pretending, for accounting purposes, that it's all coming from your small, organic farm (because hey, you're not feeding them any crops, they are mostly just grazing).

So the way it works is not that it if you convert crop lands to pasture you magically get the same productivity with no nitrogen added. The way it works is that if you convert fertilized crops to unfertilized pasture you need a much greater area to produce the same output. There is no free lunch. That the part of the diagram dealing with grazing doesn't list a number doesn't mean it's a freebie. It still has costs in terms of land area requirements. I suppose we could look at the other side for animal nitrogens and we see that 33 (10 for forages, 10 for feed crops and 3 for residual feeds) gets us 5 which implies that 2.5 comes from 16.5 and that nitrogen has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is from nitrogen fixation over a much greater area than what would be needed if applying that nitrogen externally in a conventional agriculture setting.


That is, If you convert your corn fields into permanent perennial pasture that is not being fertilized you are basically converting them back into a simulacrum of some sort of grassland ecosystem. You are making them inefficient. You are needing greater area to produce the same output.

Now your link used the example of China and its failed attempt at agriculture. Keep in mind though China did absolutely everything wrong and still it wasn't until after their "Great Leap Forward" campaign that they had their great famine. Yes, thats right, the modernization actually caused starvation. Of course the so called "modernization" they did about everything wrong too! Over all China is about the worst possible example to use for both modern conventional and modern organic. That leaves the question, why did he use China as an example? Conspiracy theories anyone?

Let me think about this a little bit.

...

I got it! He wrote stuff you disagree with and therefore he is a Monsanto shill! Amirite?

So instead, maybe look at a more scientific analysis?

Can Organic Farming Feed us all?

Yeah, that kind of has some of the same problems as the first link I posted. It does have lots of stuff but it doesn't direct one to the actual references of the studies mentioned. Though the text may hint at it, there's no way to tell whether the reviews mentioned are accounting for whole system efficiency or if they are falling into the pitfalls mentioned in the David Tribe blog post (or whether some do and some do not).

That is, I have no way to judge the quality of that information. However, I will comment on one thing:

So could we make do without the chemical plants? Inspired by a field trip to a nearby organic farm where the farmer reported that he raised an amazing 27 tons of vegetables on six-tenths of a hectare in a relatively short growing season, a team of scientists from the University of Michigan tried to estimate how much food could be raised following a global shift to organic farming. The team combed through the literature for any and all studies comparing crop yields on organic farms with those on nonorganic farms. Based on 293 examples, they came up with a global dataset of yield ratios for the world's major crops for the developed and the developing world. As expected, organic farming yielded less than conventional farming in the developed world for most food categories, while studies from the developing world showed organic farming boosting yields. The team then ran two models. The first was conservative in the sense that it applied the yield ratio for the developed world to the entire planet, i.e., they assumed that every farm regardless of location would get only the lower developed-country yields. The second applied the yield ratio for the developed world to wealthy nations and the yield ratio for the developing world to those countries.

"We were all surprised by what we found," said Catherine Badgley, a Michigan paleoecologist who was one of the lead researchers. The first model yielded 2,641 kilocalories ("calories") per person per day, just under the world's current production of 2,786 calories but significantly higher than the average caloric requirement for a healthy person of between 2,200 and 2,500. The second model yielded 4,381 calories per person per day, 75 percent greater than current availability-and a quantity that could theoretically sustain a much larger human population than is currently supported on the world's farmland. (It also laid to rest another concern about organic agriculture; see sidebar at left.)

That second model is an absoultely moronic analysis even when intended as an upper limt. If their analysis is correct, they have observed that in developing countries you can only do so much (maybe due to economies of scale, maybe due to a shortage of proper inputs, maybe something else --it doesn't matter) and that in that context you can get as good efficiency in organic farms as with conventional farms. Thats is, crappy organic matches crappy conventional. They have also observed that in developed countries conventional outperforms organic. Instead of assuming that in developed countries organic is running into a wall as compared to conventional (because you are not putting nitrogen into the system, duh!) this model assumes that organic's ability to match or exceed conventional in a greater context of the overall lower yields of developing countries means that organic should match or exceed the yields of conventional in a greater context of the overall higher yields in developed countries. Never mind that it doesn't. If we pretend that it does we get really high numbers!

Or maybe I'm completely misunderstanding that.

That's why all the resistance, and their collusion with a corrupt bureaucracy producing evil regulations like FSIS DIRECTIVE 6100.4.

I'm afraid you are going to have get more specific about this particular conspiracy and how FSIS DIRECTIVE 6100.4, which appears to be (TL;DR) a fairly dull document establishing regulations to prevent the transmission of BSE is so astoundingly evil that you had to bring it up in a discussion about efficiency of food production.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I'm afraid you are going to have get more specific about this particular conspiracy and how FSIS DIRECTIVE 6100.4, which appears to be (TL;DR) a fairly dull document establishing regulations to prevent the transmission of BSE is so astoundingly evil that you had to bring it up in a discussion about efficiency of food production.

Lets start with the last one. We can go back to some of the others later. I admit it is subtle and well hidden. But this may help as it is a bit simpler Q & A about FSIS DIRECTIVE 6100.4.

You are right, it is disguised as a food safety plan to help prevent BSE (mad cow or if in people Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease).

But look more closely.

BSE was first diagnosed in the United Kingdom in 1986, and was likely caused when cattle were fed rendered protein that contained prions from the carcasses of scrapie-infected sheep or cattle with a previously unidentified transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE). The practice of using products such as meat-and-bone meal as a source of protein in cattle rations had been common for several decades[1]

BSE is a direct result of CAFO feedlots, not grass.

So when the news got out that it was feedlots that caused BSE. The logical solution is let cattle graze on grass so it would be impossible to contract. Problem solved. Unfortunately that wasn't acceptable to our USDA overlords. In spite of the danger coming only from feedlots, the regulation was instead adopted to prevent grassfed from becoming a viable option for consumers.

See a feedlot with their metabolic modifiers like steroids, growth hormones and sub-therapeutic antibiotics, unnatural feeds etc can usually fatten a cow to grade choice or better in well under 30 months. Meanwhile grassfed beef generally takes 36 months or more to fatten to grade choice or better. Very very hard to get that done in under 30 months.

So what happened? To produce grassfed a rancher had to choose, either a lower grade product, or a high grade but way over priced due to meeting the requirements of FSIS DIRECTIVE 6100.4.

Keep in mind the cause of BSE...the feedlots and their unnatural feeds that cows are not evolved to eat.... are exempt for undergoing this expensive processing procedure, because they don't typically produce 30 mo+ cattle, but the competition of the feedlots that do not ever cause BSE are required to follow it.

Why was this directive put in place? To prevent the switch away from feedlot production by making the alternative too expensive for consumers. I am sure you have heard that argument from industry shills many times...how organic and/or grassfed etc..is more expensive? see post #582 Even though actually in this case it is much cheaper to produce.

Wouldn't you call it evil when the government purposely manipulates the market with regulations to prevent a safe alternative to compete?

Once we hash this part out and you understand that particular act, then we can go on.