Your intentions as far as I can see are pure, well-meaning, certainly. However, you opened an interesting door here…which we all might want to ponder a moment in a different light than perhaps you envisioned. That is, your Theory of Seeds incororates the “image” of Mother Theresa, and I was wondering whether or not you were privy to the recent article by Michael Parenti (and/or the works of others) on the subject of “The Saintly” MT. –MC P.S. More importantly, Gandhi and King both stepped outside of their personal realms to reach “additional” people…and I’m wondering what’s being done, if anything significant, in that regard vis-a-vis Agribusiness. Whether anything’s even on the horizon. Possible.

To the extent that we buy into the false idea ‘I am a person’, we believe that we need to inform every ‘one’. This is not true - every person is a conduit to the ‘collective consciousness’, and in a real sense, to inform the few is to inform the many.

Ideas are seeds, and it is often more effective to plant an idea into the mind of a sleeping person (even if that sleep is ‘soma-induced’). It is all in the seed and in the planting.

Each human being is a unique package of properties and methods, and there is no telling how the ‘idea’ will manifest through a particular one; but when the idea reaches critical mass, a Gandhi or Mother Teresa or Martin Luther King will appear to inspire the collective action.

Regarding ‘Big Demons’, to the asymmetric warrior they are the best kind - easy to see. Often it takes a person of clear vision to point them out so that others also see.

Thanks for following up your initial contribution as per my request/suggestion. On the most fundamental level, yes…the thrust of what you’re saying is true. However, haven’t the Big Agricultural Demons co-opted the organic movement to a great degree, watering down meaningful standards? To a significant degree. And the notion that if people know something is harmful for them they’ll act appropriately…isn’t that primarily “wishful.” In fact, hasn’t the scorecard been in on genetically modified crap for quite some time? Yes. Haven’t politicians (who seem to be “required” by the public) not acted on that info thus far…very much? Yes. Postings and comments like what’s here are valuable. And necessary. But the value is extremely limited. First, there’s the fact that The Choir is basically what’s tuning into the new additions to the valuable info here and elsewhere. Secondly, in the world of implementation…there’s the kind of Aldous Huxley effect going on…whereby even stuff that people should know better about (do know better about considering what’s been published)…is not acted on meaningfully. Like immunizations for school and radiation from cell phones. There are tons of other examples too. Examples of PR winning out over common sense and grounded research findings. What say you and you all? MC

People who believe that genetically modified foods are unhealthy will not buy foods that contain them, and they will demand labeling laws so that they know what they are buying. This real market force (an idea), forces suppliers to react (e.g., the recent reaction against rBGH).

The explosion in the demand for organics over the last ten years further illustrates the power of an idea.

So blogs like this one are the real ‘activism’ - they create, nurture, and maintain the right idea.

Pro-GMO activists will say that we have been doing ‘genetic modification’ for centuries, so what’s new? Recombinant DNA technology was first discovered in 1973, and seeds created from this technology (GMO’s) were not marketed until 1996. This technology (which allows not only trans-species transgenics, but also trans-kingdom transgencis) is dangerous, and its discovery triggered the 1975 Asilomar Conference in Pacific Grove, California.

From a July 1, 2007 article in the New York Times (’A Challenge to Gene Theory, a Tougher Look at Biotech’ - Denise Caruso): “Evidence of a networked genome shatters the scientific basis for virtually every official risk assessment of today’s commercial biotech products, from genetically engineered crops to pharmaceuticals.”

So it goes with scientific proclamations: safe today, health hazard tomorrow.

Let’s hope it’s not too late when science catches up – once they are let loose on the environment, you cannot call genes back.