Originally Posted by GRB5111

Again, major investments planned for new food production technology all based on unsound science. It doesn't matter that people cite "a majority of scientists" support climate change, as that was the case for the food pyramid, and back in the early 1900s, tobacco as a health aid. We have much to learn, and these romantic ideas are good and if implemented, appear to have many pros, but who is looking at the cons or the negative consequences of these actions when the seduction of massive revenue for investors is in play? The earth is a fragile place, so changing the growth medium of soil-base plants to air and water and expanding seafood farms plus eliminating what is considered "pests" (sea lice and other) usually doesn't consider the beneficial relationships (symbiosis) that exist today. I see many more needs for chemical treatment to simulate a healthy environment and the potential consequences of unanticipated negative effects. The food pyramid was once considered the single solution to good health. Will history continue to repeat itself? Seems likely.