"The catering company changed its policy due to customer requests. The "customer" was that particular office cafeteria, monsanto employees specifically, who didn't want it served there. Swamps, I don't read that in the article. According to the article, the owners of the catering company made the decision. The article doesn't state the decision was based on any customer preference. To wit: "Sutcliffe Catering, owned by the Granada Group, said it had taken the decision "to remove, as far as practicable, GM soya and maize from all food products served in our restaurant." Notice at the end of the article it says "now it appears that even Monsanto's own catering firm has no confidence in this new technology." (emphasis added) It doesn't say anything about Monsanto's employees. It appears it was purely the decision of the catering firm. I can't imagine Friends of Earth would let it slide by if Monsanto's own employees requested non-GMO food. I've reprinted the full article below: "Monsanto, the biggest promoter of genetically modified food, was hoist with its own petar when it was disclosed that it has a staff canteen in which GM produce is banned. The firm running the canteen at Monsanto's pharmaceuticals factory at High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, serves only GM-free meals, Friends of the Earth said. In a notice in the canteen, Sutcliffe Catering, owned by the Granada Group, said it had taken the decision "to remove, as far as practicable, GM soya and maize from all food products served in our restaurant. We have taken the above steps to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve." Monsanto confirmed the position. "Yes, this is the case, and it is because we believe in choice," said the company's spokesman, Tony Coombes. But employees at Monsanto's agribusiness plant at Cambridge were happy to eat GM produce, he said. "The notice in the restaurant there says some products may contain GMOs [genetically modified organisms] - because our staff are happy to eat food sprayed with fewer chemicals." Monsanto says crops engineered to be tolerant of its own weedkillers need less pesticide, but critics say that though the dosage may be less, the impact on the environment of these pesticides is much greater. Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth's food campaigner, said: "The public has made its concerns about GM ingredients very clear - now it appears that even Monsanto's own catering firm has no confidence in this new technology."

Interesting article. I have all three versions of CB in my garden - the "bush" form and the "spray" form were here when I moved in, and are very old. I planted the climbing form myself. I have read that for decades there was a dispute about the "spray" form - some experts (even Graham Thomas - I have a book of his that says this) insisted that it was not a sport of CB, but some other rose entirely (I forget the name they called it). Then, someone did DNA analysis on all three kinds, and low and behold, determined that they are all the same rose, just different sports. It always reminds me of how for over 100 years scientists insisted that Panda Bears weren't bears at all, and that their closest relatives were some kind of raccoon. Hah! DNA analysis revealed that they were............wait for it.........bears! Sometimes the "walks like a duck......" old test should be paid more attention! Jackie

I grew out a number of the varieties grown (and seeds sold in the gift shop) at Monticello, 10 or 12 years ago. As I recall, a variety called "Large Red" was not large at all--either grown at Monticello, or at my house (though it was "red"). (Possibly it was considered large in 1800?) As I also recall, it was ribbed, and originally grown as a paste-type tomato, for sauces, etc. I also remember it having a delicious taste. I might add that our family farm was located about 20 miles from Monticello, and in that particular area, it was often convenient for growers to attribute a favorite heirloom as having been "grown by Thomas Jefferson at Monticello". I can't tell you how many times I've heard that in my life. Monticello may still sell the 768-page "Thomas Jefferson's Garden Book", which contains the 60-year diary of his flowers, vegetables, and fruit. Many of the varieties that people have attributed to Monticello (as their origin), are not listed in his records. Of course, this probably has little (or nothing) to do with MTB, who, no doubt, sell many of their offerings with exagerated claims. "Tomatoes average 5 pounds each" sounds like the claim of a snake-oil salesman--akin to, "Turn lead into gold, in 3 easy steps". In my tomato-growing experience, the largest open-pollinated tomato I've grown is Mortgage Lifter. It's won county and state fair "Largest Tomato" honors--and, many times, the runners-up were also Mortgage Lifter. As was mentioned above, in growing giant fruits and vegetables, certain guidelines are followed, not the least of which is removing most of the other fruit/vegetables from the plant so all the energy is directed toward the few (or one) remaining. Five-pound tomatoes hanging from a vine must be quite a load for the parent plant to bear! No doubt they should be allowed to lie on the ground, so as not to rip all the branches off the plant. :=)

Marianne, yes -- it's alfalfa. China's population growth long ago outstripped its sustainable water supply, so, ironically, we in California have been shipping our water (in the form of hay) to China, even as our own supply falls short. subk3, the article you cite deserves more than a little refutation. Victor Davis Hanson, sitting down there on his raisin farm in Fresno and wishing to suck up cheap, taxpayer-subsidized Northern California water for his personal gain, finds maintenance of the salmon fisheries offensive. This Northern Californian (four generations, both sides), with family involved in ranching, dairy, and commercial fishing, takes exception to that. It is NOT a matter of 'favoring fish over people" and "pet salmon" (good grief, what an idiotic phrase), but allowing fisheries (which also provide jobs, by the way) and all the ecosystems upon which our lives depend to survive and function. I see no compelling reason to blight and destroy our lands in order to make Hanson wealthy. The dams that were torpedoed would have been destructive of both fisheries (dams on the Klamath especially!) and other natural resources that support life here (not to mention the one, Auburn Dam, that was brilliantly planned to be built on a major earthquake fault...), "Wasted" water flowing through natural systems has the added benefit of diluting the toxic run-off from Central Valley agricultural fields and keeping my drinking water from being shut off because of salt water intrusion making it up to the pumps that pull fresh water out of the Delta. By the way, despite Hanson's claims, a dam that can be effective and useful for "flood control", (the pretense that allowed federal funding of California's dam projects) cannot also be storing water and, not so surprisingly, dams like the Coyote Dam on the Russian River, which the Army Corps of Engineers in the 1950s assured us would end the flooding on that river forever, have done nothing of the sort, since they are always kept as full as they can be, storing water. Mr. Hanson seems to live in the past by a century or so, when agriculture was the "premier industry" of the state. No more. It is, at best, 2 to 3% of California's economy. Are we to continue squandering 80% of utilized water (40% of all fresh water available in California) to support that 2 or 3% of the economy (much of which now involves making big bucks by sending our water, in the form of commodities, to other countries, not "feeding our nation" as is often and disingenuously claimed). Market forces will eventually sort this out, not the "environmental activists".