It's often said that the world hunger problem is a problem of distribution, not supply. Plenty of food is produced. Much of it goes to waste. If that's true, then why would high-yield bio-tech crops make any difference in the problem of African hunger? If supply was really the problem, then Bush's argument would make some sense.
Does anyone else think it's kind of ironic that the Prez is ok with genetically engineered crops but objects to genetic research with fetal tissue that might help cure human diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's?
I agree that all studies say that these crops are not harmful and the EU is being overly alarmist over this issue, but when Bush says that Europe is killing Africans because they won't allow GI crops, he's ignoring (a) as CrewStadium227 points out, the problem is not really production as much as it's distribution, and (b) the US holds billions in debt over these countries that keeps them in poverty.
Bush's statements have nothing to do with eliminating hunger and everything to do with enhancing the bottom line of the producers of GM food products. The research safegaurds regarding GM crops are not sufficient. There is a lack of jurisdictional clarity on who is responsible for approving GM crops and the saftey and environmental studies that pertain. (Pew Resarch Report) This has effectively meant that it has been left up to the companies; a safeguard neither myself nor the EU is willing to take on faith. Let's not forget the StarLink affair and how Aventis swore up and down beforehand that StarLink was safe for human consumption and then after it had been ruled out for human consumption that it could be kept out of the human food supply chain.
Of course Bush is joined on this point -- with regard to agricultural subsidies -- by those right-wing kooks at Oxfam: http://www.oxfam.org.uk/policy/papers/31dumping/31dumping.html http://www.oxfam.org.uk/policy/papers/22europe/22europe.html
Hey, I'll back up anyone who wants to criticize the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) of the EU. But that's a free trade thing. The GM food argument has some free trade aspects -- it puts the advantage on industrial-scale farming where the US, Canada, et. al. are in a much stronger position than Europe -- but the hunger and free trade stuff is a red herring. People in Europe are, rightly IMO, worried that GM foods are being released into production and into the food chain absent the kind of strict, long-term saftey studies needed. Genes are forever people. You can't expect the kind of quick 1)research 2)plant 3)Profits!! cycle with this stuff that one would expect from say Automobiles or microchips.
No, it's the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November. If Nov. 1 is a Tuesday, the election is on Nov. 8. Geez, I'm such a geek.
Yes, but not necessarily for knowing this. And Domingo, when America wants your opinion of our leaders and politcs, we'll give it to you, OK?
Even if the problem is primarily in distribution, if more food is produced then more will get to the places that need it most even if it is poorly distributed. What are we supposed to do, just give out free money to any country that asks us for it?? If you borrow money from us, we expect you to either pay us back or provide us something in return (such as letting us station troops in your country). That's how the world works.
That's how the world works? Uh, remind me again. What is Dumbya doing about the 6.3 trillion national debt? PS: I thought Iraq shouldn't have to repay debts to Russia, France and Germany.
If Bush actually believes this, he really is dumb. 1. He criticises farm subsidies. Isn't this the same Bush who expanded (domestic) production subsidies in his farm bill? 2. The demand for GM is ridiculous. We are over-producing with conventional methods anyway. This over-production has made farming uneconomic, which then means that farms "need" subsidies even more. I agree with the argument to scale back subsidies to a minimum income level, with minimal subsidy linked to production (if any). But Bush's support for GM is driven by rather large donations by certain companies, not any practical or scientific reason.
Domingo how did you dare? Get rid of "the moron and his band of morons" USA, please. And this time please use a pencil and a cross over the name to vote.
Oh OK! Who will tell me? If you talk about "America", you probably mean his representative GWB. So if he gives me a call and asks for my opinion, I´ll state it here on BS! Duh! Regarding that Bush is the most powerful politician in the world and that he is influencing the future of this planet, I´ll never stop stating my opinion. YOU KNOW WHAT? That´s what the US tought Germany after WWII. Why should I stop now? So I ask you to get rid of him! PLEASE! domingo
Not a personal slam on you in particular dfb, but that response show the usual American ignorance of trade and food aid policies. The response to the statement above is that it is wrong. For a number of reasons: 1) Anti-dumping laws prevent "just giving" countries food unless there is a declared emergency. By this time it is usually too late for the thousands that have outright starved, the millions who have been permanantly damaged by malnutrition (esp. children.) and millions more who have succumbed to related disease. 2) In MOST countries where there is an ongoing hunger crisis -- think Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopa and increasingly Zimbabwe -- the breakdown of social control makes it pretty difficult to ensure that food gets distributed properly. (See dfb above.) In other words, it's a waste of food and a feel-good sop to us but does very little good on the ground. In many cases it excaserbates (sp?) the problem. The aid is intercepted and sold on the black market by the people who have been doing the oppressing and f***ng up of the country in the first place thereby cementing their grip. 3) GM crop advocates are really looking to developing nations as their markets; the "Second World" such as India, Egypt, Kenya, China, etc. Places that have persistent crop failure and spot starvation and malnutrition problems. These countries can "afford" to pay for GM crops--usually by running up ever more foreign currency debt. The idea that US farmers will grow super-nutritous wheat that costs twice as much at seed than normal wheat and then "give" it to the starving nations of the world is ludicrous on its face. Anyone who believes otherwise needs to get their ass out to Iowa and see how a real farm operates, not some Mr. Rodgers, Green Acres bucolic popular myth. BTW: I lived on a working farm for three years in the 80's and spent most of my late childhood through H.S. graduation in a small farm town in Iowa, working on farms and farming. Graduated H.S. in a class of 43 people. So if you want to go toe-to-toe on agriculture policy, you'd better check your ego at the door and bring facts bubba.
What are the Africans supposed to do, fly to the US to pick it up? First, you really need to do some research on third-world debt. Virtually all of this debt is decades old, amassed by regimes that took the money and ran, leaving the citizens and new leaders (more of whom are democratically-elected) with this massive burden from which they will never recover without first-world assistance. This isn't the equivalent some kid who is given a car by his parents, crashes it, and then asks for another one. Second, this is not a new idea -- debt forgiveness existed for thousands of years, and disappeared right around the time of Christ. Look up "Jubilee Year" and read about it. Third, your "fair is fair" policy is basically pimping, making other countries either take it up the ass from us or watch their children die. No wonder the rest of the planet hates us.
Regarding GM foods, aren't there GM crops that are designed so that every year the farmer has to go back to the company and buy more seed? That would really help out poor farmers in other countries. Also, I'd have more sympathy for the companies producing GM crops if they weren't fighting tooth and nail against labeling laws. It's one thing to say their products are safe, it's another thing entirely to say 'our products are safe, but we don't want you to know whether you're buying them.'