The problem though is that no one within the labour party will challenge him, because of the fear that they (labour party) will loose ground to the other parties. This is a real shame, and shows just how watered down and complacent this country has become. I have always voted labour, but will not vote them in the next general election unless another leader of the party is elected. Blair is a con-man, and the lowest of them! He has managed to fool a whole country........... and more than that he fooled be, which is why I hate him with such a passion!
Because the reason the ban is in place in so many African countries is because Europe would stop buying food from Africa, especially specialty crops that might be "contaminated" by imported GM food (see: EU ban on GM food).
The US, the largest donor to the crisis affecting more than 14 million people in six countries, has offered more than $266m (£180m) of GM maize to southern Africa through the UN World Food Programme.
...
"We offered non-GM foods but they all declined to accept it. We would have preferred to send non-GM wheat, or rice but they only wanted maize. We tried to source non-GM maize but the industry said they could not guarantee that it was GM-free." - Andrew Natsios, the head of the US agency for international development (USAid)
People who seem to know a hell of a lot about what's wrong with America sure do go blind when looking around their own backyard.
Won´t bother to read the article because its simply beside the point.
There is enough farm land in Africa to feed the entire continent without introducing GMO if only the people could buy the stuff. When you send US crops to africa to help against hunger you 1) Erode the marked for local crops (why cultivate your land if those who is to buy it can get US crops for free?) and/or 2) invite the few who own modern production facilities to make export crops. Something that only benefits a select few.
Its a no-no to dump crops to areas of hunger unless it is impossible to get it from the country itself or those surrounding them. When EU had large surplus storages of food we made this mistake ourselves and did more harm than good. Give them the funds to make a local marked or take the responsibility of destroying the economical infrastructure.
Beside its a political decision that GMO and normal corn can´t be seperated. We now have GMO free US corn here in a lot of products because the customers simply wouldn´t buy it. We were first told the same thing but when sales dropped suddenly it wasn´t a problem.
GMO corn is an inferiour product in the eyes of the marked and it would be dropped immediatly if the marked worked optimal. But instead it is dumped on africa just like we wrongly did with our surplus back in the 80s and 90s.
well, (and we're totally off topic here, but this is interesting) the idea that Africa has enough land to feed its population is a bit misleading.
for starters, every year is different. some years you have huge surpluses, other years you have huge shortages. when you have a surplus, the countries are so strapped for cash they sell their food products. then top that off with the fact that a lot of acerage is grown for cash crops. worth much more than food crops, and sold.
sure they might have enough land to feed the population in theory, but in practice it won't work from year to year.
as for dumping food, in this case people were dying of starvation. not sure how you can advocate letting people die to teach them a lesson about farming practices. i guess it's one way to look at it, but a bit hard nosed.
as for the danger of GM corn etc., it's overblown. problem is that pesticides will be used to kill off insects (which is bad for the enviornment), or the pesticides can be in the plant. at least in the plant it only harms insects that eat the corn, not beneficial insects. to me targeted pest control is always a smarter move than untargeted.
(although just last month one of our professors published a paper that showed that farmers that don't use pesticides made as much money as those who did over an 8 year or longer period. go figure)
Because the reason the ban is in place in so many African countries is because Europe would stop buying food from Africa, especially specialty crops that might be "contaminated" by imported GM food (see: EU ban on GM food).
The US, the largest donor to the crisis affecting more than 14 million people in six countries, has offered more than $266m (£180m) of GM maize to southern Africa through the UN World Food Programme.
...
"We offered non-GM foods but they all declined to accept it. We would have preferred to send non-GM wheat, or rice but they only wanted maize. We tried to source non-GM maize but the industry said they could not guarantee that it was GM-free." - Andrew Natsios, the head of the US agency for international development (USAid)
People who seem to know a hell of a lot about what's wrong with America sure do go blind when looking around their own backyard.
USA produces about 3800 kcal /day / capita for the US citizens.. 2000 is what is enough for most of them (for average office work etc). why do the states not send the extra food production to the poorer countries, but spends millions and millions to invent newer, trendier, fattier, sslatier, unhelathier ways to make the american eat their overproduction? europeans aren't to GM food, and .. if the point is that some parts of africa are poor and need food to eat themselves, i see no point in a) giving the GM-manipulated seeds of any kind (the non-GM is cheaper, and has proven to grow in africa before. US-grown GM-stuff is likely to just be unsuitable for the local climate and needs, just look e.g. what the white clever people did to lake victoria with fish.. and 2) europe not wanting to buy GM-food from africa or from any continent, not even european GM-food is unrelated, if the food is aimed to feed africans.
How is Tony Blair perceived in continental Europe and America? Americans love him (I understand) but what do they think of him in Europe? Is he a sell-out sack of shit who doesn't give a stuff about the people who voted for him, or is he...
In the rest of the Europe he is seen mostly as an a*beeeep*sucker to the US. Doing everything he can to be accepted by Bush. And he is also seen as a b-liar.
Then top that off with the fact that a lot of acerage is grown for cash crops. worth much more than food crops, and sold.
And IMHO excatly that is the problem. Because who is cash crops good for? The hungry population? No.
And yes please dump crops on africa WHEN THERE IS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE. But its not the case 95% of the time. Most of the time it would be much better to stimulate the local marked for crops and get the local grown corn out to the people needing it.
If my memory isn´t fooling me the US government actually prohibited cash donation for food in africa because of your own surplus. Its a good idea as an exception but as a general rule it will only make africa more dependent on help in the future.
In the rest of the Europe he is seen mostly as an a*beeeep*sucker to the US. Doing everything he can to be accepted by Bush. And he is also seen as a b-liar.
I think we can say the cock here. But why anyone would suck on an adult male chicken I have never understood.
Wasn´t the idea that africa should be able to feed itself?
What does that have to do with anything that was said?
Quote:
Won´t bother to read the article because its simply beside the point.
Yeah, it might be kind of positive towards the US side, which is unfathomable.
Quote:
There is enough farm land in Africa to feed the entire continent without introducing GMO if only the people could buy the stuff.
Buy what stuff, the food? From who?
Quote:
When you send US crops to africa to help against hunger you 1) Erode the marked for local crops (why cultivate your land if those who is to buy it can get US crops for free?)
Wait... I thought they couldn't buy it. Just kind of skipping along without a unifying point?
So is the US crushing their poor markets or can African not provide enough food for itself? You've gotta pick one.
Here's another completely off-topic and irrelevant link (because it says something bad about the EU, most likely Rupert Murdoch-funded Zionist propaganda):
Responses differed across the region. Swazi officials_said that_they didn't have an objection to GM food, but Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe all asked_that GM seeds be milled before distribution to prevent their cross-breeding with local flora. Zambia's_President Levy Mwanawasa initially blocked GM food aid for the 2.5 million_Zambians facing starvation, calling it "poison," but_following popular outcry,_sent a team of scientists to visit Oslo, Brussels, New York, Washington, and South Africa_to_study the safety of the GM foods before_reaching a final decision.
Southern African leaders have concerns beyond the safety of GM foods. Roughly half the region's agricultural exports_are sold to the European Union, where there is loud opposition to GM foods,_and where_they must be labelled as such._African farmers fear that if they are no longer able to certify that their foods are GM-free, they will lose their share in the European market.
So if they bring in GM food to feed themselves the EU cuts off their export market and means of getting income.
I wonder who filled them with the idiotic idea that GM food is "poison"... not Europeans, NO!
Europe has been exploiting their ignorance for political and monetary gain for over a century, why stop now?!
-
Chinney:
Quote:
Emergency shipments aside, real help for starvation in Africa must come from farming and other economic development within Africa. GM foods are not likely to help Africa very much in this regard.
Sources? I'd be interested to learn.
--
Harald:
Quote:
ONE sentence out of all the above was about the US, and you can't knock the factual accuracy that the BigPharm successfully put patents before patients in the case of generic AIDS drugs. One sentence.
One sentence? False.
Maybe by sandwiching "Famine can be avoided." inbetween statements about how America is screwing things up he was doing a quick 180 and not talking about America? hmm. I wasn't aware that the subject had to be spelled out in every sentence it is discussed in.
--
Giguara:
Quote:
why do the states not send the extra food production to the poorer countries, but spends millions and millions to invent newer, trendier, fattier, sslatier, unhelathier ways to make the american eat their overproduction?
Dear Uncle Sam:
Would you please be the World's Nanny and then shut your mouth and get back in the kitchen when you think something needs to be done?
thanks,
The "International Community"
We eat twice as much as we need because we can. Because that's our system. It's amazing, isn't it, that we can be the fattest of places and all at the same time the one that gives the most food out?
Wait... I thought they couldn't buy it. Just kind of skipping along without a unifying point?
So is the US crushing their poor markets or can African not provide enough food for itself? You've gotta pick one.
Well if you read what i wrote you´ll see that they are able to get the crops from local sources most of the time. So "the US is crushing their poor markets" and I never claimed that Africa can´t feed itself.
And now I read your first source and it confirms all I said above.
Quote:
But he was not supported by the latest UN figures on food availability in the region, which showed that 1,160,000 tonnes of cereals are available in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and South Africa. More than double that amount is available on the world market, according to the UN's global information and early warning system.
"This shows that the alternative to rejecting GM food aid is not starvation," Alice Wynne Wilson, of Actionaid, said. "Good practice in emergency aid is to provide cash support to the UN's World Food Programme, so that it can buy grain from the most cost-effective sources.
"Bringing large volumes of food into a region that has areas of surplus can lead to a situation where there are food shortages in one part of a country, and locally produced food rotting in other parts."
...and we're totally off topic here, but this is interesting
Not the first time that this has happended to a thread....
But, having posted twice without being on topic, I feel I owe it to Hassan to make at least one comment regarding the actual subject of the thread.
I don't like Blair either. As I am a liberal, I suppose I should have liked him when he was elected, but I didn't...and I like him even less now. Something about the guy...and definitely something about his policies.
As I said: Generally speaking yes. Its fields can uphold the needs of the population 95% of the time and dumping foods on africa do more harm than good unless done as last measure.
The EU took much heat for dumping our surplus in late 80s and early 90s on Africa (even here in AO about a year ago). Why is it better for US to do so?
Comments
May his hemorrhoids inflame and burst!
Originally posted by groverat
Because the reason the ban is in place in so many African countries is because Europe would stop buying food from Africa, especially specialty crops that might be "contaminated" by imported GM food (see: EU ban on GM food).
click
The US, the largest donor to the crisis affecting more than 14 million people in six countries, has offered more than $266m (£180m) of GM maize to southern Africa through the UN World Food Programme.
...
"We offered non-GM foods but they all declined to accept it. We would have preferred to send non-GM wheat, or rice but they only wanted maize. We tried to source non-GM maize but the industry said they could not guarantee that it was GM-free." - Andrew Natsios, the head of the US agency for international development (USAid)
People who seem to know a hell of a lot about what's wrong with America sure do go blind when looking around their own backyard.
Won´t bother to read the article because its simply beside the point.
There is enough farm land in Africa to feed the entire continent without introducing GMO if only the people could buy the stuff. When you send US crops to africa to help against hunger you 1) Erode the marked for local crops (why cultivate your land if those who is to buy it can get US crops for free?) and/or 2) invite the few who own modern production facilities to make export crops. Something that only benefits a select few.
Its a no-no to dump crops to areas of hunger unless it is impossible to get it from the country itself or those surrounding them. When EU had large surplus storages of food we made this mistake ourselves and did more harm than good. Give them the funds to make a local marked or take the responsibility of destroying the economical infrastructure.
GMO corn is an inferiour product in the eyes of the marked and it would be dropped immediatly if the marked worked optimal. But instead it is dumped on africa just like we wrongly did with our surplus back in the 80s and 90s.
Hassan ne peut pas blairer Tony
for starters, every year is different. some years you have huge surpluses, other years you have huge shortages. when you have a surplus, the countries are so strapped for cash they sell their food products. then top that off with the fact that a lot of acerage is grown for cash crops. worth much more than food crops, and sold.
sure they might have enough land to feed the population in theory, but in practice it won't work from year to year.
as for dumping food, in this case people were dying of starvation. not sure how you can advocate letting people die to teach them a lesson about farming practices. i guess it's one way to look at it, but a bit hard nosed.
as for the danger of GM corn etc., it's overblown. problem is that pesticides will be used to kill off insects (which is bad for the enviornment), or the pesticides can be in the plant. at least in the plant it only harms insects that eat the corn, not beneficial insects. to me targeted pest control is always a smarter move than untargeted.
(although just last month one of our professors published a paper that showed that farmers that don't use pesticides made as much money as those who did over an 8 year or longer period. go figure)
Originally posted by groverat
Because the reason the ban is in place in so many African countries is because Europe would stop buying food from Africa, especially specialty crops that might be "contaminated" by imported GM food (see: EU ban on GM food).
click
The US, the largest donor to the crisis affecting more than 14 million people in six countries, has offered more than $266m (£180m) of GM maize to southern Africa through the UN World Food Programme.
...
"We offered non-GM foods but they all declined to accept it. We would have preferred to send non-GM wheat, or rice but they only wanted maize. We tried to source non-GM maize but the industry said they could not guarantee that it was GM-free." - Andrew Natsios, the head of the US agency for international development (USAid)
People who seem to know a hell of a lot about what's wrong with America sure do go blind when looking around their own backyard.
USA produces about 3800 kcal /day / capita for the US citizens.. 2000 is what is enough for most of them (for average office work etc). why do the states not send the extra food production to the poorer countries, but spends millions and millions to invent newer, trendier, fattier, sslatier, unhelathier ways to make the american eat their overproduction? europeans aren't to GM food, and .. if the point is that some parts of africa are poor and need food to eat themselves, i see no point in a) giving the GM-manipulated seeds of any kind (the non-GM is cheaper, and has proven to grow in africa before. US-grown GM-stuff is likely to just be unsuitable for the local climate and needs, just look e.g. what the white clever people did to lake victoria with fish.. and 2) europe not wanting to buy GM-food from africa or from any continent, not even european GM-food is unrelated, if the food is aimed to feed africans.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
How is Tony Blair perceived in continental Europe and America? Americans love him (I understand) but what do they think of him in Europe? Is he a sell-out sack of shit who doesn't give a stuff about the people who voted for him, or is he...
In the rest of the Europe he is seen mostly as an a*beeeep*sucker to the US. Doing everything he can to be accepted by Bush. And he is also seen as a b-liar.
Originally posted by alcimedes
Then top that off with the fact that a lot of acerage is grown for cash crops. worth much more than food crops, and sold.
And IMHO excatly that is the problem. Because who is cash crops good for? The hungry population? No.
And yes please dump crops on africa WHEN THERE IS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE. But its not the case 95% of the time. Most of the time it would be much better to stimulate the local marked for crops and get the local grown corn out to the people needing it.
If my memory isn´t fooling me the US government actually prohibited cash donation for food in africa because of your own surplus. Its a good idea as an exception but as a general rule it will only make africa more dependent on help in the future.
Originally posted by Giaguara
In the rest of the Europe he is seen mostly as an a*beeeep*sucker to the US. Doing everything he can to be accepted by Bush. And he is also seen as a b-liar.
I think we can say the cock here. But why anyone would suck on an adult male chicken I have never understood.
Wasn´t the idea that africa should be able to feed itself?
What does that have to do with anything that was said?
Won´t bother to read the article because its simply beside the point.
Yeah, it might be kind of positive towards the US side, which is unfathomable.
There is enough farm land in Africa to feed the entire continent without introducing GMO if only the people could buy the stuff.
Buy what stuff, the food? From who?
When you send US crops to africa to help against hunger you 1) Erode the marked for local crops (why cultivate your land if those who is to buy it can get US crops for free?)
Wait... I thought they couldn't buy it. Just kind of skipping along without a unifying point?
So is the US crushing their poor markets or can African not provide enough food for itself? You've gotta pick one.
Here's another completely off-topic and irrelevant link (because it says something bad about the EU, most likely Rupert Murdoch-funded Zionist propaganda):
click
Responses differed across the region. Swazi officials_said that_they didn't have an objection to GM food, but Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe all asked_that GM seeds be milled before distribution to prevent their cross-breeding with local flora. Zambia's_President Levy Mwanawasa initially blocked GM food aid for the 2.5 million_Zambians facing starvation, calling it "poison," but_following popular outcry,_sent a team of scientists to visit Oslo, Brussels, New York, Washington, and South Africa_to_study the safety of the GM foods before_reaching a final decision.
Southern African leaders have concerns beyond the safety of GM foods. Roughly half the region's agricultural exports_are sold to the European Union, where there is loud opposition to GM foods,_and where_they must be labelled as such._African farmers fear that if they are no longer able to certify that their foods are GM-free, they will lose their share in the European market.
So if they bring in GM food to feed themselves the EU cuts off their export market and means of getting income.
I wonder who filled them with the idiotic idea that GM food is "poison"... not Europeans, NO!
Europe has been exploiting their ignorance for political and monetary gain for over a century, why stop now?!
-
Chinney:
Emergency shipments aside, real help for starvation in Africa must come from farming and other economic development within Africa. GM foods are not likely to help Africa very much in this regard.
Sources? I'd be interested to learn.
--
Harald:
ONE sentence out of all the above was about the US, and you can't knock the factual accuracy that the BigPharm successfully put patents before patients in the case of generic AIDS drugs. One sentence.
One sentence? False.
Maybe by sandwiching "Famine can be avoided." inbetween statements about how America is screwing things up he was doing a quick 180 and not talking about America? hmm. I wasn't aware that the subject had to be spelled out in every sentence it is discussed in.
--
Giguara:
why do the states not send the extra food production to the poorer countries, but spends millions and millions to invent newer, trendier, fattier, sslatier, unhelathier ways to make the american eat their overproduction?
Dear Uncle Sam:
Would you please be the World's Nanny and then shut your mouth and get back in the kitchen when you think something needs to be done?
thanks,
The "International Community"
We eat twice as much as we need because we can. Because that's our system. It's amazing, isn't it, that we can be the fattest of places and all at the same time the one that gives the most food out?
Just fascinating.
Originally posted by groverat
Wait... I thought they couldn't buy it. Just kind of skipping along without a unifying point?
So is the US crushing their poor markets or can African not provide enough food for itself? You've gotta pick one.
Well if you read what i wrote you´ll see that they are able to get the crops from local sources most of the time. So "the US is crushing their poor markets" and I never claimed that Africa can´t feed itself.
And now I read your first source and it confirms all I said above.
But he was not supported by the latest UN figures on food availability in the region, which showed that 1,160,000 tonnes of cereals are available in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and South Africa. More than double that amount is available on the world market, according to the UN's global information and early warning system.
"This shows that the alternative to rejecting GM food aid is not starvation," Alice Wynne Wilson, of Actionaid, said. "Good practice in emergency aid is to provide cash support to the UN's World Food Programme, so that it can buy grain from the most cost-effective sources.
"Bringing large volumes of food into a region that has areas of surplus can lead to a situation where there are food shortages in one part of a country, and locally produced food rotting in other parts."
Originally posted by Anders the White
And now I read your first source and it confirms all I said above.
It *can* happen. Nothing saying that was the situation with the rejected food (for the people who starved).
The only sense a rejection of GM food overall would make is if it really is expensive, which hasn't been proven.
Fact remains, there is a large food source for Africa that is not used because of the EU ban on GM food.
Plain and simple.
Originally posted by alcimedes
...and we're totally off topic here, but this is interesting
Not the first time that this has happended to a thread....
But, having posted twice without being on topic, I feel I owe it to Hassan to make at least one comment regarding the actual subject of the thread.
I don't like Blair either. As I am a liberal, I suppose I should have liked him when he was elected, but I didn't...and I like him even less now. Something about the guy...and definitely something about his policies.
So there.
Originally posted by groverat
Fact remains, there is a large food source for Africa that is not used because of the EU ban on GM food.
One of your articles have the solution if you want to use GMO crops in africa: Grind it
Plain and simple
Originally posted by groverat
Chinney:
Sources? I'd be interested to learn.
See the argument in my first post. And for sources, here's one http://allafrica.com/sustainable/sto...211190563.html
One of your articles have the solution if you want to use GMO crops in africa: Grind it
Why isn't the group of nations that wrecked African the leader in helping it grow, or even feed itself?
Why is it incumbent upon the US to do these things?
--
Chinney:
And for sources, here's one: link
That article says nothing about the economic costs of GM food production.
--
idle thought...
We need to be shipping the GM stuff no one wants to Iraq. Feed the soldiers!
Originally posted by groverat
Why isn't the group of nations that wrecked African the leader in helping it grow, or even feed itself?
Foreign aid/GDP
Denmark 1,0%
Norway 1,0%
France 0,4%
UK: 0,3%
Germany 0,3%
US 0,07%
Not including help for eastern europe and help channeled through EU. And at least for Denmark: Not including help for PA.
Originally posted by Anders the White
Wasn´t the idea that africa should be able to feed itself?
Is it adequately feeding itself though?
Originally posted by Eugene
Is it adequately feeding itself though?
As I said: Generally speaking yes. Its fields can uphold the needs of the population 95% of the time and dumping foods on africa do more harm than good unless done as last measure.
The EU took much heat for dumping our surplus in late 80s and early 90s on Africa (even here in AO about a year ago). Why is it better for US to do so?