Anders, from where do you get these numbers? Do they also include contributions from 'private' not proffitable organisations? It's pretty obvious that those countries with the highest tax rates score high on the list but what people tend to forget is that where people keep higher share off their bucks, they have more money to give away freely. Luckily lots of people do that
Where from do you think money for f. excample AIDS and Altzheimer research comes from? Lots off it comes from rich people the world over. Especially the effort put into HIV research will benefit Africa
They come from CIA world facts book and judging from the danish number it doesn´t include private contributions.
What I have learned from other sources its difficult to measure the private contributions but while US citizents tend to give more from their own pockets for social causes it stays national ("Help the homeless" aso) to a much larger degree than here. And what is given as foreign aid doesn´t close the gab by a mile.
Reg. AIDS. Big company research into AIDS (unlike SARS) wasn´t done out of medical reasons but economical ones. And the price wasn´t lowered for 3rd world countries before pressure from customers here in the west put pressure on the companies.
And cheap medicine is great but as long as the healt care system is as bad as it is aids medicine doesn´t have 10% the effect as it has here.
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.
Let me ask the question again in hopes that you will actually answer it.
Is the whole of Africa in general being adequately fed?
Let me ask the question again in hopes that you will actually answer it.
Is the whole of Africa in general being adequately fed?
In general? Yes. In specific places? No. Is there enough farm land in Africa to feed all people in africa adequately? Yes. Will dumping food on Africa make the distribution of food produced in Africa worse? Yes. Will it even turn more production into export crops? Yes. Will export crops benefit those in need in africa? No
Please be more specific. Couldn´t find anything from the front page that said anything on africas ability to feed itself so its impossible for me to see if I disagree with them.
Let's try to stay on topic. We're talking about Africa here. And besides that, % of GNP means almost nothing.
100% of my income is nothing compared to 1% of Bill Gates' income. Percentages of GDP certainly mean a great deal.
The US, the largest donor to the crisis affecting more than 14 million people in six countries, has offered...
So again, why isn't Europe doing more to help fix these nations they spent centuries subjugating and destroying?
Why is it incumbent upon the US to fix so many of your colonial screw-ups? Because we're the strongest brother of the colonies and the parents have gotten old and senile?
--
Chinney:
Quote:
Here is something a bit more direct
Christ, man, could you post something from that, I'm not going to read that whole damned thing. It's a freakin' novel!
Please be more specific. Couldn´t find anything from the front page that said anything on africas ability to feed itself so its impossible for me to see if I disagree with them.
It's not one article and some of the links were .doc format. Just thumb through their media/press release page over the past 2 years and they basically mention widespread famine in every region of Africa short of the Saharan countries: The west coast, east coast, all the countries surrounding Congo, pretty much every country in the south where if you're not the 1/4 dying of AIDS or a foreign expatriate, it's most likely you're starving.
I won´t go through the figures again but its obvious that EU as a whole is contributing more than US in foreign aid.
Or would you have that every single country in europe did more than US?
And you base your claim that the europeans aren´t doing anything in africa on the claim that US is the biggest contribuator to ONE crisis unfolding now? Thats just not serious.
The reason why US is the largest donor to the current crisis could be because european countries are in it for the long haul which seems to be more effective than jumping from crisis to crisis. After years of aid spend on programs that just folded when the constant flow of money was cut we have gained a lot of experience in that.
To solve a current problem can cause more problems in the future if it isn´t done right as I have been trying to demonstrate with the food dumping example. Its not about being bigger here and now but thinking through what is the best solution to the problem not only today.
It's not one article and some of the links were .doc format. Just thumb through their media/press release page over the past 2 years and they basically mention widespread famine in every region of Africa short of the Saharan countries: The west coast, east coast, all the countries surrounding Congo, pretty much every country in the south where if you're not the 1/4 dying of AIDS or a foreign expatriate, it's most likely you're starving.
Also, don't forget that famine is used as a tool in war---which, as far as I know is the only time that international aid can't get to the needy.
AAAANNDDDD...
How can you consider Africa without noting the Christian/Islam thing that is going on there?
It's not one article and some of the links were .doc format. Just thumb through their media/press release page over the past 2 years and they basically mention widespread famine in every region of Africa short of the Saharan countries: The west coast, east coast, all the countries surrounding Congo, pretty much every country in the south where if you're not the 1/4 dying of AIDS or a foreign expatriate, it's most likely you're starving.
Please show me documentation that shows africa isn´t capable of feeding itself as a whole. Its not like there has been famine for years everywhere. Parts are struck some years and others in other years. Thats why a local marked for crops are so importent. So production is started again those years where famine haven´t struck
I found a article about cotton production on the front page. Why that is produced in a continent suffering from starvation is beyond me. Crops like that is only benefitial to a very small number of people and to the western consumer. With a local marked for corn stupidity like this could be avoided
I won´t go through the figures again but its obvious that EU as a whole is contributing more than US in foreign aid.
To Africa?
Quote:
Or would you have that every single country in europe did more than US?
Mainly I'm curious why the "if you broke it, fix it!" logic doesn't apply both ways.
Quote:
And you base your claim that the europeans aren´t doing anything in africa on the claim that US is the biggest contribuator to ONE crisis unfolding now? Thats just not serious.
I never said Europeans aren't doing anything.
And since we're dicussing a particular issue, yeah, I am talking about that particular issue. CRAAAAAAAY-ZEEEEE!
Quote:
The reason why US is the largest donor to the current crisis could be because european countries are in it for the long haul which seems to be more effective than jumping from crisis to crisis.
Europe is just pacing itself, eh? Heh.
Quote:
After years of aid spend on programs that just folded when the constant flow of money was cut we have gained a lot of experience in that.
Same here, it's not like we just figured out Africa was there last year.
And beyond that, Europe broke it.
Quote:
Its not about being bigger here and now but thinking through what is the best solution to the problem not only today.
And one of the smartest ways to do it is to ban GM foods (no choice for the people, not that the EU is about providing more freedom for the people) and essentially force African nations to refuse all GM food aid because you will stop buying from them and kill one of the largest sources of revenue for some?
Definitely a smart way. Looks like the 'ole trial and error process keeps going.
Quote:
I found a article about cotton production on the front page. Why that is produced in a continent suffering from starvation is beyond me. Crops like that is only benefitial to a very small number of people and to the western consumer. With a local marked for corn stupidity like this could be avoided
Wait wait wait... I thought there was enough there already and they just need money to buy it?
How are they supposed to get money if they don't export their wonderful non-GM agricultural goods to Europe?
Me:I won´t go through the figures again but its obvious that EU as a whole is contributing more than US in foreign aid.
Groverat:To Africa?
Yes. Africa is the main focus of european foreign aid. 10 of our 15 priority countries are in Africa. The numbers are similar in other european countries. And since the countries in EU (excluding what is given through EU) are spending more than four times what US is spending I would say its a safe bet that we use more than double as much (go check the figures in cia world facts book. I did)
Quote:
M: And you base your claim that the europeans aren´t doing anything in africa on the claim that US is the biggest contribuator to ONE crisis unfolding now? Thats just not seriou
G:I never said Europeans aren't doing anything.
And since we're dicussing a particular issue, yeah, I am talking about that particular issue. CRAAAAAAAY-ZEEEEE!
Great. US spent more than any other country on one crisis. You get this one... So even if the memberstates of EU spendt more united and even if they spent more than double as much (and likely around four times as much) generally speaking you win because we are talking about THIS particular situation and are NOT talking about the combined aid of EU.
And we are certainly NOT speaking about the damage the introduction of free corn make on the local economy.
Quote:
And one of the smartest ways to do it is to ban GM foods (no choice for the people, not that the EU is about providing more freedom for the people) and essentially force African nations to refuse all GM food aid because you will stop buying from them and kill one of the largest sources of revenue for some?
Definitely a smart way. Looks like the 'ole trial and error process keeps going.
We did try to give food away. It broke the local agricultural economy and damaged more than it fixed. The idea of trial and error is to learn from the errors.
And you still haven´t said whats wrong with grinding the corn if you insist on givimg them GMO corm. Please tell me whats wrong with that?
Quote:
Wait wait wait... I thought there was enough there already and they just need money to buy it?
How are they supposed to get money if they don't export their wonderful non-GM agricultural goods to Europe?
Maybe all my talk about export crops went by your nose but ill try again
There is enough farm land in Africa to feed the people of africa. But some of that area is being used for export crops that is benefitial only for a select few in Africa and western consumers.
If you introduce free food from outside you are taking money away from the farmers and making it impossible to sell their crops. They will stop making them or sell their land to large farmers who grow export crops that noone except andonandon
Hassan I usually have no difficulty relating to your points of view, but on this point alone...
Quote:
He's genuinely more into securing himself a place in history then serious, reasoned political decision-making. He is a revoltingly vain man.
...I think you have described about 90% of the politicians I am familiar with both home and abraod. And I mean 90%. Not 50 with 40 added on for "effect". OK, maybe 80%, but I won't budge a nanometer below that.
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)
Interesting....last week in a documentary (agriculture in Central America), a study was mentioned that found crop losses from bugs and pests average around 5-10%, and that rate is consistent for both pesticide-treated and non-pesticide-treated crops.
So even if the memberstates of EU spendt more united and even if they spent more than double as much (and likely around four times as much) generally speaking you win because we are talking about THIS particular situation and are NOT talking about the combined aid of EU.
Exactly.
Quote:
And we are certainly NOT speaking about the damage the introduction of free corn make on the local economy.
More claims without sources or backing facts.
"Bourgeoisie details", as Che Guevara would call them.
Quote:
There is enough farm land in Africa to feed the people of africa. But some of that area is being used for export crops that is benefitial only for a select few in Africa and western consumers.
And Africa's biggest Western consumer? Europe.
That damned GM corn!
Quote:
If you introduce free food from outside you are taking money away from the farmers and making it impossible to sell their crops. They will stop making them or sell their land to large farmers who grow export crops that noone except andonandon
Get it now?
Wouldn't a better method be reducing the profit-incentive of the export method? Controlling it from your end rather than strangling the African?
-
So which do you think is the "bigger deal": the GM crops that aren't there or Europe's influence via export-demand and GM ban?
Christ, man, could you post something from that, I'm not going to read that whole damned thing. It's a freakin' novel!
First the article explains how Green Revolution technologies have not worked all that well historically in Africa. Excerpt:
Quote:
The major difference between the African experience of the Green Revolution and the Asian experience is that Africa had far fewer areas with suitable conditions for the Green Revolution technologies. The Green Revolution technologies were not developed for local conditions: rather, local conditions were expected to adapt to the technologies. Throughout most of Africa, this was simply too much to ask.
[...]
...?breakthrough? technologies, brought in from the outside, can only have a limited success in Africa?s complex ecology. African soils are generally unsuitable to intensive, monoculture production because of insufficient or excessive rains, high incidence of diseases and pests, and other factors.8 Proper agricultural management requires a much more complex approach, as farmers across Africa know only too well.
Then it explains that the GM food movement is being applied to Africa with the interests of multinational chemical companies very much in mind. Excerpt:
Quote:
Like the Green Revolution before it, GM crops have come to Africa from developments in the North. The driving force behind the development of GM crops is the pesticide industry.
[...]
...it provides a whole new area of science?biology?that the companies can turn to for new pesticides and hence, new patents. Companies can also modify crops so that they only grow properly when sprayed with their own pesticides and prevent farmers from using generic versions by way of contracts...
The article then explains that the level of technological and educational sophistication of most African farmers is not adeqate to deal with the issues posed by growing GM crops. Excerpts:
Quote:
The problem begins with the overall lack of information about GM crops. In Zambia, the extension services and education system lack the capacity and trained personnel to inform farmers about GM crops, there are no university courses in biotechnology, and journalists have little access to reliable information. [...] Poor communities have the hardest time accessing information and decision-makers, as their lack of resources and the bureaucratic hurdles make it practically impossible.
The lack of information is compounded by the increasing collusion between governments and the seed industry lobbies. Instead of information, the public gets propaganda, not only from overt lobby groups like the US-based International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) in Kenya or Africa Bio in South Africa, but from government departments and public research institutes as well. Nevertheless, in many countries in Africa there are genuine efforts underway to establish effective biosafety regulations. This is no small task given that most African countries are desperately short of the resources needed to effectively regulate GM crops. Seed TNCs have, on occasion, taken advantage of this environment to avoid regulatory scrutiny. In Zimbabwe, Monsanto field tested its GM cotton before national regulations were in place without notifying the authorities. When the government found out, the crops were quickly destroyed. But, even with regulations, the government may not have the capacity to ensure safety. According to a member of Zimbabwe?s Biosafety Board, one Monsanto application for a Bt crop was more than 1,000 pages long.
Then the article continues with an explanation of why GM crops have little to offer African farmers. Excerpt:
Quote:
The emotion and excitement around GM crops expressed by some scientists and policy makers is hard to understand. For all the money, research and advertising that have been devoted to their development, GM crops offer remarkably little in the way of possible benefits. The Biotechnology Trust of Zimbabwe (BTZ), for instance, was initially established to identify problems facing smallholder farmers that could be addressed with biotechnology. It asked a number of researchers to go out in the field to talk with small farmers to identify the most pressing problems and come up with proposals for biotechnology research. But none of the researchers ended up identifying genetic engineering applications... As a result, BTZ had to revisit its definition of biotechnology to include non-GM crops.51
Most, if not all, of the GM crops that are being developed for African agriculture are not oriented towards the needs Africa?s small farmers. For example, researchers in Zimbabwe are trying to develop GM cowpea with resistance to the herbicide atrazine. The idea is to make it easier for larger-scale commercial farmers planting maize and spraying atrazine to rotate their fields with cowpea.52 GM sweetpotato, which is being developed by Monsanto and KARI in Kenya, is touted as a solid example of a GM application that has been developed specifically for small farmers. But, as the case study below illustrates, the GM sweetpotato has used up vast resources for a technology that will do little for small farmers, but will instead create new dangers.
Something else is going on. The push for GM crops is part of a shift towards corporate-led agricultural R&D that has been happening in other areas of the world for some time now and is spreading to Africa. GM crops bring a range of new elements into agricultural R&D, most notably patents that have given TNCs more control over public research and the world?s seed supply. With the patents they hold on GM crops, corporations can prohibit farmers from saving seed from year to year.
The article provides a couple of detailed case studies, and then concludes:
Quote:
Transnational pesticide corporations are behind the push of genetic engineering into agriculture. They believe that genetically engineered crops will resolve certain profit constraints and op en the door to new markets and previously unimaginable profits. For this reason they have invested massively in agricultural biotechnology, buying up seed companies and securing control over R&D. Most governments and public research institutions in Africa have not challenged these developments. Rather, they have become industry allies, supporting and often leading the drive for commercialising GM crops.
[...]
If governments are serious about addressing the needs of small farmers, they need to look elsewhere?at land distribution, market constraints, and affordable technologies and practices that work with on-farm resources, such as soil and water management, biodiversity conservation strategies, and mixed cropping. African farmers are skilled and knowledgeable and are responsible for the vast majority of agricultural innovation that has succeeded in Africa. The low levels of productivity that are often cited in reference to African agriculture are the result of poverty, displacement, war, colonialism, and environmental challenges. Africa?s small farmers do not need the false promises of genetic engineering; they need concrete measures that will attack the root causes of poverty and enable them to farm according to their capabilities.
I could give you text book references because this I have not picked up on the internet but in the academic world. But I think I´ll stop here. You come up with claims ("US give more", "US give more to africa" etc) that I show to be untrue and you just move on to new unsupported claims. I´m not to play this game for the rest of the weekend.
Fact:Introduction of free goods on a marked erode local production. Believe it or not but thats the truth learned the hard way IN africa and WITH corn (but also in communist USSR). While economical help will stimulate the marked in the region hit by famile by creating economical ties between local areas and between countries. IF there should be years where there is not enough corn in africa then of course it could be bought on the world marked. Capitalism ensuring the optimal allocation of goods.
Fact: Export crops produced in non-developed countries is ONLY benefitial for a select few. (Learned the hard way in africa and south america). AND take away land for corn production.
Fact: If you really want to use GMO corn you can GRIND it and all worries about the european marked will be over.Your unwillingness to adress this is very telling
Comments
Originally posted by Anders the White
Foreign aid/GDP
Denmark 1,0%
Norway 1,0%
France 0,4%
UK: 0,3%
Germany 0,3%
US 0,07%
Anders, from where do you get these numbers? Do they also include contributions from 'private' not proffitable organisations? It's pretty obvious that those countries with the highest tax rates score high on the list but what people tend to forget is that where people keep higher share off their bucks, they have more money to give away freely. Luckily lots of people do that
Where from do you think money for f. excample AIDS and Altzheimer research comes from? Lots off it comes from rich people the world over. Especially the effort put into HIV research will benefit Africa
What I have learned from other sources its difficult to measure the private contributions but while US citizents tend to give more from their own pockets for social causes it stays national ("Help the homeless" aso) to a much larger degree than here. And what is given as foreign aid doesn´t close the gab by a mile.
Reg. AIDS. Big company research into AIDS (unlike SARS) wasn´t done out of medical reasons but economical ones. And the price wasn´t lowered for 3rd world countries before pressure from customers here in the west put pressure on the companies.
And cheap medicine is great but as long as the healt care system is as bad as it is aids medicine doesn´t have 10% the effect as it has here.
Originally posted by groverat
Chinney:
That article says nothing about the economic costs of GM food production.
It referred to it, albeit indirectly. Here is something a bit more direct:
http://www.grain.org/publications/af...mo-2002-en.cfm
Originally posted by Anders the White
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.
Let me ask the question again in hopes that you will actually answer it.
Is the whole of Africa in general being adequately fed?
Originally posted by Eugene
Let me ask the question again in hopes that you will actually answer it.
Is the whole of Africa in general being adequately fed?
In general? Yes. In specific places? No. Is there enough farm land in Africa to feed all people in africa adequately? Yes. Will dumping food on Africa make the distribution of food produced in Africa worse? Yes. Will it even turn more production into export crops? Yes. Will export crops benefit those in need in africa? No
Originally posted by Anders the White
In general? Yes. In specific places? No.
Oxfam does not agree with you.
Originally posted by Eugene
Oxfam does not agree with you.
Please be more specific. Couldn´t find anything from the front page that said anything on africas ability to feed itself so its impossible for me to see if I disagree with them.
Foreign aid/GDP
Let's try to stay on topic. We're talking about Africa here. And besides that, % of GNP means almost nothing.
100% of my income is nothing compared to 1% of Bill Gates' income. Percentages of GDP certainly mean a great deal.
The US, the largest donor to the crisis affecting more than 14 million people in six countries, has offered...
So again, why isn't Europe doing more to help fix these nations they spent centuries subjugating and destroying?
Why is it incumbent upon the US to fix so many of your colonial screw-ups? Because we're the strongest brother of the colonies and the parents have gotten old and senile?
--
Chinney:
Here is something a bit more direct
Christ, man, could you post something from that, I'm not going to read that whole damned thing. It's a freakin' novel!
Originally posted by Anders the White
Please be more specific. Couldn´t find anything from the front page that said anything on africas ability to feed itself so its impossible for me to see if I disagree with them.
It's not one article and some of the links were .doc format. Just thumb through their media/press release page over the past 2 years and they basically mention widespread famine in every region of Africa short of the Saharan countries: The west coast, east coast, all the countries surrounding Congo, pretty much every country in the south where if you're not the 1/4 dying of AIDS or a foreign expatriate, it's most likely you're starving.
Or would you have that every single country in europe did more than US?
And you base your claim that the europeans aren´t doing anything in africa on the claim that US is the biggest contribuator to ONE crisis unfolding now? Thats just not serious.
The reason why US is the largest donor to the current crisis could be because european countries are in it for the long haul which seems to be more effective than jumping from crisis to crisis. After years of aid spend on programs that just folded when the constant flow of money was cut we have gained a lot of experience in that.
To solve a current problem can cause more problems in the future if it isn´t done right as I have been trying to demonstrate with the food dumping example. Its not about being bigger here and now but thinking through what is the best solution to the problem not only today.
Originally posted by Eugene
It's not one article and some of the links were .doc format. Just thumb through their media/press release page over the past 2 years and they basically mention widespread famine in every region of Africa short of the Saharan countries: The west coast, east coast, all the countries surrounding Congo, pretty much every country in the south where if you're not the 1/4 dying of AIDS or a foreign expatriate, it's most likely you're starving.
Also, don't forget that famine is used as a tool in war---which, as far as I know is the only time that international aid can't get to the needy.
AAAANNDDDD...
How can you consider Africa without noting the Christian/Islam thing that is going on there?
Originally posted by Eugene
It's not one article and some of the links were .doc format. Just thumb through their media/press release page over the past 2 years and they basically mention widespread famine in every region of Africa short of the Saharan countries: The west coast, east coast, all the countries surrounding Congo, pretty much every country in the south where if you're not the 1/4 dying of AIDS or a foreign expatriate, it's most likely you're starving.
Please show me documentation that shows africa isn´t capable of feeding itself as a whole. Its not like there has been famine for years everywhere. Parts are struck some years and others in other years. Thats why a local marked for crops are so importent. So production is started again those years where famine haven´t struck
I found a article about cotton production on the front page. Why that is produced in a continent suffering from starvation is beyond me. Crops like that is only benefitial to a very small number of people and to the western consumer. With a local marked for corn stupidity like this could be avoided
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Hassan ne peut pas blairer Tony
That really gave me a good laugh!!!
...and, Hassan, I'm with you on this one.
I won´t go through the figures again but its obvious that EU as a whole is contributing more than US in foreign aid.
To Africa?
Or would you have that every single country in europe did more than US?
Mainly I'm curious why the "if you broke it, fix it!" logic doesn't apply both ways.
And you base your claim that the europeans aren´t doing anything in africa on the claim that US is the biggest contribuator to ONE crisis unfolding now? Thats just not serious.
I never said Europeans aren't doing anything.
And since we're dicussing a particular issue, yeah, I am talking about that particular issue. CRAAAAAAAY-ZEEEEE!
The reason why US is the largest donor to the current crisis could be because european countries are in it for the long haul which seems to be more effective than jumping from crisis to crisis.
Europe is just pacing itself, eh? Heh.
After years of aid spend on programs that just folded when the constant flow of money was cut we have gained a lot of experience in that.
Same here, it's not like we just figured out Africa was there last year.
And beyond that, Europe broke it.
Its not about being bigger here and now but thinking through what is the best solution to the problem not only today.
And one of the smartest ways to do it is to ban GM foods (no choice for the people, not that the EU is about providing more freedom for the people) and essentially force African nations to refuse all GM food aid because you will stop buying from them and kill one of the largest sources of revenue for some?
Definitely a smart way. Looks like the 'ole trial and error process keeps going.
I found a article about cotton production on the front page. Why that is produced in a continent suffering from starvation is beyond me. Crops like that is only benefitial to a very small number of people and to the western consumer. With a local marked for corn stupidity like this could be avoided
Wait wait wait... I thought there was enough there already and they just need money to buy it?
How are they supposed to get money if they don't export their wonderful non-GM agricultural goods to Europe?
flip, flop, flip, flop
Me:I won´t go through the figures again but its obvious that EU as a whole is contributing more than US in foreign aid.
Groverat:To Africa?
Yes. Africa is the main focus of european foreign aid. 10 of our 15 priority countries are in Africa. The numbers are similar in other european countries. And since the countries in EU (excluding what is given through EU) are spending more than four times what US is spending I would say its a safe bet that we use more than double as much (go check the figures in cia world facts book. I did)
M: And you base your claim that the europeans aren´t doing anything in africa on the claim that US is the biggest contribuator to ONE crisis unfolding now? Thats just not seriou
G:I never said Europeans aren't doing anything.
And since we're dicussing a particular issue, yeah, I am talking about that particular issue. CRAAAAAAAY-ZEEEEE!
Great. US spent more than any other country on one crisis. You get this one... So even if the memberstates of EU spendt more united and even if they spent more than double as much (and likely around four times as much) generally speaking you win because we are talking about THIS particular situation and are NOT talking about the combined aid of EU.
And we are certainly NOT speaking about the damage the introduction of free corn make on the local economy.
And one of the smartest ways to do it is to ban GM foods (no choice for the people, not that the EU is about providing more freedom for the people) and essentially force African nations to refuse all GM food aid because you will stop buying from them and kill one of the largest sources of revenue for some?
Definitely a smart way. Looks like the 'ole trial and error process keeps going.
We did try to give food away. It broke the local agricultural economy and damaged more than it fixed. The idea of trial and error is to learn from the errors.
And you still haven´t said whats wrong with grinding the corn if you insist on givimg them GMO corm. Please tell me whats wrong with that?
Wait wait wait... I thought there was enough there already and they just need money to buy it?
How are they supposed to get money if they don't export their wonderful non-GM agricultural goods to Europe?
Maybe all my talk about export crops went by your nose but ill try again
There is enough farm land in Africa to feed the people of africa. But some of that area is being used for export crops that is benefitial only for a select few in Africa and western consumers.
If you introduce free food from outside you are taking money away from the farmers and making it impossible to sell their crops. They will stop making them or sell their land to large farmers who grow export crops that noone except andonandon
Get it now?
He's genuinely more into securing himself a place in history then serious, reasoned political decision-making. He is a revoltingly vain man.
...I think you have described about 90% of the politicians I am familiar with both home and abraod. And I mean 90%. Not 50 with 40 added on for "effect". OK, maybe 80%, but I won't budge a nanometer below that.
8)
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)
Interesting....last week in a documentary (agriculture in Central America), a study was mentioned that found crop losses from bugs and pests average around 5-10%, and that rate is consistent for both pesticide-treated and non-pesticide-treated crops.
So even if the memberstates of EU spendt more united and even if they spent more than double as much (and likely around four times as much) generally speaking you win because we are talking about THIS particular situation and are NOT talking about the combined aid of EU.
Exactly.
And we are certainly NOT speaking about the damage the introduction of free corn make on the local economy.
More claims without sources or backing facts.
"Bourgeoisie details", as Che Guevara would call them.
There is enough farm land in Africa to feed the people of africa. But some of that area is being used for export crops that is benefitial only for a select few in Africa and western consumers.
And Africa's biggest Western consumer? Europe.
That damned GM corn!
If you introduce free food from outside you are taking money away from the farmers and making it impossible to sell their crops. They will stop making them or sell their land to large farmers who grow export crops that noone except andonandon
Get it now?
Wouldn't a better method be reducing the profit-incentive of the export method? Controlling it from your end rather than strangling the African?
-
So which do you think is the "bigger deal": the GM crops that aren't there or Europe's influence via export-demand and GM ban?
Originally posted by groverat
Chinney:
Christ, man, could you post something from that, I'm not going to read that whole damned thing. It's a freakin' novel!
First the article explains how Green Revolution technologies have not worked all that well historically in Africa. Excerpt:
The major difference between the African experience of the Green Revolution and the Asian experience is that Africa had far fewer areas with suitable conditions for the Green Revolution technologies. The Green Revolution technologies were not developed for local conditions: rather, local conditions were expected to adapt to the technologies. Throughout most of Africa, this was simply too much to ask.
[...]
...?breakthrough? technologies, brought in from the outside, can only have a limited success in Africa?s complex ecology. African soils are generally unsuitable to intensive, monoculture production because of insufficient or excessive rains, high incidence of diseases and pests, and other factors.8 Proper agricultural management requires a much more complex approach, as farmers across Africa know only too well.
Then it explains that the GM food movement is being applied to Africa with the interests of multinational chemical companies very much in mind. Excerpt:
Like the Green Revolution before it, GM crops have come to Africa from developments in the North. The driving force behind the development of GM crops is the pesticide industry.
[...]
...it provides a whole new area of science?biology?that the companies can turn to for new pesticides and hence, new patents. Companies can also modify crops so that they only grow properly when sprayed with their own pesticides and prevent farmers from using generic versions by way of contracts...
The article then explains that the level of technological and educational sophistication of most African farmers is not adeqate to deal with the issues posed by growing GM crops. Excerpts:
The problem begins with the overall lack of information about GM crops. In Zambia, the extension services and education system lack the capacity and trained personnel to inform farmers about GM crops, there are no university courses in biotechnology, and journalists have little access to reliable information. [...] Poor communities have the hardest time accessing information and decision-makers, as their lack of resources and the bureaucratic hurdles make it practically impossible.
The lack of information is compounded by the increasing collusion between governments and the seed industry lobbies. Instead of information, the public gets propaganda, not only from overt lobby groups like the US-based International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) in Kenya or Africa Bio in South Africa, but from government departments and public research institutes as well. Nevertheless, in many countries in Africa there are genuine efforts underway to establish effective biosafety regulations. This is no small task given that most African countries are desperately short of the resources needed to effectively regulate GM crops. Seed TNCs have, on occasion, taken advantage of this environment to avoid regulatory scrutiny. In Zimbabwe, Monsanto field tested its GM cotton before national regulations were in place without notifying the authorities. When the government found out, the crops were quickly destroyed. But, even with regulations, the government may not have the capacity to ensure safety. According to a member of Zimbabwe?s Biosafety Board, one Monsanto application for a Bt crop was more than 1,000 pages long.
Then the article continues with an explanation of why GM crops have little to offer African farmers. Excerpt:
The emotion and excitement around GM crops expressed by some scientists and policy makers is hard to understand. For all the money, research and advertising that have been devoted to their development, GM crops offer remarkably little in the way of possible benefits. The Biotechnology Trust of Zimbabwe (BTZ), for instance, was initially established to identify problems facing smallholder farmers that could be addressed with biotechnology. It asked a number of researchers to go out in the field to talk with small farmers to identify the most pressing problems and come up with proposals for biotechnology research. But none of the researchers ended up identifying genetic engineering applications... As a result, BTZ had to revisit its definition of biotechnology to include non-GM crops.51
Most, if not all, of the GM crops that are being developed for African agriculture are not oriented towards the needs Africa?s small farmers. For example, researchers in Zimbabwe are trying to develop GM cowpea with resistance to the herbicide atrazine. The idea is to make it easier for larger-scale commercial farmers planting maize and spraying atrazine to rotate their fields with cowpea.52 GM sweetpotato, which is being developed by Monsanto and KARI in Kenya, is touted as a solid example of a GM application that has been developed specifically for small farmers. But, as the case study below illustrates, the GM sweetpotato has used up vast resources for a technology that will do little for small farmers, but will instead create new dangers.
Something else is going on. The push for GM crops is part of a shift towards corporate-led agricultural R&D that has been happening in other areas of the world for some time now and is spreading to Africa. GM crops bring a range of new elements into agricultural R&D, most notably patents that have given TNCs more control over public research and the world?s seed supply. With the patents they hold on GM crops, corporations can prohibit farmers from saving seed from year to year.
The article provides a couple of detailed case studies, and then concludes:
Transnational pesticide corporations are behind the push of genetic engineering into agriculture. They believe that genetically engineered crops will resolve certain profit constraints and op en the door to new markets and previously unimaginable profits. For this reason they have invested massively in agricultural biotechnology, buying up seed companies and securing control over R&D. Most governments and public research institutions in Africa have not challenged these developments. Rather, they have become industry allies, supporting and often leading the drive for commercialising GM crops.
[...]
If governments are serious about addressing the needs of small farmers, they need to look elsewhere?at land distribution, market constraints, and affordable technologies and practices that work with on-farm resources, such as soil and water management, biodiversity conservation strategies, and mixed cropping. African farmers are skilled and knowledgeable and are responsible for the vast majority of agricultural innovation that has succeeded in Africa. The low levels of productivity that are often cited in reference to African agriculture are the result of poverty, displacement, war, colonialism, and environmental challenges. Africa?s small farmers do not need the false promises of genetic engineering; they need concrete measures that will attack the root causes of poverty and enable them to farm according to their capabilities.
Originally posted by groverat
More claims without sources or backing facts.
I could give you text book references because this I have not picked up on the internet but in the academic world. But I think I´ll stop here. You come up with claims ("US give more", "US give more to africa" etc) that I show to be untrue and you just move on to new unsupported claims. I´m not to play this game for the rest of the weekend.
Fact:Introduction of free goods on a marked erode local production. Believe it or not but thats the truth learned the hard way IN africa and WITH corn (but also in communist USSR). While economical help will stimulate the marked in the region hit by famile by creating economical ties between local areas and between countries. IF there should be years where there is not enough corn in africa then of course it could be bought on the world marked. Capitalism ensuring the optimal allocation of goods.
Fact: Export crops produced in non-developed countries is ONLY benefitial for a select few. (Learned the hard way in africa and south america). AND take away land for corn production.
Fact: If you really want to use GMO corn you can GRIND it and all worries about the european marked will be over.Your unwillingness to adress this is very telling