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
SHould we chew it too, and spit it in their mouths? Why does it need to be ground? How will that change what it is?
by grinding it you ensure that it can't be planted. as long as it can't be planted, it shouldn't be able to pollute the local market.
in this case, we offered corn, they told us to grind it for them. we said take it or leave it, you can grind it yourself. they said we don't want it then and we were the assholes.
by grinding it you ensure that it can't be planted. as long as it can't be planted, it shouldn't be able to pollute the local market.
in this case, we offered corn, they told us to grind it for them. we said take it or leave it, you can grind it yourself. they said we don't want it then and we were the assholes.
oh well.
Ah I see now. It's so obvious I failed to see it at first glance
Give a man a fish etc...teach a man to fish etc...C'mon guys, is this really so hard to understand?
Food aid - GM or not GM - is never more than a temporary solution. And even as a temporary solution it can have negative consequences if it undermines local food supplies and leads to greater long-term food supply problems once the world's attention is drawn elsewhere (as it inevitably is).
And growing GM crops is no solution for African agriculture. I certainly have won the day on that subject. Chinney 100, Conservatives 0.
...AND I STILL think Blair is an oily, toadying failure as a Prime Minister.
in this case, we offered corn, they told us to grind it for them. we said take it or leave it, you can grind it yourself. they said we don't want it then and we were the assholes.
Have you ever been to Africa? The answer to your question is probably not. At least not if they want to get it done in a reasonable timeframe without any whole corn sneaking into the market.
Who was saying that Africa should be growing GM food, Chinney? You won a fight where no one was fighting with you! YAY FOUR YUO!
Whether or not GM food is suitable for Africa is for the market to decide. If it's not it's not, if it is then grand, but removing that option if it does work in some instances is pure insanity; and that's what the EU ban does, it removes choice. That's the point I am making.
But again, the EU is purely about power projection and protectionism, so it's not surprising that they would pass such bans.
And as it said above as I've quoted, the US offers non-GM food.
And Anders, if you want to take that guy to task for what he said about the US donating more to Africa, then take it up with him. If you're calling him a liar just come out and say it.
How 'bout I just jump in the middle of this and try to derail this current line of discussion with my own
One of the things that boosted crop production in the US was the implementation of modern farming techniques. This came about, to some extent, by the introduction of the land grant schools. Agricultural and Engineering schools, *A&E *A&M *Polytech. Many of our best universities today started out as land grants.
Does Africa have that? Is anyone trying to do that in Africa? Or is it irrelevant to the current crisis?
Also don't studies show that starvation is caused by logistics (war/economics/ect) rather than simple farm production?
Does Africa have that? Is anyone trying to do that in Africa? Or is it irrelevant to the current crisis?
I think unfortunately it's somewhat 'irrelevant'. It most parts of the third world indigenous plants have grown natural immunities to most bugs, disease and local weather patterns. The problem with GM seeds is that they are great the first couple of years, but like herion, after that they require expensive fertilizer and imported techniques and tools to grow. So, the first hit is 'great', but you become a long term addict.
By the time it's realized the local strains have disappeared and cannot be brought back. The local populations are then stuck with the GM seeds and have to spend huge portions of whatever profit they might make on chemicals and things they never should have needed in the first place.
This is why a lot of cash crops are grown instead of food. Once these countries get stuck in the loop they can't earn enough money selling food locally to support their chemical habits so they turn to products they can sell abroad at western prices. That's how they can afford the chemicals at western prices. Meanwhile the local populations die of starvation.
The sad thing is a farmer could grow local produce and sell it at local prices if they didn't need to inject the chemicals that are bought at western prices.
So to say the 'market' should decide is just wrong. Of course a western conglomerate can afford to wait out the time it will take for the local economies to get addicted to the system. It's essentially a monolopy power giving free hits until they're hooked. If the startup cost was as high as the long term costs (ie if Dupont wasn't allowed to flood the markets with free GM seeds Rockefeller style) the local economies could never afford to buy all of the fertilizer and chemicals and would never get into the game.
That's how the market should work, but it's fixed in this situation.
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Also don't studies show that starvation is caused by logistics (war/economics/ect) rather than simple farm production?
This obviously and unfortunately has a huge impact as well.
I think unfortunately it's somewhat 'irrelevant'. It most parts of the third world indigenous plants have grown natural immunities to most bugs, disease and local weather patterns. The problem with GM seeds is that they are great the first couple of years, but like herion, after that they require expensive fertilizer and imported techniques and tools to grow. So, the first hit is 'great', but you become a long term addict.
By the time it's realized the local strains have disappeared and cannot be brought back. The local populations are then stuck with the GM seeds and have to spend huge portions of whatever profit they might make on chemicals and things they never should have needed in the first place.
bunge, do you have any idea what you're talking about here, or is this pulled off the top of your head? (in regards to GM crops)
people grow cash crops because they're worth more than food crops. farmers grow food to make money, and to feed people.
if you can grow food for $100 per acre, or grow a cash crop for $500 per acre, which are you going to grow?
This is insane thinking. I can only assume you've never read up on the effects of GM food in third world countries.
It's insane of me to think that African farmers will know what they need to use to grow crops, be it GM or non-GM? If GM doesn't work or is too expensive they they don't use it.
Please, educate me.
Also, why not switch *back* to non-GM? Does GM food damage the soil in a different way than non-GM?
I think unfortunately it's somewhat 'irrelevant'. It most parts of the third world indigenous plants have grown natural immunities to most bugs, disease and local weather patterns. The problem with GM seeds is that they are great the first couple of years, but like herion, after that they require expensive fertilizer and imported techniques and tools to grow. So, the first hit is 'great', but you become a long term addict.
By the time it's realized the local strains have disappeared and cannot be brought back. The local populations are then stuck with the GM seeds and have to spend huge portions of whatever profit they might make on chemicals and things they never should have needed in the first place.
This is why a lot of cash crops are grown instead of food. Once these countries get stuck in the loop they can't earn enough money selling food locally to support their chemical habits so they turn to products they can sell abroad at western prices. That's how they can afford the chemicals at western prices. Meanwhile the local populations die of starvation.
The sad thing is a farmer could grow local produce and sell it at local prices if they didn't need to inject the chemicals that are bought at western prices.
So to say the 'market' should decide is just wrong. Of course a western conglomerate can afford to wait out the time it will take for the local economies to get addicted to the system. It's essentially a monolopy power giving free hits until they're hooked. If the startup cost was as high as the long term costs (ie if Dupont wasn't allowed to flood the markets with free GM seeds Rockefeller style) the local economies could never afford to buy all of the fertilizer and chemicals and would never get into the game.
That's how the market should work, but it's fixed in this situation.
This obviously and unfortunately has a huge impact as well.
What does any of this have to do with educating farmers about good farming techniques? Or training vets? I'm talking about setting up a system to educate local populations.
people grow cash crops because they're worth more than food crops. farmers grow food to make money, and to feed people.
if you can grow food for $100 per acre, or grow a cash crop for $500 per acre, which are you going to grow?
This is the crux of the issue.
First, the initial returns are better because the initial returns on the cash crops don't rely on foreign fertilizer and chemicals. Once that cycle begins the ROI on any crop disintegrates because a huge portion of the proceeds go back to the western countries to pay for the fertilizer and chemicals.
It's insane of me to think that African farmers will know what they need to use to grow crops, be it GM or non-GM? If GM doesn't work or is too expensive they they don't use it.
Please, educate me.
Also, why not switch *back* to non-GM? Does GM food damage the soil in a different way than non-GM?
Well they do know what they need. The GM seeds change that though. And as I said, the initial cost (ie the first hit) is essentially given at below cost. So, the cost of entry on GM seeds is artificially low which helps create the addicition.
Switching back is almost impossible. The native strains of crops can't survive with the GM seeds. They are wiped off the face of the planet and are lost for good. This means that long term the third world countries are seriously fsck-ed.
As for damage of the soil, I don't know for sure. But GM seeds will suck the soil dry of nutrients that the other strains of seeds need. The balance is seriously disrupeted, which is why chemicals and fertilizer is ultimately necessary for even the GM seeds. Without the introduction of GM seeds, the native strains can survive.
Comments
Originally posted by Anders the White
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
SHould we chew it too, and spit it in their mouths?
in this case, we offered corn, they told us to grind it for them. we said take it or leave it, you can grind it yourself. they said we don't want it then and we were the assholes.
oh well.
Originally posted by alcimedes
by grinding it you ensure that it can't be planted. as long as it can't be planted, it shouldn't be able to pollute the local market.
in this case, we offered corn, they told us to grind it for them. we said take it or leave it, you can grind it yourself. they said we don't want it then and we were the assholes.
oh well.
Ah I see now. It's so obvious I failed to see it at first glance
Food aid - GM or not GM - is never more than a temporary solution. And even as a temporary solution it can have negative consequences if it undermines local food supplies and leads to greater long-term food supply problems once the world's attention is drawn elsewhere (as it inevitably is).
And growing GM crops is no solution for African agriculture. I certainly have won the day on that subject. Chinney 100, Conservatives 0.
...AND I STILL think Blair is an oily, toadying failure as a Prime Minister.
Originally posted by alcimedes
in this case, we offered corn, they told us to grind it for them. we said take it or leave it, you can grind it yourself. they said we don't want it then and we were the assholes.
oh well.
Yes, we are assholes for that.
Originally posted by bunge
Yes, we are assholes for that.
Because....... (?)
they're unable to grind up the corn themselves?
Originally posted by alcimedes
they're unable to grind up the corn themselves?
Have you ever been to Africa? The answer to your question is probably not. At least not if they want to get it done in a reasonable timeframe without any whole corn sneaking into the market.
Whether or not GM food is suitable for Africa is for the market to decide. If it's not it's not, if it is then grand, but removing that option if it does work in some instances is pure insanity; and that's what the EU ban does, it removes choice. That's the point I am making.
But again, the EU is purely about power projection and protectionism, so it's not surprising that they would pass such bans.
And as it said above as I've quoted, the US offers non-GM food.
And Anders, if you want to take that guy to task for what he said about the US donating more to Africa, then take it up with him. If you're calling him a liar just come out and say it.
Originally posted by groverat
Whether or not GM food is suitable for Africa is for the market to decide.
This is insane thinking. I can only assume you've never read up on the effects of GM food in third world countries.
One of the things that boosted crop production in the US was the implementation of modern farming techniques. This came about, to some extent, by the introduction of the land grant schools. Agricultural and Engineering schools, *A&E *A&M *Polytech. Many of our best universities today started out as land grants.
Does Africa have that? Is anyone trying to do that in Africa? Or is it irrelevant to the current crisis?
Also don't studies show that starvation is caused by logistics (war/economics/ect) rather than simple farm production?
Originally posted by Scott
Does Africa have that? Is anyone trying to do that in Africa? Or is it irrelevant to the current crisis?
I think unfortunately it's somewhat 'irrelevant'. It most parts of the third world indigenous plants have grown natural immunities to most bugs, disease and local weather patterns. The problem with GM seeds is that they are great the first couple of years, but like herion, after that they require expensive fertilizer and imported techniques and tools to grow. So, the first hit is 'great', but you become a long term addict.
By the time it's realized the local strains have disappeared and cannot be brought back. The local populations are then stuck with the GM seeds and have to spend huge portions of whatever profit they might make on chemicals and things they never should have needed in the first place.
This is why a lot of cash crops are grown instead of food. Once these countries get stuck in the loop they can't earn enough money selling food locally to support their chemical habits so they turn to products they can sell abroad at western prices. That's how they can afford the chemicals at western prices. Meanwhile the local populations die of starvation.
The sad thing is a farmer could grow local produce and sell it at local prices if they didn't need to inject the chemicals that are bought at western prices.
So to say the 'market' should decide is just wrong. Of course a western conglomerate can afford to wait out the time it will take for the local economies to get addicted to the system. It's essentially a monolopy power giving free hits until they're hooked. If the startup cost was as high as the long term costs (ie if Dupont wasn't allowed to flood the markets with free GM seeds Rockefeller style) the local economies could never afford to buy all of the fertilizer and chemicals and would never get into the game.
That's how the market should work, but it's fixed in this situation.
Originally posted by Scott
Also don't studies show that starvation is caused by logistics (war/economics/ect) rather than simple farm production?
This obviously and unfortunately has a huge impact as well.
I think unfortunately it's somewhat 'irrelevant'. It most parts of the third world indigenous plants have grown natural immunities to most bugs, disease and local weather patterns. The problem with GM seeds is that they are great the first couple of years, but like herion, after that they require expensive fertilizer and imported techniques and tools to grow. So, the first hit is 'great', but you become a long term addict.
By the time it's realized the local strains have disappeared and cannot be brought back. The local populations are then stuck with the GM seeds and have to spend huge portions of whatever profit they might make on chemicals and things they never should have needed in the first place.
bunge, do you have any idea what you're talking about here, or is this pulled off the top of your head? (in regards to GM crops)
people grow cash crops because they're worth more than food crops. farmers grow food to make money, and to feed people.
if you can grow food for $100 per acre, or grow a cash crop for $500 per acre, which are you going to grow?
This is insane thinking. I can only assume you've never read up on the effects of GM food in third world countries.
It's insane of me to think that African farmers will know what they need to use to grow crops, be it GM or non-GM? If GM doesn't work or is too expensive they they don't use it.
Please, educate me.
Also, why not switch *back* to non-GM? Does GM food damage the soil in a different way than non-GM?
Originally posted by bunge
I think unfortunately it's somewhat 'irrelevant'. It most parts of the third world indigenous plants have grown natural immunities to most bugs, disease and local weather patterns. The problem with GM seeds is that they are great the first couple of years, but like herion, after that they require expensive fertilizer and imported techniques and tools to grow. So, the first hit is 'great', but you become a long term addict.
By the time it's realized the local strains have disappeared and cannot be brought back. The local populations are then stuck with the GM seeds and have to spend huge portions of whatever profit they might make on chemicals and things they never should have needed in the first place.
This is why a lot of cash crops are grown instead of food. Once these countries get stuck in the loop they can't earn enough money selling food locally to support their chemical habits so they turn to products they can sell abroad at western prices. That's how they can afford the chemicals at western prices. Meanwhile the local populations die of starvation.
The sad thing is a farmer could grow local produce and sell it at local prices if they didn't need to inject the chemicals that are bought at western prices.
So to say the 'market' should decide is just wrong. Of course a western conglomerate can afford to wait out the time it will take for the local economies to get addicted to the system. It's essentially a monolopy power giving free hits until they're hooked. If the startup cost was as high as the long term costs (ie if Dupont wasn't allowed to flood the markets with free GM seeds Rockefeller style) the local economies could never afford to buy all of the fertilizer and chemicals and would never get into the game.
That's how the market should work, but it's fixed in this situation.
This obviously and unfortunately has a huge impact as well.
What does any of this have to do with educating farmers about good farming techniques? Or training vets? I'm talking about setting up a system to educate local populations.
Originally posted by alcimedes
bunge, do you have any idea what you're talking about here, or is this pulled off the top of your head? (in regards to GM crops)
It's a real phenomenon. It's something I learning in certain parts of Africa and South-East Asia.
Originally posted by alcimedes
people grow cash crops because they're worth more than food crops. farmers grow food to make money, and to feed people.
if you can grow food for $100 per acre, or grow a cash crop for $500 per acre, which are you going to grow?
This is the crux of the issue.
First, the initial returns are better because the initial returns on the cash crops don't rely on foreign fertilizer and chemicals. Once that cycle begins the ROI on any crop disintegrates because a huge portion of the proceeds go back to the western countries to pay for the fertilizer and chemicals.
Originally posted by groverat
It's insane of me to think that African farmers will know what they need to use to grow crops, be it GM or non-GM? If GM doesn't work or is too expensive they they don't use it.
Please, educate me.
Also, why not switch *back* to non-GM? Does GM food damage the soil in a different way than non-GM?
Well they do know what they need. The GM seeds change that though. And as I said, the initial cost (ie the first hit) is essentially given at below cost. So, the cost of entry on GM seeds is artificially low which helps create the addicition.
Switching back is almost impossible. The native strains of crops can't survive with the GM seeds. They are wiped off the face of the planet and are lost for good. This means that long term the third world countries are seriously fsck-ed.
As for damage of the soil, I don't know for sure. But GM seeds will suck the soil dry of nutrients that the other strains of seeds need. The balance is seriously disrupeted, which is why chemicals and fertilizer is ultimately necessary for even the GM seeds. Without the introduction of GM seeds, the native strains can survive.