Bush strikes again

Victor

Now let me see if I have this right, according to Bush people are starving in Africa because (a) Europe doesn't want GM foods (b) Africa isn't exporting food to Europe. :rolleyes:

However, Is supect is has something to do with chemical / GM products companies preventing farmers from having seed stocks (some GM seed is dependant on associated chemicals, which puts farmers in a bind) and historical dumping of food products (which undermined local producers) from the EU/USA in Africa.

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/breaking/795616?view=Eircomnet

EU blasts back at Bush over GM food jibe
From:ireland.com
Monday, 26th May, 2003
Additional reporting AFP

The European Commission has angrily described as "unacceptable", US President George W Bush's accusation that the European Union is starving developing countries because of its ban on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

The riposte was made by EU Trade Commissioner Mr Pascal Lamy on the day the EU introduced new measures to provide cheaper drugs to developing countries.

Mr Lamy said Mr Bush's comments last week in which he said the EU's policy on biotech foods was hindering efforts to fight famine in Africa were "going much too far".

"It is one thing not to have the same feeling on the level of precautions one must take over GMOs ... [but] to accuse for example the EU of starving the Third World because we don't stuff them with GMO surpluses or to use this kind of argument, that is clearly going much to far, that is absolutely unacceptable," he said.

President Bush, who is travelling to Europe this week, scolded the EU on aid to poor nations last Wednesday, saying the EU ban on GMOs was an obstacle to battling widespread starvation.

"Our partners in Europe are impeding this effort. They have blocked all new biocrops because of unfounded, unscientific fears," he said.

"This has caused many African nations to avoid investing in biotechnologies, for fear that their products will be shut out of European markets. European governments should join - not hinder - the great cause of ending hunger in Africa," he said.

Mr Lamy was speaking after the EU today adopted a plan to open up the delivery of cut-price medicines for deadly illnesses like AIDS to developing countries.

The regulations aim to enable producers to significantly increase supplies of medicines to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis at lower, or 'tiered' prices, while keeping higher prices for the same items in the EU.

In order to be added to the list, medicines have to be made available either with a price cut of 75 per cent off the average 'ex factory ' price in OECD countries, or at the cost of production plus 15 per cent.

The products on the list will all carry a logo allowing customs to easily identify them.

Being on this list and bearing the logo will mean that imports of these products into the EU for free circulation, re-exportation, warehousing or trans-shipment will be prohibited.

Re-importation into the EU is also prohibited from the 76 countries listed under the new regulations, including least developed countries, and low-income countries , and those where HIV/AIDS is particularly prevalent.

Mr Lamy has welcomed the decision and said the measures should be seen as part of a wider plan to improve the health situation in developing countries.

Separate discussions are underway at the World Trade Organisation on terms under which countries in need of medicines may invoke compulsory licences to manufacture them.

The EU believes that if poorer countries get their medicines via a tiered-pricing system, they should not need to invoke compulsory licences. If the system is perceived to work, it could be extended to more countries and treatments.

Sparks

Add to this a case of tit-for-tat over the WTO judgement on the steel tarrifs, and the possibility of serious lawsuits when GM crops cross-pollinate normal crops (I mean where the GM company sues the farmer for theft of intellectual property).

Wook

were the bad guy's ?
damn, i really do not like this guy...

Lennoxschips

This is the same Bush whose government was the only one to vote against allowing cheaper AIDS medicince for Africa, because it would cut into the profits of major drug companies.

The Saint

Trying to use ethics to criticise the EU is just sad. They have done it with everything else even Iraq. If they cared so much then why dont they drop the dept of these countries. Instead I think they are looking to embarass the EU into submission something which is difficult to do when the world hates you and sees what you do for what it is, the pushing of GM food onto a market that doesnt want it to enrich their bio-tech partners.

mrblue

You get the impression these highly offensive Bush 'speeches' are just a way of manipulating an ignorant populace into a state of xenophobic fervor. Keep 'em afraid, & they keep buying stuff & voting for the party with the most guns. God bless America.

Éomer of Rohan

I think mrblue has got it almost spot on; it is defined in a book I read after seeing the film Bowling for Columbine; the Culture Of Fear - I have it upstairs but I can't be arsed getting up to find out the author. The basic gist of this book is that Americans are kept afraid of so many things because fear clouds judgement and sparks hatred, which ends intellectual debate, whereas in Europe, we have come through that particular era already - though that is not to say we will never re-enter it. Just so long as we appreciate the saying "Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?" - who guards the guards? American society during the 90's has been irrevocable self obsessed - from OJ to Monica and is only just reawakening - and the first thing it does on looking around at a world which hates it is s**t a brick and listen to Republican old men who have no relevence to proper discussion; they conjure this image of terrorists and then, much in the manner of advertisers (ie product association) mention Saddam in the same breath, while not in fact making a direct connection, but still being deliberately manipulative of this fear. Then the spectre of weapons of mass destruction appears. MY first law of WMD states that 'If we get rid of ALL nuclear weapons, terrorists will not get at them' - the knowledge will be sealed away in the radioactive chambers in which the uranium/plutonium/polonium cores are stored (mind you, for anyone interested, there is a cool new theory out by modern biologists and historians that suggests that once something is discovered ANYWHERE ANYHOW it can be replicated anywhere by people entirely unconnected with the original idea - ie that it is easier to build subsequent nuclear bombs once another nation has built them even without spying than if YOUR nation is the first to build them but this is OT). Anyway, ultimately the point is that the present US administration seems to be trying to scaremonger the people of the US, or at least exploit their ignorance, into supporting dangerous and radical ideas - radiation free nuclear weapons for one, piracy in space for two and recognising the Republic of China for three.

I'm tempted to say the following and I will so...
America itself would probably starve, or be importing most of it's food given it's climate, and land if it weren't using hormones to boost beef and milk production or using GM crops.

mm

Éomer of Rohan

I'm tempted to say the following and I will so...
America itself would probably starve, or be importing most of it's food given it's climate, and land if it weren't using hormones to boost beef and milk production or using GM crops.

Are the Americans and Canadians not some of the prime exporters of grain in the world? Was that not one of the ways in which they had the USSR over a barrel?

Sparks

Man,
If GM is so critical - what was done before GM foods came in (the population in the US has not made great leaps and bounds since it showed up), and why is it that there are still problems with malnutrition amongst the poor and obesity amongst the rich in the US?

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan


Are the Americans and Canadians not some of the prime exporters of grain in the world? Was that not one of the ways in which they had the USSR over a barrel? [/B]

Yes, and funnilly enough,we here in Ireland have better yields per acre on that score than them, because we have more fertile land-they only beat us on the sunshine, but suffer more than us with drought obviously.
They are using gm technologies to beat disease and drought.
If the truth be known, Europe probably is too ( take maize for instance-thats a tropical crop being grown in Northern europe...,now how is that happening..., it's grown here in Ireland, a country where today and yesterday were probably one of the few days so far that we could wear t-shirts!)
America fills her cattle with hormones banned in Europe so they can be slaughtered earlier and fed less.
She increases production massively that way.
Cows regularally produce over three thousand gallons each and last only two or three seasons.
They use every trick in the book to boost production.
Whilst here in Ireland, we produced less milk last year than in 1983!
The question for Africa, is really whether they want to take advantage of technology or not.
The other question is, whether there is enough evidence , on whether these farming methods are harmfull or not.
One thing is certain though, if every farmer in Europe and America were to go organic in the morning, disease unfortunately would ensure food supplies would dwindle.
mm

Éomer of Rohan

So long as there are no health risks to humans, I am all for it to be honest, but to see the manner in which Bush exploits the 'morality' of this issue is outraging.

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,
If GM is so critical - what was done before GM foods came in (the population in the US has not made great leaps and bounds since it showed up), and why is it that there are still problems with malnutrition amongst the poor and obesity amongst the rich in the US?

Well food has to be bought, and one of the first things that suffers if you are poor is your diet.
What GM is doing in the states and elsewhere is, reducing the crops exposure to disease and dependence on chemicals.
That has two effects , it improves production and lowers the cost for the farmer, ie it improves effeciency.

Hormone treated beef has been around for decades, and was common place in europe up to maybe ten or 12 years ago, when it was banned. It also improves effeciency at farm level and in the case of the U.S, allows them to produce all they can eat and more.
Something I'm convinced wouldn't be possible there otherwise.
Parts of North America for instance have to keep their cattle indoors for most of the year because it is either too hot or too cold to have them outdoors.
In order to counterbalance that, un natural but effective methods of production are harnessed.
mm

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
So long as there are no health risks to humans, I am all for it to be honest, but to see the manner in which Bush exploits the 'morality' of this issue is outraging.

I would agree with you there,there is an agenda at work for sure.
I'd like to see other countries along with the U.S taking the initiative to help African countries use all the tricks in the book to improve their agricultural production.
mm

Sparks

Man, it's disingenous in the extreme to portray GM foods as the saviour of mankind :rolleyes:
For a start, you ignore their nature and inherent risks (a lack of variation means a species-wide susceptability to a single disease, which would have disasterous effects - think potato famine...) and the behaviour of the companies involved in their production.

For your perusal:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3025217.stm
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=410165
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/23/1648208

Errr, Sparks, don't be putting words in my mouth now!
There are many, many arguments for and against GM.
It's definitely a constantly changing area.
I'm not expecting a famine in America in the near future, but err, maybe Dave knows something....,about whats going to happen as a result of GM being used there:p
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
I'm tempted to say the following and I will so...
America itself would probably starve, or be importing most of it's food given it's climate, and land if it weren't using hormones to boost beef and milk production or using GM crops.

Sorry, but while the facts you present about the state of US vs European/Irish farming are entirely accurate, this above piece is entirely fictional.

The US have more than enough food-generating capacity to feed themselves. Without GM foods, they would have more than enough food-generating capacity to feed themselves.

Also, please note that some of the stuff you mention like hormone treatments for cattle are not "GM" under any sense of the term. There is no genetic modification of the animal in question occurring.

Before the existence of GM foods, the US was exporting foodstuffs, and its nation was developing a problem with obesity. To claim that without GM today, they'd be suffering from food shortages just does not follow.

Now, if you want to posit that using only organic farming methods, the US wouldnt have the capacity to feed itself, you might have a stronger argument, but by ruling out only GM foods? I dont think so. Bear in mind that the first field trials of a GM organism didnt occur until 1986, and the products didnt become widespread until much later (in the 90's).

So unless there is evidence that the US was facing a food crisis in the late 80s and early 90s, I find it difficult to understand how you can allege that without GM they'd be in trouble.

jc

jc

Lennoxschips

A lot of the best land in Africa is being used to grow export crops. (sugar, coffee, cotton). Perhaps if the western world encouraged the growth of grains on these lands then Africa would be better off.

The African people had perfected a tribal nomadic culture, which had allowed then to get the most out of their lands. It was only when the west came along and inflicted their nation-state culture upon Africa that everything went wrong.

Cork

Originally posted by mrblue
You get the impression these highly offensive Bush 'speeches' are just a way of manipulating an ignorant populace into a state of xenophobic fervor.

Scott Ritter was on this mornings Last Word. I read a lot about this guy before the Iraq war. But he spoke a lot of sense.

It is companies from the land of the " ignorant populace " that are fueling much economic growth in this country. They are many things about Bush - I don't like.

But name calling achieves nothing. Bush has given $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa. What has the EU given?

I am aganist GM foods. I think that science does not know the effects in E tablets down the line. What side effects will the consumption of GM foods bring us in 15 or 20 years?

Even when you look at what foods with additives do for hyper active kids - GM Foods are no solution.

Originally posted by bonkey:
Sorry, but while the facts you present about the state of US vs European/Irish farming are entirely accurate, this above piece is entirely fictional.

Also, please note that some of the stuff you mention like hormone treatments for cattle are not "GM" under any sense of the term. There is no genetic modification of the animal in question occurring.

Before the existence of GM foods, the US was exporting foodstuffs, and its nation was developing a problem with obesity. To claim that without GM today, they'd be suffering from food shortages just does not follow.

Bonkey,
My choice of language has let me down.
I'll expand on that then,GM for the U.S is just a natural progression to increase production and lower costs.
I wasn't suggesting that hormone treatment is GM, I know it is not, I was merely proffering it as an example together with GM as part of the process that the U.S encourages to increase production.
My use of the term "starve" was an over use of poetic license on my part to make the point about what would happen if the United states did not import food in the circumstance that GM and Hormones did not exist.
In my post I took them together for that purpose alone
If the U.S banned the use of hormones, production of meat and dairy products would be halved.
That would almost certainly double the price of food there unless imports made up the shortfall.
In that situation and without any imports, you would see malnutrition on a wider scale in the U.S.
Of course that does not and never would happen there.

Incidently and as an aside, I can remember , when the widespread use of hormones was legal here, cattle fattened fit for slaughter, up to ten months sooner than without them.
The cost savings were phenominal and production per farm for those that used them was much greater than it is now, due to that fast turn around.
Also, today, Irelands cows average 1000 gallons in a year, less than half that of the U.S and we are even importing milk!, even though, our climate and land support increasing our production almost to U.S levels per cow without hormones.
We are not allowed to, due to E.U restrictions, but I digress.

Now, if you want to posit that using only organic farming methods, the US wouldnt have the capacity to feed itself, you might have a stronger argument, but by ruling out only GM foods? I dont think so. Bear in mind that the first field trials of a GM organism didnt occur until 1986, and the products didnt become widespread until much later (in the 90's).

The focus is to increase production and reduce costs (in a scenario where many U.S farms go out of business each year) for both the farmer and the U.S.D.A
That should increase revenue from further exports...,which of course is the bug bear between the U.S and Europe on the subject.
Whilst , over the longer term resulting also in a reduction of the U.S.D.A aid budget to farming.
This also ties in with the rising demand for food over the decades,both in the U.S and elsewhere and the rising cost of producing it ( fuel, labour, insurance,materials etc),when prices often fluctuate more downwards than upwards, and the policy persued to keep people producing that food.
Theres no doubt in my mind that without, the U.S domestic approach to their own farming practises ( GM being, ... forgive the pun.. a natural progression of that policy ), enough food would not continue to be produced there.
mm

Carnate

Declare war on the USA on Sunday

Surrender on Tuesday, (not monday its a bank Holiday)


USA pours huge amounts of Cash/help/tech advisors into Here.




Problem solved,


Repeat in other countries

Rinse

Repeat

Sparks

Originally posted by Cork
Bush has given $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa. What has the EU given?

As is being discussed elsewhere on this forum, that $15 billion is more spin than substance.

Originally posted by Sparks
As is being discussed elsewhere on this forum, that $15 billion is more spin than substance.

Well , some spin and some substance.
mm

Sparks

Oh, there's substance to it alright Man - but - Bush's contribution is more spin than substance, since most of the $15billion is the result of prior administrations or the responsibility of future administrations...

Originally posted by Sparks
Oh, there's substance to it alright Man - but - Bush's contribution is more spin than substance, since most of the $15billion is the result of prior administrations or the responsibility of future administrations...

But isn't that true of all long term plans, with any administration why single out Bush in this case, when there are plenty of specific areas , one could bash him on??
To do so in this way in relation to him, is total condemnation as opposed to selective which is wrong, from where I'm looking at it.
It looks like point scoring against Bush, just for the sake of it , to dismiss it in the way you have done above.
It would be better maybe to look at the results of it in six or seven years time , maybe that would be the way to go.
Then we could compare and contrast it with , efforts made by other countries in that timeframe too.
And regarding the Bill in question, since, the Republicans are in control of Capitol Hill, I'm sure , if their heart wasn't in the right place on this question anyhow, they could ammend, the Bill to divert the funds elsewhere.
Back on topic now?
mm

imp

Just thought I'd point out that according to this evening's news there is enough non-GM food in the world to feed the entire population. So why should we want to give malnourished Africans food that we aren't yet sure is entirely safe?

}:>

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
But isn't that true of all long term plans, with any administration why single out Bush in this case,

I think it would be because Cork attributed the 15 billion to Dubya rather than the US, whilst asking what the EU had done in turn....

Back on topic now?

Excellent idea.

jc

fisty

I will never really understand how such a mindless bastard could be the most powerful man on the planet.

Victor

Originally posted by imp
So why should we want to give malnourished Africans food that we aren't yet sure is entirely safe?

There is no immediate reason to consider the food unsafe (no one seems to have dropped dead from eating GM maize yet). However, by selling seed that is dependant on a certain fertilizer (so the company can control, or should I say tax, the crops) or crops designed to be tolerant to a specific weedkiller (so the company can sell the weedkiller, or should I say tax the crops) or companies who patent a seed and demand royalties for the use of that seed (the farmer will never own his own seeds). That is dangerous, small farmers in africa will be dependant on international companies to even exist on a subsistance level.

Éomer of Rohan

(so the company can sell the weedkiller, or should I say tax the crops) or companies who patent a seed and demand royalties for the use of that seed (the farmer will never own his own seeds). That is dangerous, small farmers in africa will be dependant on international companies to even exist on a subsistance level

I'll go one better here; the WTO Trade Related Intellectual Property Agreement actually allows whoever patents a material first to take legal action against the other users if they are in breach of the patenting companies contract (or if there is no contract). The most devastating example of this is one of the Indian sap plants which a US chemical conglomerate patented for the qualities of it's sap - and the proceeded to ban the indigenous users from using the plant even though they had been doing so for hundreds of years. Their history was labelled 'inadmissible evidence.' It seems that International companies are going out of their way to force dependence on certain populations in Sub-Saharan Africa. the Pacific and South America especially.

Sparks

Dave,
I've got a better one for you - there is currently a case in the states being taken by a GM company against a farmer whose non-GM crop was cross-pollinated by their test field crop. I kid you not, he's being sued for theft of intellectual property...

Fisty,

I will never really understand how such a mindless bastard could be the most powerful man on the planet.

Now that's not really fair - I'm sure bonkey knows who his parents are