Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Martin Branson · Guest

Are GMO crops a blessing for developing nations, or a means of
exploiting them?A few interesting facts:

- 99% of GMO crops are grown in the US, Canada, Argentina & China.

- More than 90% of worldwide GMO acreage is planted with Monsanto
crops.

- Worldwide, 3/4 of GMO farmers are small-scale, poor cotton farmers
in developing nations.

- Only 1% of GMO research is aimed at crops used by poor farmers.

- The American GMO industry spends more than $250 million a year
promoting their products.

In Indonesia, India, and elsewhere, reports show that GMO cotton has
not provided better productivity for subsistence farmers.
Nevertheless, Monsanto has been relentless in seeking to expand the
market for their patented seeds. Farmers using this seed must purchase
new seed every year, dramatically increasing their cost.

Details @

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=446777

Martin Branson

Charles Hawtrey · Guest

nybranson@hotmail.com (Martin Branson) staggered to the nearest
keyboard and wrote:

[quote]- Only 1% of GMO research is aimed at crops used by poor farmers.
[/quote]
Well, duh. I suppose it>s equally scandalous that the vast majority
of diamond rings and fur coats are purchased by rich people?

I don>t mean to be flippant (well, maybe just a little) but research
costs money. Poor farmers obviously can>t pay for research
themselves; private companies are run -- horrors! -- to make a profit;
and government agencies in poor countries usually are too poor and/or
mismanaged to conduct research of this type. International agencies
would probably find it politically difficult to invest in GMO research
even if it were proven to benefit the farmer.

What about "golden rice"? It was my impression that this was intended
for adoption in less-developed countries.

--

James Curts · Guest

"Charles Hawtrey" <chawtrey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f7b496b.11472428@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
[quote]nybranson@hotmail.com (Martin Branson) staggered to the nearest
keyboard and wrote:

- Only 1% of GMO research is aimed at crops used by poor farmers.

Well, duh. I suppose it>s equally scandalous that the vast majority
of diamond rings and fur coats are purchased by rich people?

I don>t mean to be flippant (well, maybe just a little) but research
costs money. Poor farmers obviously can>t pay for research
themselves; private companies are run -- horrors! -- to make a profit;
and government agencies in poor countries usually are too poor and/or
mismanaged to conduct research of this type. International agencies
would probably find it politically difficult to invest in GMO research
even if it were proven to benefit the farmer.

What about "golden rice"? It was my impression that this was intended
for adoption in less-developed countries.

[/quote]
If not flippant then perhaps Blond??

One must always keep in mind that when someone can manipulate the source,
quantity and price of producing food products on a world wide scale warning
lights should come on very brightly.

There are no honorable motives in corporations developing foods whose seed
sources they will own all rights to. On the surface this seems harmless
enough but we have already seen where these crops are influencing all crops
around them.

In only a relatively few cropping seasons our native or normal crops will no
longer exist as we know them now and in most cases will no longer be
productive.

As I am involved in producing food crops it is of interest to me to keep
abreast of what is afoot in potential production and marketing in years to
come.

It is highly advisable for governments to form a solid group and stop this
Genetic thing while it is possible. We are only opening the doors to
considerable food shortages and as yet unimagined food costs.

No one can even give an estimation of the actual health considerations to
many of these food crops.

Who is going to benefit from this?? You? Me?

I don>t think so.

This Yank does not support political or corporate food control.

James Curts

Martin Branson · Guest

Your great comments are appreciated, James. Frankly, I>m a bit puzzled
by the attitude of the GMO crusaders I>ve encountered. If, as Charles
said, poor countries can>t pay enough to make these things profitable,
then why are companies like Monsanto so intent on pushing into these
countries? Obviously, somebody at these companies believes that there
is long-term gain to be had.

[quote]One must always keep in mind that when someone can manipulate the source,
quantity and price of producing food products on a world wide scale warning
lights should come on very brightly.
[/quote]
Exactly. And when this manipulation is aimed at turning peasant
farmers into prisoners of debt, blue flashing lights should come on.

[quote]There are no honorable motives in corporations developing foods whose seed
sources they will own all rights to. On the surface this seems harmless
enough but we have already seen where these crops are influencing all crops
around them.
[/quote]
And more importantly, when the companies promoting them in poor
nations are willing to stop at nothing to gain their adoption.

[quote]No one can even give an estimation of the actual health considerations to
many of these food crops.
[/quote]
And if they were as healthy as their promoters say, why do the
promoters fight against labeling foods as to whether they contain GMO
products? Another example of pushing for adoption, by hook or by
crook.

[quote]Who is going to benefit from this?? You? Me?

I don>t think so.
[/quote]
Unless you are a Monsanto shareholder.

[quote]This Yank does not support political or corporate food control.

James Curts
[/quote]
Count me in, James. Thanks for the insights!

Martin

Jim Webster · Guest

"Martin Branson" <nybranson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
[quote]
Exactly. And when this manipulation is aimed at turning peasant
farmers into prisoners of debt, blue flashing lights should come on.
[/quote]
except the governments of these countries, and more important the legal
systems, show no enthusiasm for jailing peasants. The use of home saved or
'illegal' gm seed is the norm in Brazil, and very common in Argentina or
India, indeed in India the local peasant farmers have taken to crossbreeding
monsanto GM varieties with local varieties to produce more useful crops.
Jim Webster

Jim Webster · Guest

"Martin Branson" <nybranson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
[quote]
Exactly. And when this manipulation is aimed at turning peasant
farmers into prisoners of debt, blue flashing lights should come on.
[/quote]
except the governments of these countries, and more important the legal
systems, show no enthusiasm for jailing peasants. The use of home saved or
'illegal' gm seed is the norm in Brazil, and very common in Argentina or
India, indeed in India the local peasant farmers have taken to crossbreeding
monsanto GM varieties with local varieties to produce more useful crops.
Jim Webster

Jim Webster · Guest

"Martin Branson" <nybranson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
[quote]
Exactly. And when this manipulation is aimed at turning peasant
farmers into prisoners of debt, blue flashing lights should come on.
[/quote]
except the governments of these countries, and more important the legal
systems, show no enthusiasm for jailing peasants. The use of home saved or
'illegal' gm seed is the norm in Brazil, and very common in Argentina or
India, indeed in India the local peasant farmers have taken to crossbreeding
monsanto GM varieties with local varieties to produce more useful crops.
Jim Webster

Martin Branson · Guest

Jim Webster wrote:

[quote]except the governments of these countries, and more important the legal
systems, show no enthusiasm for jailing peasants. The use of home saved or
'illegal' gm seed is the norm in Brazil, and very common in Argentina or
India, indeed in India the local peasant farmers have taken to crossbreeding
monsanto GM varieties with local varieties to produce more useful crops.
[/quote]
Which brings up the more important point: Monsanto>s only interest in
gaining legal status for GMO crops in Brazil is so that they can get
paid. After all, they can hardly expect the government>s help in
collecting license fees for seeds in a nation where it is illegal to
grow them.

Monsanto>s pledge makes them sound more like the United Way than
Enron. If they are going to chase a buck even if it means banging
around a few third world farmers, perhaps they should revise the
pledge.

Oz · Guest

Martin Branson <nybranson@hotmail.com> writes
[quote]Which brings up the more important point: Monsanto>s only interest in
gaining legal status for GMO crops in Brazil is so that they can get
paid. After all, they can hardly expect the government>s help in
collecting license fees for seeds in a nation where it is illegal to
grow them.

Monsanto>s pledge makes them sound more like the United Way than
Enron. If they are going to chase a buck even if it means banging
around a few third world farmers, perhaps they should revise the
pledge.
[/quote]
Get real. Brazil and argentina world dominate soya exports and
increasingly cereals. They aren>t a load of illiterate peasants but very
effective and usually very large farmers.

After all, when you have cleared the rainforest or pampas you are left
with a continent of good land to grow crops on with just a little
fertiliser required.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

Jim Webster · Guest

"Martin Branson" <nybranson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f2f860a1.0310021712.312e5881@posting.google.com...
[quote]Jim Webster wrote:

except the governments of these countries, and more important the legal
systems, show no enthusiasm for jailing peasants. The use of home saved
or
'illegal' gm seed is the norm in Brazil, and very common in Argentina or
India, indeed in India the local peasant farmers have taken to
crossbreeding
monsanto GM varieties with local varieties to produce more useful crops.

Which brings up the more important point: Monsanto>s only interest in
gaining legal status for GMO crops in Brazil is so that they can get
paid. After all, they can hardly expect the government>s help in
collecting license fees for seeds in a nation where it is illegal to
grow them.
[/quote]
except that in many countries you still cannot patent living organisms or
genes, hence in Argentina and India where growing GM is legal, the farmers
still grow home saved seed and don>t pay anyone anything

Jim Webster

Jim Webster · Guest

"Oz" <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:9zwwkPC3cQf$Ew5l@btopenworld.com...

[quote]Monsanto>s pledge makes them sound more like the United Way than
Enron. If they are going to chase a buck even if it means banging
around a few third world farmers, perhaps they should revise the
pledge.

Get real. Brazil and argentina world dominate soya exports and
increasingly cereals. They aren>t a load of illiterate peasants but very
effective and usually very large farmers.

After all, when you have cleared the rainforest or pampas you are left
with a continent of good land to grow crops on with just a little
fertiliser required.
[/quote]
this year for the first time ever Argentina and Brazil together produced
more Soya than the US (GM of course). They are the big boys now.

Jim Webster

Oz · Guest

Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> writes

[quote]Get real. Brazil and argentina world dominate soya exports and
increasingly cereals.
[/quote]
Just reading the (UK) economist.

P53. Extracts:

Rio Grande du sul .... planting seed smuggled in from nearly argentina
....already accounts for 10-20% of brazil>s total (soya production).

Within five years brazil will be the world>s largest soya producer.
[USDA]

[chart]

2002-2003 argentina and brazil produce as much as the US (soya).

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

Jez · Guest

"Charles Hawtrey" <chawtrey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f7b496b.11472428@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
[quote]nybranson@hotmail.com (Martin Branson) staggered to the nearest
keyboard and wrote:

What about "golden rice"? It was my impression that this was intended
for adoption in less-developed countries.
[/quote]
'a woman would need to eat 16 lbs. of cooked rice every day in order to get
sufficient Vitamin A, if golden rice were her only source of the nutrient. A
child would need 12 lbs. More realistically, three servings of ½ lb. cooked
golden rice per day would provide only 10% of her daily Vitamin A
requirement, and less than 6% if she were breast-feeding. Yet even these
modest contributions are uncertain. In order to absorb beta carotene, the
human body requires adequate amounts of zinc, protein and fats, elements
often lacking in the diets of poor people. Those with diarrhea - common in
developing countries - are also unable to obtain vitamin A from golden
rice.'

http://www.foe.org/safefood/rice.html

--
Ho hum
Jez
"Few of us can easily surrender our belief that
society must somehow make sense. The thought
that the State has lost its mind and is punishing so
many innocent people is intolerable. And so the
evidence has to be internally denied."
- Arthur Miller

Jim Webster · Guest

"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:3f7ed0f8$0$6626$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
[quote]
"Charles Hawtrey" <chawtrey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f7b496b.11472428@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
nybranson@hotmail.com (Martin Branson) staggered to the nearest
keyboard and wrote:

What about "golden rice"? It was my impression that this was intended
for adoption in less-developed countries.

'a woman would need to eat 16 lbs. of cooked rice every day in order to
get
sufficient Vitamin A, if golden rice were her only source of the nutrient.
A
child would need 12 lbs. More realistically, three servings of ½ lb.
cooked
golden rice per day would provide only 10% of her daily Vitamin A
requirement, and less than 6% if she were breast-feeding.
[/quote]
so what
if she doesn>t get the golden rice she is 10% down on her daily requirement,
so by eating golden rice she is 10% better than she would be

Jim Webster

Oz · Guest

Jim Webster <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> writes
[quote]so what
if she doesn>t get the golden rice she is 10% down on her daily requirement,
so by eating golden rice she is 10% better than she would be
[/quote]
Probably more because they are probably well below requirement anyway.
If they were running at (say) 20% of requirement (they must be very low
to get blindness) then 10% of full requirement would increase their
intake by 50%. This might well be enough to seriously mitigate the
diseases.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Agriculture Forum	Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 1 of 6