1
   

Europe hits back at Bush in GM row

 
 
frolic
 
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2003 06:36 am
Quote:
BRUSSELS, Belgium --Europe has defended its refusal to accept genetically modified foods, following renewed criticism by U.S. President George W. Bush.

On Monday, Bush told a biotechnology conference in Washington that a ban by the European Union on GM crops was contributing to famine in Africa -- a contention Europe rejects.

"For the sake of a continent threatened by famine, I urge the European governments to end their opposition to biotechnology," said Bush, who has previously said that GM crops could "dramatically'' boost productivity.

"We should encourage the spread of safe, effective biotechnology to win the fight against global hunger."

But European Commission spokesman Reijo Kemppinen replied: "The fact is that we in Europe have chosen to do some things differently from the United States. As regards (GM crops), we simply believe that it is better to be safe than sorry.

"This is a highly sensitive issue in all our member states. The European Commission respects that and so should the United States," Reuters quoted him as saying.

On Tuesday, commission spokesman Gerassimos Thomas told a Brussels news briefing: "The suggestions made by the United States are simply not true. ... It is false that we are anti-biotechnology or anti-developing countries."

The 15-nation EU hands out seven times more development aid than the United States, Thomas said.

U.S. corn farmers say the EU's five-year-old GM trade barrier is costing them about $300 million in annual sales to Europe -- and is blocking access to African markets.

The European Union says it has done nothing to turn African countries away from GM foods, and that it provides more aid to Africa than the U.S.

Last week, Washington announced it would file a formal complaint with the World Trade Organization, demanding that it force the EU to end its GM ban. An initial ruling could come next spring.

Speaking to the Biotechnology Industry Association, Bush said: "Acting on unfounded, unscientific fears, many European governments have blocked the import of all new biotech crops.

"Because of these artificial obstacles, many African nations avoid investing in biotechnology, worried that their products will be shut out of important European markets."

The United States is the world leader in biotech crops, with gene-spliced varieties accounting for 75 percent of U.S. soybeans, 71 percent of cotton and 34 percent of corn, Reuters reported. Biotech company Monsanto wants to bring biotech wheat to market.

Biotech firms say GM seeds resist insects and disease, requiring less pesticide. They also say GM food is not dangerous.

Last month ActionAid, a known opponent of GM technology, said GM crops were "irrelevant" to poor farmers' needs and could push them deeper into debt as they become more reliant on expensive seeds and chemicals.

Alex Wijeratna from ActionAid also told CNN modified food could be a "threat" to the survival of Africa's poor and hungry.

He said ActionAid had studied scientific evidence that it claimed proved that GM crops did not produce a greater yield.

Find this article at:
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/06/24/biotech.us.europe/index.html


Bush makes a big mistake. He blames Europe for letting Africa starve because they are still against GM crops. IMHO opinion its the industry letting Africa starve. Its the mining companies benefiting from civil war in Congo. The same for the diamondindustry in Sierra Leone, lumber, .... They profit from the chaos in Africa to loot the continent. Its also the same companies that will pay for his re-election so Bush was seeking for a scapegoat, easy to pick on. The saddest thing is most americans buy this Bush-****.

I guess Bush can use his typical diplomacy efforts to solve this issue. Threatening, bribing and blackmailing. This is again proves Bush is a puppet on a string held by big corporations.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,502 • Replies: 71
No top replies

 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2003 11:27 am
Quote:
U.S. corn farmers say the EU's five-year-old GM trade barrier is costing them about $300 million in annual sales to Europe -- and is blocking access to African markets.


Oh wah, boohoo! What about market-based capitalism. How ridiculous that we are trying to force feed europe anything it doesn't want. If they're not buying it sell them something they will buy.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2003 11:37 am
Well, at least Bush seems to be trying to do something about famine in Africa (bold mine)...
Quote:
Guardian Unlimited: Geldof back in Ethiopia <-Link

Bob Geldof astonished the aid community yesterday by using a return visit to Ethiopia to praise the Bush administration as one of Africa's best friends in its fight against hunger and Aids.

The musician-turned activist said Washington was providing major assistance, in contrast to the European Union's "pathetic and appalling" response to the continent's humanitarian crises.

"You'll think I'm off my trolley when I say this, but the Bush administration is the most radical - in a positive sense - in its approach to Africa since Kennedy," Geldof told the Guardian.

The neo-conservatives and religious rightwingers who surrounded President George Bush were proving unexpectedly receptive to appeals for help, he said. "You can get the weirdest politicians on your side."

Former president Bill Clinton had not helped Africa much, despite his high-profile visits and apparent empathy with the downtrodden, the organiser of Live Aid, claimed. "Clinton was a good guy, but he did **** all."

His comments, made on the first day of a week-long visit intended to put Africa on the agenda of the G8 summit in France at the weekend, caught off-guard some aid organisations that have accused Washington of using its food aid as a covert subsidy for American farmers.

...
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2003 12:53 pm
Unfortunately, Scrat, a new study released by Third World Network-Africa offers new evidence against claims of the miracle potential of genetically modified crops for dealing with famine and poverty in Africa:
GMOs Not Answer to Poverty/Hunger in Africa
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2003 12:55 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Unfortunately, Scrat, a new study released by Third World Network-Africa offers new evidence against claims of the miracle potential of genetically modified crops for dealing with famine and poverty in Africa:
GMOs Not Answer to Poverty/Hunger in Africa

And of course that group has no bias against GM foods.

Walter, this is very simple. There is food available to feed these people and it is not getting to them simply because it is GM food. I bet if you asked those people whether they would rather starve or eat GM food they would say "bring it on".
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2003 01:20 pm
Scrat wrote:
There is food available to feed these people and it is not getting to them simply because it is GM food.


That's just as well - in my and many others opinion, at least

Scrat wrote:
I bet if you asked those people whether they would rather starve or eat GM food they would say "bring it on".


True, and same happens with dog/cat food, decomposed food ...
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2003 02:06 pm
Walter - Let the record show that you and yours would rather people starve than accept new and demonstrably safe food technology. GM food is not dog food. GM food is not decomposed food. GM food is food engineered to grow more abundantly or to be resistant to those elements that reduce usable crop yields. It is the height of hubris and the depth of depravity that people with plenty to eat would deny food to those who are starving and do so out of simple, willful ignorance. People are starving so that you and yours can make a political point. Well done! Sad
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2003 02:10 pm
I know that I am making an active effort not to eat GM food. It's far too much of a risk, IMO. I know that it is possible to grow non-GM food which would be safe to eat anywhere in the world, and that everyone feels safe with. Why mess with that? No good reason I can think of.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2003 02:17 pm
And their lots of state and non-profit agencies doing so in Africa, ehBeth.

Unfortunately, Scrat might say, not from the USA ... and not using US-"material": No profit=no good.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2003 02:18 pm
Walter, I know that. I'm an old '10 days for world development gal'. :wink:
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2003 02:20 pm
better living through chemistry, Thalidomide comes to mind.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2003 02:28 pm
The answer is very simple. The Europeans are protecting the markets of their farmers. GM food was sent to one of the starving African nations and was rejected and why. Because the EU had convinced them it was unsafe. Which was fairly simple since they were dealing with an uneducated and superstitious populace.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2003 02:34 pm
I'm not convinced it's safe. Are you? Would you let your children or grandchildren eat GM food?

I didn't need any europeans to convince me it was unsafe. No one's convinced me it is safe.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2003 02:34 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
And their lots of state and non-profit agencies doing so in Africa, ehBeth.

Unfortunately, Scrat might say, not from the USA ... and not using US-"material": No profit=no good.

Walter, I will thank you to let me "say" what it is I "would say". I don't put words in your mouth, please don't put them in mine.

This is not--for me--about business. This is about the insanity of some people being allowed to starve because other people are too boneheaded to accept scientific facts. That people are starving because some people are too ignorant or too committed to a political position to allow them to eat... I can't find words for it. The thought of it brings tears to my eyes.

Can anyone offer me a SINGLE example of a person being harmed by GM food? Just one? No? Yet you are willing to let people starve rather than let them eat GM food. The words I would use to describe such people are not appropriate for this public forum.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2003 02:35 pm
I'm also pretty sure that I'm not superstitious, and my degrees suggest I have some minimal ability to think critically.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2003 02:37 pm
scrat - GM food is not required to feed people. There is no known benefit, nutritionally. So send non-GM food and we can all relax.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2003 02:40 pm
actually i don't know whether its safe to eat or not...seems to be like global warming, the debate continues.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2003 02:43 pm
Scrat wrote:
Walter, I will thank you to let me "say" what it is I "would say". I don't put words in your mouth, please don't put them in mine.


Sorry Scrat.

Obviously the use of the subjunctive is different in American English to the British English I've learnt.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2003 02:46 pm
ehBeth wrote:
I'm not convinced it's safe. Are you? Would you let your children or grandchildren eat GM food? ... I didn't need any europeans to convince me it was unsafe. No one's convinced me it is safe.

Have you read any of the research on it, or just assumed it is unsafe because others who are equally uninformed told you so? Can you cite for me the scientific, double-blind studies you've read on the subject? Which ones indicated there was a danger in consuming GM food? Just one, maybe?

Now, tell us again how "no one has convinced me it is safe".
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2003 02:51 pm
au1929 wrote:
The answer is very simple. The Europeans are protecting the markets of their farmers. GM food was sent to one of the starving African nations and was rejected and why. Because the EU had convinced them it was unsafe. Which was fairly simple since they were dealing with an uneducated and superstitious populace.


I think AU hit it right on the head.

ehBeth,
GM corn has the ability to grow under drought conditions. GM Soybeans have inherit germicides that keep bugs from devestating entire crops...I think if the non-GM did this there would be no need for it, would there?

I am convinced it's safe.

At this point the only arguement we should be having is the ethics involved in copyrighting plants and making farmers pay for seeds each year.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Europe hits back at Bush in GM row
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/27/2024 at 06:07:53