if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Liberal Cornpone
In the comments section of my post on rice exports, Hal mentioned Africa’s opposition to GM crops. Here’s more on the subject, coming, of course, from the Best Magazine In The World.
In May 2002, in the midst of a severe food shortage in sub-Saharan Africa, the government of Zimbabwe turned away 10,000 tons of corn from the World Food Program (WFP). The WFP then diverted the food to other countries, including Zambia, where 2.5 million people were in need. The Zambian government locked away the corn, banned its distribution, and stopped another shipment on its way to the country. “Simply because my people are hungry,” President Levy Mwanawasa later said, “is no justification to give them poison.”
The corn came from farms in the United States, where most corn produced—and consumed—comes from seeds that have been engineered to resist some pests, and thus qualifies as genetically modified. Throughout the 90s, genetically modified foods were seen as holding promise for the farmers of Africa, so long as multinationals would invest in developing superior African crops rather than extend the technology only to the rich. When Zambia and Zimbabwe turned away food aid, simmering controversy over the crops themselves brimmed over and seeped into almost every African state. Cast as toxic to humans, destructive to the environment, and part of a corporate plot to immiserate the poor, cutting edge farming technology is most feared where it is most needed. As Robert Paarlberg notes in his new book, Starved for Science: How Biotechnology is Being Kept Out of Africa (Harvard University Press), in 2004 the Sudanese government “took time out from its genocidal suppression of a rebellion in Darfur to issue a memorandum requiring that all food aid brought into the country should be certified as free of any GM ingredients.”
Starved for Science includes forwards by both Jimmy Carter and Norman Borlaug, the architect of Asia’s Green Revolution and the man credited with saving more human lives than anyone else in history. Paarlberg, a Professor of Political Science at Wellesley and a specialist in agricultural policy, wants the West to help small African farmers obtain promising technologies just as it helped Asia discover biological breakthroughs in the 60s and 70s. Instead, he says, a coalition of European governments and African elites are promoting a Western vision of rustic, low-productivity labor.
Wow, it almost sounds as if European and American liberal elites want people to stay scared and hungry so that they can have a group that they can claim to be helping. It almost sounds...Colonialist.
Comments
Sorry for the rant. I’m in a rush. I didn’t even get a chance to preview it. Back in a couple of houras.
- Stogy
Yes. It is. Games are being played with people’s lives. But the decision to send this corn to Africa was pretty much the same. The idea was to force African nations, who don’t want GMOs or product derivatives to take them, so US producers could say “See. We told you it wasn’t poisonous.” But it was still colonialist. And denies countries the right to decide what they will and won’t eat. After all, the US has and enforces this right in the name of food safety. Why send a product you know won’t be eaten unless a) you are trying to score political points b) you are trying to push a product that otherwise people won’t eat and c) there was a c but I can’t remember what it is.
I don’t understand your definition of ‘force’. All foreign aid is about political points. So what? If it prevents people from starving, how is it a bad thing? This paragraphs makes sense if you ignore individual rights and pretend that nations are sentient. Offering GM crops to poor nations is not force. A nation cannot decide to not consume GMOs, and food aid doesn’t deny people the right to decide what they will and won’t eat. What can happen, is that corrupt governments run by kleptocrats who aren’t starving can use the law to prevent citizens from having access to GM foods. If people don’t want GM foods, why do they need to be blocked by force?
GM food is not proven to be
a) safe for people (long term). We have no idea of its effects in terms of promoting drug resistance within the human body. Some, but still not enough research into the effects of its chemical and biological characteristics as regards potential allergens and other health problems.
b) safe for the environment (also long term and even short term). We don’t know the effects of distributing genetic material throughout the ecosystem (through horizontal gene transfer), no idea of the effects of introducing a genetic property that effectively makes one genetic characteristic of a plant the same (what will happen to the insects that feed off it).
GM crops have been researched for decades with few significant negatives having been discovered. They aren’t flawless, but the positives outweigh the negatives 10 to 1. The standard of security you are relying on is not tenable for anyone living in a modern society. Define “long term”. Tons of modern things, from make-up to computers to sunscreen haven’t been studied for the “long term.” Unless you grow all of your own food and most of your consumer goods, every day you are exposing your body to thousands of things who’s “long term” affects we may never know.
We don’t know what the fuck we’re doing with this stuff. Instead, we let a semi-criminal company trick, bribe and extort its way to getting FDA approval and then just see what happens. Cane Toads anyone??
First sentence is sheer presumption. As for the rest: I hate the FDA too.
I might approve this stuff if you could show me that it works over a 100 year period.
Two quick things: A. Apply this standard to any facet of human existence and invention and there would be no progress neither technologically nor culturally. Even if we had strong AI that could perfectly map the 100 year consequences of new technology (which we don’t have and may never have) it could never account for changes in society and technology and so such a prediction would be useless. We can’t know how anything will work over a 100 year period because in a 100 years we will probably have advanced beyond it.
B. The “I might approve” would matter if it were your place to approve of what people choose to put in their bodies. But it’s not. There’s that individual rights thing again. If you don’t want to eat GM crops because you think they’re poison that’s your business, just as my friends can smoke and put cancer in their bodies all they want. The difference here is that denying people the right to inhale tar and carbon monoxide doesn’t lead to thousands of unnecessary excruciating deaths, whereas blocking GM foods sort of does.
And THEN there is the fact that Africa is MORE THAN CAPABLE of producing a food surplus, if only the US and the EU stopped dumping its food produce on the international markets. The problem is not that there isn’t enough food, the problem is that the poor people (particularly the rural poor) don’t have enough money to buy enough nutritious food to support themselves!! Give people jobs and an economy (and yes, that IS a US responsibility, for as long as it continues to undermine trade in the developing world) and they will have smaller families (less risk of the kids dying), invest more in their own education (a future means planning for the future) and they will improve their livelihood.
Western farm subsidies and protectionism are criminal. No disagreement here. But stopping the practice of crop dumping won’t solve the fundamental problems in many of these countries, which include the lack of property rights, rule of law, consistent predictable civil institutions, and responsive accountable political and judicial systems. Blocking GM crops is actually a symptom of this problem. Through some masterful logic jiujitsu, you argued that offering free GM crops is “denying people the right to decide what they’ll eat,” and governments blocking starving people from these crops is choosing to “not let GMOs take them.”
It’s hard to exercise political rights when you’re starving. Allowing people to decide whether or not to eat GM crops would be a step in the right direction since it enfranchise people and alleviates some of the suffering.
So don’t give me a fucking lecture on liberals and colonialism. It’s there. Right in your face!!
Exclamation points tend to weaken rather than strengthen arguments. Ironically!! Though if they work for you, here’s an exclamation I always liked on this subject.
(on the subject of restricting GM foods and telling people what they can eat) “Unless you and your family are starving, SHUT THE FUCK UP”
~ Penn Gillete
Why am I in Australia now, by the way? Unless my window is lying to me, I’m still in Tokyo by the glorious river Tamagawa. Must be a government conspiracy related to the Kennedy assassination. Or it could be some computer thing. Whatevz.
I don’t understand your definition of ‘force’. All foreign aid is about political points. So what? If it prevents people from starving, how is it a bad thing?
You gotta think it through, man. This isn’t just about the corn.
This donation, as you pretty much admit, had everything to do with politics and nothing to do with food aid. They asked for Casava - which turns out to be what people in Zambia eat, and the US sends corn. The government asks the WFP for the funds to buy the surplus food from the Northern part of Zambia and distribute it in the south - thus supporting local prices and farmers and possibly preventing the same thing happening a couple of years down the track, but no, the US decides to help its own farmers by sending corn. The US has other non GMO crops it could have sent, but no, they sent GM corn. What do Zambians need corn for? Brewing beer, as it turns out.
OK. So they take the corn. They don’t eat corn - mostly its used for brewing beer. So some is planted. The GM seeds enter the food chain and then what?
Zambia can’t sell the food abroad. Exports are undermined. The mainly rural workforce can’t earn enough to live on. Cycle repeats.
But hey, don’t take my word for it:
The situation similar to that of Zambia reoccurred in both Angola and Sudan in 2004. Both countries initially rejected GM grains but were pressured to receive the aid through some political manoeuvrings. In both Zambia and Angola, while there were food shortages in one region, there were food surpluses in other regions. The Zambian situation deserves further attention. The food shortage was mainly in the Southern region while the Northern parts had a surplus of 300,000 MT of cassava, a major local staple for up to 30% of the people. The Zambian government requested that the World Food Programme should use local foods such as cassava to meet the emergency situation, but the WFP refused to finance this and chose to buy and ship in barley from the USA. The Zambians use barley to brew beer and do not consume it as a staple food.
Point to note here is that supplying foods that are alien to people would only promote dependency on seed companies and donor nations and also opens nations to dumping of excess products from elsewhere. This can never engender food security.
So instead helping them access the resources that they really needed, the US decides to put on a little show - aren’t we nice. We gave them all that food, but they said ‘no’. That’s not our fault [shrugs]. They didn’t want it.
Offering GM crops to poor nations is not force
Offering? Um… I don’t think they were ‘offered’ at any stage. Zambia said what they needed, and that’s not what they got. Granted, beggars can’t be chosers, but you would think that with a food surplus in one part of the country, it might just make sense to buy that food and send it south.
Not force perhaps, but it was kind of thuggish. The US knew it was going to win either way, whether they took the corn or not. They had no real choice in the matter - they either lose their right to decide what they eat, or they lose the food that is sent? It’s an attempt at economic, technological and agricultural colonisation. How is that not colonialist?
GM crops have been researched for decades with few significant negatives having been discovered. They aren’t flawless, but the positives outweigh the negatives 10 to 1. The standard of security you are relying on is not tenable for anyone living in a modern society. Define “long term”. Tons of modern things, from make-up to computers to sunscreen haven’t been studied for the “long term.” Unless you grow all of your own food and most of your consumer goods, every day you are exposing your body to thousands of things who’s “long term” affects we may never know.
Actually, the ‘few’ negatives you are talking about are not few and not minor. Some of the work I used to do here concerned horizontal gene transfer from one organism to another. There are still unanswered questions about horizontal gene transfer, terminator seeds and the simple fact that a reduction in biodiversity creates much greater pressure and therefore potential for opportunistic organisms to mutate into stronger forms. It’s slow, but 100 years should be enough to predict any major problems.
And don’t forget the cane toads.
It’s hard to exercise political rights when you’re starving. Allowing people to decide whether or not to eat GM crops would be a step in the right direction since it enfranchise people and alleviates some of the suffering.
Yes. It’s also a great time for people to take advantage of you:
How much for the little girls?
It might sound like a joke, but I’m completely serious. The US was taking advantage of these people for its own ends. Like a salesman trying to sell a set of encyclopedias to an illiterate family, promising them a free set of steakknives easily worth the thousand bucks.
Exclamation points tend to weaken rather than strengthen arguments. Ironically!! Though if they work for you, here’s an exclamation I always liked on this subject.
I wasn’t feeling particularly rational this morning. I am ‘better’ now. :)
Why am I in Australia now, by the way? Unless my window is lying to me, I’m still in Tokyo by the glorious river Tamagawa. Must be a government conspiracy related to the Kennedy assassination. Or it could be some computer thing. Whatevz.
wtf you doing in Tokyo? You’re only just up the road from me (give or take a couple of hours). Cherry blossoms out there yet?
The “I might approve” would matter if it were your place to approve of what people choose to put in their bodies. But it’s not. There’s that individual rights thing again. If you don’t want to eat GM crops because you think they’re poison that’s your business, just as my friends can smoke and put cancer in their bodies all they want.
Sorry - I missed this argument. I quite agree. People can eat what they like. Provided it doesn’t affect other people, then I don’t care.
However, that’s not my point all. The point is that if the use of GMOs threatens my food supply, threatens the physical safety of my food, threatens my environment, then we have a problem. Now it’s actually almost impossible in the US to get through a day without consuming some kind of GM food - most of it not labeled. The only way I could do so, when I am back there, is to join an alternative community. And even then, there would be the chance of some kind of knock on from a neighboring farmer’s field. Now where is MY consuner choice. I don’t get to decide that I don’t want to eat it.
Monsanto, it should be said, don’t actually want GM labels on food. With BGH milk, they actually equate labeling with a “ban” on their product. It’s just like someone (here?) said (yesterday?) - megacorporations and left wing fundies - neither of them really want free or fair trade.
However, that’s not my point all. The point is that if the use of GMOs threatens my food supply, threatens the physical safety of my food, threatens my environment, then we have a problem. Now it’s actually almost impossible in the US to get through a day without consuming some kind of GM food - most of it not labeled. The only way I could do so, when I am back there, is to join an alternative community. And even then, there would be the chance of some kind of knock on from a neighboring farmer’s field. Now where is MY consuner choice. I don’t get to decide that I don’t want to eat it.
Labeling would be a bigger issue if there were evidence that GM foods negatively affected people in some way. The fact that they aren’t even required to is suggestive considering how ridiculous caution labeling has gotten. Products only need labels that are relevant to the product’s safety. Cheerios don’t need to plaster their boxes with labels about what fertilizer they employed or what color tractor they used because it has no impact on the product’s safety. Consumer choice only goes so far; there’s always organic foods and a market for people who want to avoid GMOs, but it’s pretty small, so you just have to deal like all those folks who want their shoes made by family guilds and artisans instead of big companies.
Not force perhaps, but it was kind of thuggish. The US knew it was going to win either way, whether they took the corn or not. They had no real choice in the matter - they either lose their right to decide what they eat, or they lose the food that is sent? It’s an attempt at economic, technological and agricultural colonisation. How is that not colonialist?
The “beggars can’t be choosers” point is right, and again, of course the US has an interest in giving away free food. Hell, we pay farmers to destroy crops in this country. Our agricultural policy is criminal, as I said, but it’s not colonization. It would be better if we were trading fairly with these countries, and opening our own food markets to help them develop their own economies. Nevertheless, governments blocking starving people from foods that have no proven safety risks is even more criminal. Those countries’ leaders and activists in the west can comfortably lecture suffering people in the 3rd world because we AREN’T starving.
We could have let the Zambians dictate exactly how we would try and help them, and certainly our hands aren’t totally clean, but ultimately, food aid is not “exploitive” unless you’re being metaphorical. If it were, anytime you helped someone in a way that mutually benefited you and didn’t exactly match what that person wanted, you’d be exploiting them. My friend needs a ride his job, but his Prius broke down. I offer him a ride in my SUV since I need to go to 7/11 anyway. Are my hands dirty since I have an ulterior motive, or am I exploiting him or denying him the right to not use SUVs?
Actually, the ‘few’ negatives you are talking about are not few and not minor. Some of the work I used to do here concerned horizontal gene transfer from one organism to another. There are still unanswered questions about horizontal gene transfer, terminator seeds and the simple fact that a reduction in biodiversity creates much greater pressure and therefore potential for opportunistic organisms to mutate into stronger forms. It’s slow, but 100 years should be enough to predict any major problems.
And don’t forget the cane toads.
Yeah, I’ve read a bit about gene transfer and some potential issues. Most of the concerns I have seen are not about how they affect humans but the environment, which is legitimate. Still, both the free market and gobs of government regulation have stood in favor of GMOs and unless I see meaningful evidence that the negatives outweigh the positives, I’ll remain unconvinced. The 100 years standard is absurd, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep researching GMOs and studying their effects, so in a sense, I’m with you.
And I didn’t forget the cane toads. I remember them always, much like Poland.
wtf you doing in Tokyo? You’re only just up the road from me (give or take a couple of hours). Cherry blossoms out there yet?
Ugh, I went to the cherry blossoms yesterday at Yasukuni shrine and the imperial palace. It was so freaking crowded. Old people can be pretty pushy when it comes to flower photography. I’m not even going to bother next year.
I’m teaching English and writing video game reviews for now. What’s your excuse?
Sorry - I only just got back to this.
I have a lot more to say on this, but little time (so no links). I will say that a lot of the research proving the safety of GMOs is done by industry scientists, and is not necessarily free of bias.
A number of prominent medical research and practitioner organizations have warned against the possibility of side-effects from consuming GM foods - that enough should make the issue of labeling compulsory. One of my friends has been affected by this.
Ugh, I went to the cherry blossoms yesterday at Yasukuni shrine and the imperial palace. It was so freaking crowded. Old people can be pretty pushy when it comes to flower photography. I’m not even going to bother next year.
You gotta find the secret spots away from all the people.
Me? I’m out in the west. I work for a university - mostly research but a little teaching. I love it here - I’m never leaving.
Next entry: Play It Again, Scott
Previous entry: Tito Jackson Estates
I wish I had time to take this argument apart. But so much of the debate on both sides is just plain wrong.
Let’s start with this:
Yes. It is. Games are being played with people’s lives. But the decision to send this corn to Africa was pretty much the same. The idea was to force African nations, who don’t want GMOs or product derivatives to take them, so US producers could say “See. We told you it wasn’t poisonous.” But it was still colonialist. And denies countries the right to decide what they will and won’t eat. After all, the US has and enforces this right in the name of food safety. Why send a product you know won’t be eaten unless a) you are trying to score political points b) you are trying to push a product that otherwise people won’t eat and c) there was a c but I can’t remember what it is.
GM food is not proven to be
a) safe for people (long term). We have no idea of its effects in terms of promoting drug resistance within the human body. Some, but still not enough research into the effects of its chemical and biological characteristics as regards potential allergens and other health problems.
b) safe for the environment (also long term and even short term). We don’t know the effects of distributing genetic material throughout the ecosystem (through horizontal gene transfer), no idea of the effects of introducing a genetic property that effectively makes one genetic characteristic of a plant the same (what will happen to the insects that feed off it).
We don’t know what the fuck we’re doing with this stuff. Instead, we let a semi-criminal company trick, bribe and extort its way to getting FDA approval and then just see what happens. Cane Toads anyone??
I might approve this stuff if you could show me that it works over a 100 year period.
And THEN there is the fact that Africa is MORE THAN CAPABLE of producing a food surplus, if only the US and the EU stopped dumping its food produce on the international markets. The problem is not that there isn’t enough food, the problem is that the poor people (particularly the rural poor) don’t have enough money to buy enough nutritious food to support themselves!! Give people jobs and an economy (and yes, that IS a US responsibility, for as long as it continues to undermine trade in the developing world) and they will have smaller families (less risk of the kids dying), invest more in their own education (a future means planning for the future) and they will improve their livelihood.
So don’t give me a fucking lecture on liberals and colonialism. It’s there. Right in your face!!