A $770 million food-aid package proposed by the Bush administration may also aid U.S. agribiz, as the feds have slipped in language promoting the use of genetically modified crops in developing countries. Proponents of bioengineering say that GM crops are hardier in harsh climates and can produce higher yields; opponents say that just ain't the case. The food-aid package must be approved by Congress, and even then it may face resistance: In 2002, African countries in the throes of extreme drought were highly wary of the U.S.'s offer of genetically modified sustenance, with some even turning it away.
source: Los Angeles Times
see also, in Gristmill: Worldwide resistance to GMOs dwindles as food bills rise
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Will Africa’s farmland become a ‘resource curse’?
Comments
View as Threaded
BlackBear Posted 4:25 am
19 May 2008
All reports and claims must be peer reviewed and verified by independent researchers not affiliated with the company or industry.
I have long since realized that scientists are much better at graphs and technical jargon than I will ever be and they can make most anything look like their analysis is correct. However, it is simply not possible for both studies to be correct in this case; either GM crops are better able to deal with extreme climates or they are not.
Can I get a second my motion?
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:32 am
19 May 2008
What makes this Nazi science so potentially harmful is that GE crops contaminate the natural world and this technology alters the basic building blocks of life. Problems caused by genetic engineering could thus easily be irreversible by the time they're discovered.
Getting into an argument about whether certain ecologically destructive methods of agriculture may produce higher yields is a losing proposition. The agribusiness companies that promote genetic engineering can spend fortunes on phony scientists who will say that they do, and it will be the global warming debate redux. And what if Franken crops do produce higher yields, but they still cause ecological harm?
Permalink
KevinMichael Posted 4:16 pm
19 May 2008
Take the 'GM' food and shut up. Better yet, redirect every dollar currently funding domestic food aid and ship it to any nation that APPRECIATES it. If you live in this country and cannot feed yourself or your family you are worthless and should go hungry.
I wish our cowardly politicians would just do what makes sense. Instead they burden hard working people with the problems of those who do not work or make poor decisions in life, i.e. Food Stamps, Medicaid, Universal Healthcare, subsidized housing, etc.
Permalink
usandthem Posted 9:59 pm
19 May 2008
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:05 am
20 May 2008
"The Bush administration has added a controversial ingredient to the $770-million aid package it recently proposed to ease the world food crisis: language that would promote the use of genetically modified crops in food-deprived countries."
Exactly what "language" did the Bush administration add to the aid package?
Toward the middle of the article...
"It would direct the U.S. Agency for International Development to spend $150 million of the total aid package on development farming, which would include the use of genetically modified crops."
Exactly what is "development farming"? (They certainly don't mean growing houses!)
Does the language force GMOs on the people, promote GMOs, or simply include GMOs?
Permalink
Anastasia Posted 5:42 am
20 May 2008
Just giving food to impoverished nations is little more than a band aid on a chest wound. Helping those countries to develop agricultural programs that boost productivity is the only way they'll ever climb out of poverty.
Federal aid programs used to spend a lot of money and effort on agricultural science in developing nations. Unfortunately, funding waned as people in wealthy countries decided that they themselves no longer needed ag science. Thankfully, those same programs are again realizing the need to empower farmers in developing countries by helping those countries develop their own ag science. Now, when I say ag science, I am not necessarily referring to artificial input intensive farming. The exact farming methods will obviously vary depending on crop, location, water, etc.
It is true that big seed companies do the majority of research and production of both transgenic and conventional seed. They are the only ones who can afford it! Government funding isn't available, possibly due to negative public opinion for any technology in farming. Happily, the seed companies are recognizing the need to have different licensing for small subsistence farmers and for large money making farms. This will make improved crops available to the people who need it most. This section of the food bill reflects this, and considers the benefits of crops like virus-resistant papya, drought-resistant cassava, and submergence-tolerant rice.
The example you provide from 2002 is a case in point. The Africans were wary of and turning away food aid simply because groups like FOE told them to. The grain wasn't "untested" or "toxic", despite what the anti-science propaganda said, and has been eaten safely by Americans since the 1980s. Fear mongering helps no one, and has caused the deaths of many. Keeping developing countries from investigating ag technologies like genetic engineering for themselves is simply pastoralism. We may idealize the simple life of the farmer, but shouldn't project that on people who deserve choices.
As for the "just ain't the case" link, I say again that you should check your facts. Dr. Barney Gordon himself wrote in Seed Today that his reasearch was misrepresented in the Independent article. I extensively reviewed the article in my blog post, Exposed, Indeed.
Permalink
Anastasia Posted 6:01 am
20 May 2008
The language seems to include genetic engineering as one of many possible agricultural improvements. Honestly, I don't understand why they included one specific technology, they should include all, or at least a general sampling (... which would include the use of genetically modified crops and crops that are bred for specific traits, the use of synthetic fertilizers and organic fertilizers ...). I don't think it's controversial at all, but it was poorly expressed. Alternatively, they wanted people to make a stink about it?
Development farming refers to either encouraging governments to teach farmers or teaching the farmers directly about improved farming methods. Especially in Africa, farmers are using traditional methods that are no longer effective. For example, one traditional way to restore fertility to soil is to let is lay fallow for 8-12 years - something that isn't an option with increased population size, etc.
As Mark Rosegrant says in the article, genetic engineering isn't the only technology that should be included, but it shouldn't be excluded either. It should be noted (as it wasn't in the article) that many scientists and even seed companies are developing improved crops that will be better able to withstand harsh environmental conditions that don't necessarily require huge amounts of inputs. They are integrating the traits (either with breeding or GE) into local varieties that are already somewhat suited for the local conditions. As I said in my other comment, these improved crops are being developed with the intent of distributing them for free or at very low cost to the people who need them, with only large farmers paying full price.
Permalink