Talks Collapse on U.S. Efforts to Open Europe to Biotech Food

Looks like the EU is holding strong in honoring the wishes of their citizens to keep GE foods out of EU countries. Strengthened in their position by the passage of the Carthage Protocol on Biosafety, an International Law, the EU is refusing to budge on their ban of bio-engineered foods, despite the whining of some gov't officials about how perfectly safe these foods are.... how the ban is hurting the U.S. efforts to fight hunger in Africa, among other pathetic claims....

>Genetically modified food - which can grow more quickly
than traditional crops and can be resistant to insects -
has caused scant controversy in the United States, where
people eat it every day. Almost 40 percent of all corn
planted in this country in genetically modified.<

the bush admin. loves to say that consumers in europe should be able to choose. but what about in america? if the gm crops are not labelled separately from the non-gm crops, there is NO ability to choose. and IF there were labels, WOULD 40% of corn grown in the u.s. be gm? that's a question monsanto, novartis, and cargill never, ever want to be in a position to have to answer. trade officials in the bush admin. and corporate argribusinesses could care less whether humans have an ability to choose between their products and someone else's. in fact, i think it's fair to say that in america at least, they DON'T want consumers to be able to choose.

secondly, i think this line that "because gm crops are safe, then there's no reason not to eat them", is a totally specious and bullshit argument. toyota's are safe. so should you have to buy a toyota if you'd rather buy a buick? of course not. it's not so much about the safety as it is about people want to be able to choose what food they ingest. it's called control over your freaking life.

i think a particularly ugly and disgusting example of the mindset of american trade officials was their outrage over starving africans refusing to eat american gm grain. i hope i wasn't the only one who was angry about this.

so here are starving people in africa, who just want some food aid. but what do trade representatives in washington, in their infinite wisdom, do? KNOWING that gm food is touchy subject in many parts of the world? they decide the only aid they're gonna send to those damn africans is gonna be gm grain.

the starving africans notice this and say what the fuck? we didn't ask for this. we don't want to eat this. please just help us. but what do trade representatives in washington do? do they actually listen to the starving africans? do they realize that maybe NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO PUSH GM PRODUCTS BECAUSE NOW IT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO JUST HELP STARVING PEOPLE BY GIVING THEM THE AID THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE GETTING? do they actually follow the american business mantra that "consumers always come first"?

no. they get pissed off and they DON'T send the aid the africans thought they were getting. essentially, their logic is this: "you'll eat our dog shit if that's the aid we give you. besides, you're so hungry, so you should want to eat our dog shit, right? you may be hungry, but we're gonna dictate what you eat." this is the disgusting mindset, and the type of men and women who are behind it.

thirdly, why is it wrong for the europeans to do this to gm food when america can the same thing to imported, foreign steel? again, either both europe AND america are totally wrong, OR, both europe AND america are totally justified, and countries being protective of their markets is just a natural part of doing business.

>The Bush administration and agricultural businesses view
the policy as simple protectionism because American
companies, which dominate the biotechnology industry,would
benefit most from lifting the ban. Without it, American
companies would export about $300 billion more in corn each
year than they do now, according to the American Farm
Bureau Federation.<

this is what massive agribusiness putting all their eggs in the gm basket looks like. is the bush admin. putting the same effort into doing this for non-gm american crops? of course not. the big, poweful agribusinesses have totally become single-minded, one-hitch wagons.

furthermore, ONLY large argribusinesses could BE the ones to come up with gm crops. they are the only ones with the resources to do the r&d. and furthermore, ONLY corporate agribusiness could BE the ones to try and dominate and lockdown the worldwide agriculture market. again, they are the only ones with the size and the wealth to even try to do something like that. the point is, gm crops are the perfect product of corporate agribusiness. the two go together, and it's no accident. only large corporation could create the product, and only large corporations could have the leverage to push it. so this isn't about poor american farmers. this about powerful, market dominating corporations, and it has been since day one. they run the show. theri interests are behind it all. the farmers, the africans, and everybody else are in the back seat.

(what's with the missing paragraphs, and having to post this 3 times to get it right?)

>Genetically modified food - which can grow more quickly than traditional crops and can be resistant to insects - has caused scant controversy in the United States, where people eat it every day. Almost 40 percent of all corn planted in this country in genetically modified.<

the bush admin. loves to say that consumers in europe should be able to choose. but what about in america? if the gm crops are not labelled separately from the non-gm crops, there is NO ability to choose. and IF there were labels, WOULD 40% of corn grown in the u.s. be gm? that's a question monsanto, novartis, and cargill never, ever want to be in a position to have to answer. trade officials in the bush admin. and corporate argribusinesses could care less whether humans have an ability to choose between their products and someone else's. in fact, i think it's fair to say that in america at least, they DON'T want consumers to be able to choose.

secondly, i think this line that "because gm crops are safe, then there's no reason not to eat them", is a totally specious and bullshit argument. toyota's are safe. so should you have to buy a toyota if you'd rather buy a buick? of course not. it's not so much about the safety as it is about people want to be able to choose what food they ingest. it's called control over your freaking life.

i think a particularly ugly and disgusting example of the mindset of american trade officials was their outrage over starving africans refusing to eat american gm grain. i hope i wasn't the only one who was angry about this.

so here are starving people in africa, who just want some food aid. but what do trade representatives in washington, in their infinite wisdom, do? KNOWING that gm food is touchy subject in many parts of the world? they decide the only aid they're gonna send to those damn africans is gonna be gm grain.

the starving africans notice this and say what the fuck? we didn't ask for this. we don't want to eat this. please just help us. but what do trade representatives in washington do? do they actually listen to the starving africans? do they realize that maybe NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO PUSH GM PRODUCTS BECAUSE NOW IT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO JUST HELP STARVING PEOPLE BY GIVING THEM THE AID THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE GETTING? do they actually follow the american business mantra that "consumers always come first"?

no. they get pissed off and they DON'T send the aid the africans thought they were getting. essentially, their logic is this: "you'll eat our dog shit if that's the aid we give you. besides, you're so hungry, so you should want to eat our dog shit, right? you may be hungry, but we're gonna dictate what you eat." this is the disgusting mindset, and the type of men and women who are behind it.

thirdly, why is it wrong for the europeans to do this to gm food when america can the same thing to imported, foreign steel? again, either both europe AND america are totally wrong, OR, both europe AND america are totally justified, and countries being protective of their markets is just a natural part of doing business.

>The Bush administration and agricultural businesses view the policy as simple protectionism because American companies, which dominate the biotechnology industry,would benefit most from lifting the ban. Without it, American companies would export about $300 billion more in corn each year than they do now, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.<

this is what massive agribusiness putting all their eggs in the gm basket looks like. is the bush admin. putting the same effort into doing this for non-gm american crops? of course not. the big, poweful agribusinesses have totally become single-minded, one-hitch wagons.

furthermore, ONLY large argribusinesses could BE the ones to come up with gm crops. they are the only ones with the resources to do the r&d. and furthermore, ONLY corporate agribusiness could BE the ones to try and dominate and lockdown the worldwide agriculture market. again, they are the only ones with the size and the wealth to even try to do something like that. the point is, gm crops are the perfect product of corporate agribusiness. the two go together, and it's no accident. only large corporation could create the product, and only large corporations could have the leverage to push it. so this isn't about poor american farmers. this about powerful, market dominating corporations, and it has been since day one. they run the show. theri interests are behind it all. the farmers, the africans, and everybody else are in the back seat.

(what's with the missing paragraphs, and having to post this 4 times to get it right?)

"Genetically modified food - which can grow more quickly than traditional crops and can be resistant to insects - has caused scant controversy in the United States, where people eat it every day. Almost 40 percent of all corn planted in this country in genetically modified."

the bush admin. loves to say that consumers in europe should be able to choose. but what about in america? if the gm crops are not labelled separately from the non-gm crops, there is NO ability to choose. and IF there were labels, WOULD 40% of corn grown in the u.s. be gm? that's a question monsanto, novartis, and cargill never, ever want to be in a position to have to answer. trade officials in the bush admin. and corporate argribusinesses could care less whether humans have an ability to choose between their products and someone else's. in fact, i think it's fair to say that in america at least, they DON'T want consumers to be able to choose.

secondly, i think this line that "because gm crops are safe, then there's no reason not to eat them", is a totally specious and bullshit argument. toyota's are safe. so should you have to buy a toyota if you'd rather buy a buick? of course not. it's not so much about the safety as it is about people want to be able to choose what food they ingest. it's called control over your freaking life.

i think a particularly ugly and disgusting example of the mindset of american trade officials was their outrage over starving africans refusing to eat american gm grain. i hope i wasn't the only one who was angry about this.

so here are starving people in africa, who just want some food aid. but what do trade representatives in washington, in their infinite wisdom, do? KNOWING that gm food is touchy subject in many parts of the world? they decide the only aid they're gonna send to those damn africans is gonna be gm grain.

the starving africans notice this and say what the fuck? we didn't ask for this. we don't want to eat this. please just help us. but what do trade representatives in washington do? do they actually listen to the starving africans? do they realize that maybe NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO PUSH GM PRODUCTS BECAUSE NOW IT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO JUST HELP STARVING PEOPLE BY GIVING THEM THE AID THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE GETTING? do they actually follow the american business mantra that "consumers always come first"?

no. they get pissed off and they DON'T send the aid the africans thought they were getting. essentially, their logic is this: "you'll eat our dog shit if that's the aid we give you. besides, you're so hungry, so you should want to eat our dog shit, right? you may be hungry, but we're gonna dictate what you eat." this is the disgusting mindset, and the type of men and women who are behind it.

thirdly, why is it wrong for the europeans to do this to gm food when america can the same thing to imported, foreign steel? again, either both europe AND america are totally wrong, OR, both europe AND america are totally justified, and countries being protective of their markets is just a natural part of doing business.

"The Bush administration and agricultural businesses view the policy as simple protectionism because American companies, which dominate the biotechnology industry,would benefit most from lifting the ban. Without it, American companies would export about $300 billion more in corn each year than they do now, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation."

this is what massive agribusiness putting all their eggs in the gm basket looks like. is the bush admin. putting the same effort into doing this for non-gm american crops? of course not. the big, poweful agribusinesses have totally become single-minded, one-hitch wagons.

furthermore, ONLY large argribusinesses could BE the ones to come up with gm crops. they are the only ones with the resources to do the r&d. and furthermore, ONLY corporate agribusiness could BE the ones to try and dominate and lockdown the worldwide agriculture market. again, they are the only ones with the size and the wealth to even try to do something like that. the point is, gm crops are the perfect product of corporate agribusiness. the two go together, and it's no accident. only large corporation could create the product, and only large corporations could have the leverage to push it. so this isn't about poor american farmers. this about powerful, market dominating corporations, and it has been since day one. they run the show. theri interests are behind it all. the farmers, the africans, and everybody else are in the back seat.