US policy on aid is 'wicked'

>They are pretending it is "poisoned", as in "possessed by some unseen demon" that will "curse" them with "sickness".

No, they don't. But such
a description is easy
to make fun of. If

anyone wants a
reasoned description of the
goods and bads involved,

here's a summary.
Or, if you want to be a
scaremonger and jump

right to the bad bits:
"Dangers of Transgenic Plants."
It's not black and white.

It is horsepucky. You don't even know the case enough to make the argument yourself, you just point to some amateur's website. Which is raving nonsense (more on that below), does not address what is actually in dispute in the African food aid, and does nothing more than allege things.

On its being nonsense, it argues purely by labeling. It calls ordinary sexual interaction within the same species "spread of pollution". You might as well decide arbitrarily that brown eyes are "racial pollution" and should not be allowed to breed. It argues "damage" to "natural ecosystems", without any actual damage to human beings. They can't show the latter because there isn't any. Instead, "damage" here means any form of change. If you apriori define any change in what plants grow as "damage", that is nothing more than begging the question, not an argument.

Nowhere is there an argument that eating corn meal is going to be bad for the people eating the corn meal. But that is exactly what is being implied to try to get them to refuse this aid. Instead, the eco-nuts themselves - when talking to each other, that is - merely allege "damage" to "the ecosystem" i.e. changes in plants, not poisoning of humans.

They are against changes in plants - even if it means millions of humans starve to death. We sort of knew that already. The point is that is monstrous, not a moral matter of course. Human beings change plants in order to prevent human beings from starving to death. That is called "agriculture", as it has been practiced since the end of the paleolithic. They are -against it-. Period. The rest is "transgenic pollution" of the airwaves...

Cuba looks to genetic engineering to help save sugar crop ***If successful, Cuba would need much less cane to produce the same amount of sweetener and be able to fetch premium prices - a prospect so promising that Cuba obtained a U.S. patent five years ago on its process of engineering fructose into sugar cane. It's one of about two dozen U.S. patents the Cubans hold, obtained mostly to keep other non-embargoed countries from profiting from their inventions. In the case of fructose sugar cane, Cuba hopes its patent position will give it a commercial edge when it reaches the world market.

Enriquez said he's ready to plant his experiments outdoors - but getting such permission from Cuban regulators is a lengthy process and the fructose sugar cane is years away from supermarket shelves. Enriquez's mission is about more than economics. National pride is at stake. Sugar is still the country's No. 1 export, ahead of nickel and even tobacco, although tourism has replaced sugar as the biggest source of hard currency. The sugar industry employs about 400,000 workers. "This country is very sentimental about sugar," Enriquez said.

Closer to attaining the open field is sugar cane genetically modified to make it more pest resistant. About a dozen of these plants are growing in a greenhouse behind the Havana biotech center, promising to reduce growing expenses by requiring less pesticide. Others at the center are tinkering with sugar cane's genome to make it more resistant to weed killers and disease. Labrada also talks about using sugar cane to fuel electric generators, as a source of ethanol and even as a source for cancer-fighting drugs. But even if the Cuban scientists succeed with their biotechnology projects - Enriquez for one says he's close - they have other hurdles to clear. The European Union, the biggest market currently open to Cuba, has temporarily banned all new imports of genetically modified foods in the face of consumer resistance.***

US policy on aid is 'wicked' - Meacher By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor 01 December 2002 Forcing starving countries to accept genetically modified (GM) food in aid is "wicked", Michael Meacher, the environment minister, said late last week. He called for "anger to be harnessed" against the policy, which is being vigorously pushed by the United States government.

We could just do like most of the world and not give them anything to accept.

Where do people get the idea we OWE them food of any kind, much less OWE it to people to take what they want and not what we want to give?

If they don't want GM foods, they don't HAVE to take it.

If I was in danger of facing starvation I'd eat genetically modified bugs and cattail shoots if I had to. I sure wouldn't complain if someone offered me corn!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.