GM crops & etc

>>
>> Some 2.9 million Zambians are estimated to be in need
>> of food aid before next year's harvest, but current
>> stocks are not adequate to meet the demand after the
>> government rejected US-supplied genetically modified
>> maize on environmental and health safety grounds. ...

>
>see how the "generous" USA tries to help?
>

I think that food is actually quite safe, biologically.

Actually, what I heard was that the real reason for rejecting this food is
something like this:

Some seeds for GM crops get into the fields of Zambian farmers.

GM crops grow in their fields.

US farming corps. (Monsanto, etc.) the sue the farmers, or the
country, for unlicensed use of their patents.

The farmers are then put out of business; but Mosanto et al comes
to the rescue, buying them out, and thereby increasing their world
domination of the food market.

The farmers, of course, can work for Monsanto.

hi Christopher,

> From: "Christopher Bailey" <cb202@...>
> To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 6:02 AM
> Subject: [metatuning] GM crops & etc
>
>
> >>
> >> Some 2.9 million Zambians are estimated to be in need
> >> of food aid before next year's harvest, but current
> >> stocks are not adequate to meet the demand after the
> >> government rejected US-supplied genetically modified
> >> maize on environmental and health safety grounds. ...
>
> >
> > see how the "generous" USA tries to help?
> >
>
> I think that food is actually quite safe, biologically.
>
> Actually, what I heard was that the real reason for
> rejecting this food is something like this:
>
> Some seeds for GM crops get into the fields of Zambian farmers.
>
> GM crops grow in their fields.
>
> US farming corps. (Monsanto, etc.) the sue the farmers,
> or the country, for unlicensed use of their patents.
>
> The farmers are then put out of business; but Mosanto
> et al comes to the rescue, buying them out, and
> thereby increasing their world domination of the food
> market.
>
> The farmers, of course, can work for Monsanto.

exactly.

i didn't write much commentary on this, but i knew
all along that this scenario was the real reason why
Zambia rejected the American "donation".

Zambians (and in general, people in all countries of
sub-Saharan Africa) who don't live in cities generally
eke out a subsistance-farming existence on small plots
of land. they're so dependant on this lifestyle that
when a drought occurs they starve.

so now the US companies like Monsanto are trying to
"help" by giving them seeds they will in essence
enslave them to Monsanto et al. i think Zambia was
right to decide on starvation before enslavement,
and good for them for making such a tough choice.

-monz

Chistopher!
The use of GM corn has the posibility , if fact high proability to
destroy or for ever taint base corn races. without such diversity you can
drive a plant into extinction.
dangerous and evil.
there was just another "genetic spill" btw
see friends of the earth

Christopher Bailey wrote:

> >
>
> I think that food is actually quite safe, biologically.
>
> Actually, what I heard was that the real reason for rejecting this food is
> something like this:
>
> Some seeds for GM crops get into the fields of Zambian farmers.
>
> GM crops grow in their fields.
>
> US farming corps. (Monsanto, etc.) the sue the farmers, or the
> country, for unlicensed use of their patents.
>
> The farmers are then put out of business; but Mosanto et al comes
> to the rescue, buying them out, and thereby increasing their world
> domination of the food market.
>
> The farmers, of course, can work for Monsanto.
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM 8-9PM PST

In a message dated 1/13/03 1:41:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,
monz@... writes:

> . i think Zambia was
> right to decide on starvation before enslavement,
> and good for them for making such a tough choice.
>
>
>
> -monz

I don't think you would feel the same way if it was you who was starving and
the government was making this decision. Johnny

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

hi Johnny,

> From: <Afmmjr@...>
> To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 10:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [metatuning] GM crops & etc
>
>
> In a message dated 1/13/03 1:41:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> monz@... writes:
>
>
> > . i think Zambia was
> > right to decide on starvation before enslavement,
> > and good for them for making such a tough choice.
> >
> >
> >
> > -monz
>
>
> I don't think you would feel the same way if it was you
> who was starving and the government was making this
> decision. Johnny

i'm sure that you're right about that ... that's why
i characterized it as a "tough choice". i'm certain
that if i were there and i were starving, i'd be
extremely pissed off about my government making a
decision that ensures my continued starvation.

with the political situations in Africa as volatile
as they are, i'm actually quite surprised that the
Zambian government had the courage to do this. it's
decisions like this (that is, when the general population
has a perception that the government does not care about
its well-being) that lead to the civil wars and revolutions
that have been all too common in Africa.

but i think the Zambian government and people both know
that other people/companies/governments will be willing
to help out with donations of non-GM foods, and they
seem to be willing to hold out for that help and ensure
the ability to continue their own self-contained agricultural
production, rather than become economic slaves to powerful
American-based companies.

it shows me that at least some sectors of African politics
are refusing to be pushed around by American big business,
and i still say good for them.

-monz

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Bailey <cb202@c...> wrote:
> >>
> >> Some 2.9 million Zambians are estimated to be in need
> >> of food aid before next year's harvest, but current
> >> stocks are not adequate to meet the demand after the
> >> government rejected US-supplied genetically modified
> >> maize on environmental and health safety grounds. ...
>
> >
> >see how the "generous" USA tries to help?
> >
>
> I think that food is actually quite safe, biologically.
>
> Actually, what I heard was that the real reason for rejecting this food is
> something like this:
>
> Some seeds for GM crops get into the fields of Zambian farmers.
>
> GM crops grow in their fields.
>
> US farming corps. (Monsanto, etc.) the sue the farmers, or the
> country, for unlicensed use of their patents.
>
> The farmers are then put out of business; but Mosanto et al comes
> to the rescue, buying them out, and thereby increasing their world
> domination of the food market.
>
> The farmers, of course, can work for Monsanto.

A very likely scenario.

John Starrett

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 1/13/03 1:41:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> monz@a... writes:
>
>
> > . i think Zambia was
> > right to decide on starvation before enslavement,
> > and good for them for making such a tough choice.
> >
> >
> >
> > -monz
>
>
> I don't think you would feel the same way if it was you who was starving and
> the government was making this decision. Johnny
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Good point. On the other hand, starving people can make a decision that will come back to haunt them. A simple example, starving people might eat the seeds for next years crops, when if a few had starved and the seeds been spared, some of the rest may have lived to populate the land again.

However, it is easy to be an armchair quarterback. We have no idea how we will react in an extreme situation.

John Starret