From: Hermit (hidden@lucifer.com)
Date: Thu Aug 01 2002 - 23:21:08 MDT
A tragedy. One based largely on the disaster of trying to impose an "African solution" to the area, but exacerbated by the IP system and protectionist measures. To understand this requires a brief understanding of the impact of the green revolution and particularly of GMF.
It is clear that GMF is good for industrialized nations, without it, the increased quantities and costs of fuels, fertilizes, pesticides and losses, food prices would soar. This can already be seen in the premium paid for non-GMF foodstuffs. In addition, the much higher levels of input chemicals required by traditional farming practice result in much higher biosphere impact.
Against that, the cost of patented GMF seed stock is much higher than that for traditional crops. So in an environment employing manual labor, and not increasing crop yields with biocides or fertilizer, GMF are potentially problematic.
This needs to be viewed against the background that the "traditional" farms are undoubtedly much more susceptible to crop losses, and achieve vastly lower production levels. Fortunately (perhaps) for those nations still using traditional farming methods, wealthier nations using GMF produce huge surpluses which can be used to alleviate crop-failure induced starvation. The reason for the availability of these surpluses is the "Green Revolution" of which GMF is an absolutely integrated component. Estimates are that without GMF about 1/3 to 2/3 more people would be starving each year - but as we have seen it is cost-effective primarily in high-tech farming environments.
While the idea of a "concerned" Mugabe trying to pretend to be protecting what little survives of Zimbabwean agriculture after he has spent a quarter of a century destroying it might be funny in a tragic kind of way, there is a real point behind the argument. Food carrying tagged genes will be subject to confiscation and destruction at the port of entry due to IP restraints even where such foodstuffs not regarded with fear and loathing by the environazi brigades.
What I would suggest is needed is a source of GMF which are not subject to stringent control and fees which reflect the savings effected for industrial farmers and thus suited for use by developing nations. A pity there is not yet an "open source" research effort underway. But I suspect that it will eventually happen. In other fields, open source has proved capable of producing results superior to that of proprietary solutions. I see no reason why this should not happen in agriculture too.
As far as the impact of protective measures, Europe is undoubtedly infected with the virulent "green meme" but this would not explain banning the importation of meat from animals fed GMF grains (where it cannot even be detected). Rather it is a way to prevent the importation of meat from outside Europe (particularly America) and thus just another way to protect the farmers of the EU.
Finally, another article well worth perusing is "Foreign Aid Shrinks, but Not for All" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A36313-2001Jan23¬Found=truem the same page.
Just as we deal with the results of this policy in the Middle East, we sew the seeds of the same discord in other places. Nihil sub sole novum.
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=25919>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:50 MDT