Starving Nation Turns Down Bioengineered Corn 868
The Washington Post has a story about Zimbabwe turning down shipments of genetically engineered corn, even though the country is experiencing a severe drought and starvation. Zimbabwe is afraid some of the corn will end up planted instead of eaten -- and growing patented corn is a no-no, of course! If the corn is planted even once, it may contaminate all future crops grown in those fields or any fields nearby, leading to huge lawsuits - and then the fields are contaminated, exacerbating the food shortage. So, starve or be bankrupted, and Zimbabwe appears to be choosing, "starve". Tons of ethical issues here, which have hardly been touched upon in the U.S. press.
Politics of Famine (Score:5, Interesting)
You gotta ask yourself (Score:1, Interesting)
Figures (Score:5, Interesting)
Playing Devil's Advocate (Score:3, Interesting)
I find it quite disturbing that African Countries are prepared to starve their people, rather than contribute money to big overseas giants. This must speak volumes about the problems with patented crops.
Food should never come patented, as it is THE basic necessity of life. What next, patented water?
While Mugabe's regime is corrupt to the core, and the government bought this on themselves, there should be no excuse for forcing third world countries into a subservient like existence, where they have to pay multinationals for their basic food.
Get rid of patents on food. The companies deserve to be paid for advancing food technology and supply, but this isn't they way to go about.
(Disclaimer: Yes, i have read the article (it was on Fark the other day), and yes, it's only meant to be used for feeding, but that doesn't mean it will be.)
Re:There is an alternative method (Score:4, Interesting)
Let me make sure I have this straight... (Score:2, Interesting)
GM crop contamination already happening in Mexico (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:There is an alternative method (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, the jury is certainly not in yet on genetically engineered foods. It could be found to affect intelligence, safe reproduction, or cause cancer. Calling it "food" may be a bit optimistic.
Re:Ideology and the truth. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Utterly insane (Score:4, Interesting)
Let us suppose that I am growing 'normal' corn while my neighbor grows GE corn. Let us also assume that I make a habit out of saving 5-10% of my crop for replanting three years later, after a year of soybeans and a year of alfalfa, and that my neighbor is on a similar schedule.
Let's start in 2000 with both of us planting corn. My corn has no GE genes in it; my neighbor's corn has some GE genes in it, which are covered by patents held by Frankenfood Inc.. That year some pollen from my corn invades my neighbor's field and vice-versa. Come harvest time, I harvest my corn and my neighbor harvests his. I save my 10% for replanting, and in 2003, I plant partially GE corn. My corn is now covered by patents held by Frankenfood Inc, unbeknownst to myself.
Have I invaded on Frankenfood's patent?
Do I owe Frankenfood Inc. royalties on their IP?
If so, do I owe them in 2003, when I use the seeds; or do I owe them in 2000, when I first harvested and sold those GE seeds to the general public?
Let's suppose that the cross pollenation occurs over long distances .. that the GE corn was grown in Zimbabwe and that my corn is grown in Chile, but that the cross-pollenation happens anyway due to a jet stream. Zimbabwe has a royalty-free license to use Frankenfood's GE corn. Chile does not even use Frankenfood's GE corn. Do I still owe them royalties?
Can they get an injunction ordering me not to plant my corn or to destroy a corn crop that I've already planted? Can they back it up with guns if I refuse to obey?
Can they sue my country under NAFTA or GATT and bankrupt the treasury?
These are the kind of issues that I think people are worried about.
Re:two bullies (Score:3, Interesting)
Smartest thing I have heard in weeks. I hope you get modded up to the moon.
Re:two bullies (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, MOST of the biotech/corporation-bashing that goes on here is of the knee-jerk variety and irritates me greatly, but I actually agree with this one....
Personally, i think the doctrine of "first sale" ought to apply to "patented" organisms just as it does (or at least, is SUPPOSED TO) to other things encumbered by the "intellectual property" label.
Hmmmm....though would that mean that the farmer's sale of the seeds is a "public performance"?......
(Side question - how much longer before the first of the GM plants' patents expire? Can't be long now, can it?....)
Re:There is an alternative method (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Slashdot misses the point (Score:1, Interesting)
'Yes! GM food bad! He strikes a blow for envirofascists everywhere!' opines censorware.org's very own, in a supportive tone.
Everyone else says, 'Yes, he's refusing the food so that he can blame his nation's famine on the evil foreign imperialists and their tools within Zimbabwe, who just so happen to be his political opponents. He's already been doing it for nearly two years, why would he bother to alleviate the pressure now, when the famine is finally killing people to drive home to the survivors how thankful they should be that they have Mugabe to prevent things from being even worse? Leading, naturally, to the appointment of Mugabe as dictator for life.'
The bottom line: Mugabe's going Mao on us, and Michael Simms is still stupid.
Blinkered on the most important issues (Score:2, Interesting)
If this had happened in another "poor, starving, bankrupt" African country, the GM-based concerns may have been more relevant- and here's the problem. It seems the poster mentally grepped the original article for tech-friendly fodder- "Yeah! Here's something interesting about GM foods- good excuse to criticize^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h have a valid discussion about them"(*)- and ignored any other issues. In this case, taking part of the story out of context has totally altered what it was really about.
So much (valid) mistrust of Bill Gates in geekland- so why the naive (or lazy) willingness to take everything else at face value?
(*) I don't like them either; primarily because of the reasons they're being pushed- but that's not the point here.
Re:Slashdot misses the point (Score:4, Interesting)
the next generation of super-foods won't be GM (Score:5, Interesting)
Before GM, researchers irradiated a bunch of seeds to induce mutation, then planted them. Then cross-pollinate plants with interesting characteristics. Rinse and repeat.
With gene sequencing and modelling software, the cycle time can be reduced (ie, you don't have to grow the corn to see how it will turn out). Whammo, GM without GM.
Of course, it's actually worse, because they're be undesired mutations in the crop as well as the ones they were trying to induce. But they'll be able to sell it as "organic' GM free.
Humans have been doing GM work for 10,000 years now. There is no such thing as wild corn, for instance. The scientific method did much more to improve the rate of change than tools like genetic modification.
Bryan
Re:There is an alternative method (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:There is an alternative method (Score:2, Interesting)
Harare Accepts the Corn (Score:2, Interesting)
The government of Zimbabwe has agreed to accept the corn, with the proviso that it be milled either before being shipped, or immediately on arrival.
AllAfrica story [allafrica.com]
Financial Gazette story [allafrica.com]
There have been a lot of thoughtful comments on this story. It's true that Zimbabwe's immediate economic problems -- plumeting agricultural production, inflation, industrial collapse, an exodus of skilled workers -- are the result of a corrupt and repressive regime that is determined to hold onto power at all costs. But it's also worth considering how difficult it would be to solve the country's problems even were a democratic and functional government in place.
Like most African countries, Zimbabwe's foreign debt load is enormous (US$1 billion; the country has a GDP of roughly US$5 billion). Even if the country were to somehow turn itself around and bring production back up to pre-turmoil levels, the debt ratio is almost unbelievable. And the country has been terribly affected by the AIDS epidimic. It is estimated that one quarter of the adult population is infected with HIV/AIDS. There are predictions that within a decade, half of Zimbabwe's children will be orphans.
And what do you do about land ownership? The violence against white farmers is indefensible, and Mugabe's cynical manipulation of that violence is vile. But the problem is serious. At independence (in 1980), perhaps half the country's farm land was owned by 1% of the population. These (white) farmers had been on the land for generations, and believed that the land belonged to them -- legally, morally, emotionally. But this economically- and racially-skewed distribution didn't come about by accident. The colonial government systematically expropriated and "re-settled" the "native" population. Most of this redistribution happened this century, so we're not talking about ancient history, here. And even if you choose not to think about the problem in historical terms, how do you build a free and egalitarian society in an agricultural economy with such unequal land ownership?
I work at allAfrica.com. We distribute news about Africa, most of it from African newspapers and magazines. If you want to understand what's going on in a country, it's worth reading the local press occasionally. We have half a dozen Zimbawean papers, from across the political spectrum. (Which is a polite way of saying that one of them is controlled by the ruling party. We don't make judgements about a newspaper's integrity; we try to get as many "read-on-the-street" papers as possible and let readers make their own judgements.)
You can take a look at our Zimbabwe headlines [allafrica.com] page. Here are some stories relating to the issues I've mentioned:
Re:Slashdot misses the point (Score:4, Interesting)
The current farmers happen to be white - people who have farmed this land for generations. Dutch and English colonists.
The people Mugabe is handing the land over to, are black natives. All in the name of "Kicking out the colonialist european white" people who have so obviously made Zimbabwe into the economic powerhouse it is today (well, 5-10 years ago, anyway).
This is racial payback for the civil wars that were fought decades ago, and attrocities supposedly committed by mercenaries hired by the white farmers at that time.
The problem is - you throw out the racial issue, and look at the situation rationally, Mugabe is getting rid of the country's most valuable resource - experienced farmers! Does it matter if they're black or white? I suppose it does to the black people, but these white farmers were born in Zimbabwe - their parents were born in Zimbabwe - it makes no sense to play the race card, or be jealous of the success of these people. But Mugabe is doing it, because his grip on power relies on paying the corrupt government that does his dirty work - in effect, he's not really in control, it's his cronies, who are happy to pay their henchman with stolen land.