EU says science backs its beef ban - Page 2

Skunk · 10-16-2003, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Donut:

quote:
Originally posted by johnny:
There's also a lot of people that died of cancer who never smoked ONE single cigarette in their life. Yes, even lungcancer. And there are people who smoked their entire life and easily reach the age of 90, and were never sick a day in their life.

That's all true johnny. But it's not the whole truth. Look at the data - it's incontrovertable!

Smoking causes cancer. [/QUOTE]I think that this was Johnny's point. That the fact that some smokers escape cancer does not prove that ciggarettes are not carcinogenic..

Sir Kenyth · 10-16-2003, 05:41 PM

I'm skeptical. "Show me the money!". Elevated growth horomones would surely show up in blood tests. Most horomones in what you eat are destroyed by the digestive process and the liver. Horomonal substances are easily broken down by the liver without stressing the organ. All blood returning from the digestive tract makes a first pass through the liver. The by-product of horomone breakdown is cholesterol IIRC. Elevated cholesterol would be the only consequence I can see. Cancer links don't take much to prove either. Cell division itself can cause cancerous cells. Europe also has much to gain from this economically.

As far as tariffs go, I think we need more. Our production sectors are going to hell in a handbasket. Part of the reason is us being unable to compete with foreign markets that employ cheap laborers that aren't protected by good labor laws in factories that don't have adequate environmental protection measures.

Skunk · 10-16-2003, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth:

As far as tariffs go, I think we need more. Our production sectors are going to hell in a handbasket. Part of the reason is us being unable to compete with foreign markets that employ cheap laborers that aren't protected by good labor laws in factories that don't have adequate environmental protection measures.

Tarrifs aren't the panacea that many think them to be.

Take US Steel tarriffs - has it saved US steel jobs? Hell yes!
But more jobs have been lost than saved in the manufacturing sector as a direct result of the tarrifs.
Because now US manufacturers have to pay *more* for their base steel material than they did before - and can no longer compete with their foreign competitors as a result. Fiddle with one of the scales and you will cause movement in the other. And to make matters worse, there's now a WTO trade dispute too.

Twenty years ago, British manufacturers in the north of the country experienced the very same problems affecting US manufacturers today. They were found that they just couldn't compete with the foreign markets anymore.

Margaret Thatcher had the answer - it was a cruel but long term view: Darwinism.
Pure and simple - let the weak die and the strong survive. Let the small animals get swallowed by the large ones. Offer no government assistance and bargain for no tarrifs. It worked. What was left was lean and mean and able to compete with the best of them. But thousands of manufacturing jobs were lost, unemployment rose to extraordinary levels - and then began to sink. They sank because new businesses began to spring up to replace the old - new businesses in new sectors. New custom built factories with new technology and new practices.

Recently, the British government announced the lowest unemployment figures (according to the ILO for 28 years).

Tarrifs are not the answer - that only encourages firms to maintain the same uncompetitive status-quo. Rationalisation, modernisation and the development of new industrial sectors provide the answer.

wellard · 10-16-2003, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skunk:

Tarrifs are not the answer - that only encourages firms to maintain the same uncompetitive status-quo. Rationalisation, modernisation and the development of new industrial sectors provide the answer.

Tariffs can and do work usually in very specific areas and for short periods of time. A famous example was the pitiful state Harley Davidson was in during the early 1980's. A tariff was placed on imports of motorcycles over a certain size. This gave HD time to restructure and boy just look at them now! It also added further investment in manufacturing of motorcycles in the USA by Japanese companies.

Well targeted, short term tariffs can and do work, those ill thought out tariffs both upfront *steel* and hidden *farm/Boeing ect* usually do have long term negative impact for the country and unwanted side affects on innocent 3rd party countries like Australia.

Sir Kenyth · 10-17-2003, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skunk:

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kenyth:

As far as tariffs go, I think we need more. Our production sectors are going to hell in a handbasket. Part of the reason is us being unable to compete with foreign markets that employ cheap laborers that aren't protected by good labor laws in factories that don't have adequate environmental protection measures.

Tarrifs aren't the panacea that many think them to be.

Take US Steel tarriffs - has it saved US steel jobs? Hell yes!
But more jobs have been lost than saved in the manufacturing sector as a direct result of the tarrifs.
Because now US manufacturers have to pay *more* for their base steel material than they did before - and can no longer compete with their foreign competitors as a result. Fiddle with one of the scales and you will cause movement in the other. And to make matters worse, there's now a WTO trade dispute too.

Twenty years ago, British manufacturers in the north of the country experienced the very same problems affecting US manufacturers today. They were found that they just couldn't compete with the foreign markets anymore.

Margaret Thatcher had the answer - it was a cruel but long term view: Darwinism.
Pure and simple - let the weak die and the strong survive. Let the small animals get swallowed by the large ones. Offer no government assistance and bargain for no tarrifs. It worked. What was left was lean and mean and able to compete with the best of them. But thousands of manufacturing jobs were lost, unemployment rose to extraordinary levels - and then began to sink. They sank because new businesses began to spring up to replace the old - new businesses in new sectors. New custom built factories with new technology and new practices.

Recently, the British government announced the lowest unemployment figures (according to the ILO for 28 years).

Tarrifs are not the answer - that only encourages firms to maintain the same uncompetitive status-quo. Rationalisation, modernisation and the development of new industrial sectors provide the answer. [/QUOTE]Is it possible to compete when the competetor doesn't have to maintain any decent standards on labor or environment? Without these major expenses, they can offer a very cheap product.

Timber Loftis · 10-17-2003, 11:55 AM

I agree with Sir K. Knocking down all trade barriers assumes that standards of production are the same everywhere. They aren't. Without trade barriers, our higher EPA rules here are actually working against our companies, as are higher labor laws. Given an even playing field otherwise, these two externalities act as a surcharge the companies must pay here. So, the companies move to Mexico or close down in bankruptcy.

However, the WTO/GATT does not have a "side agreement" on labor an environmental exceptions. It DOES have one on health exceptions -- and it could be argued environmental are inlcuded therein (but that has generally failed before the DSB). The people I've worked with from the WTO admit these externalities are an issue, but insist it is not within their purview to address them until the parties to the WTO/GATT tell them to -- which seems like a reasonable stance.

Umm... I think I should just start making a catch-all WTO/GATT thread and link it when it crops up from time to time.

Oh, and another thing the WTO/GATT does not address is "dumping" -- selling your wares below cost in a neighboring nation just to drive out competition. NAFTA does address this. If it was Mexico selling steel that cheap in the US, it would be having to demonstrate it was not dumping the stuff under the anti-dumping provisions.

Skunk · 10-17-2003, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth:

Is it possible to compete when the competetor doesn't have to maintain any decent standards on labor or environment? Without these major expenses, they can offer a very cheap product.

Yes, it is still possible. A high-tech, well laid out plant employing 50 people to produce widgets in Texas can often do the job cheaper than the 300 people required to do the same in a low-tech, labour intensive plant in Bangladesh.

Timber Loftis · 10-22-2003, 01:57 PM

http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...item_id=328415

GE crops take a double hit

Thu 16 October 2003
UNITED KINGDOM/London

Eagerly awaited scientific studies published by the UK Royal Society have substantiated warnings that genetically engineered (GE) crops can be harmful to the environment. The studies expose the risks of GE crops to the environment and challenge the benefits promised by the GE industry. Monsanto, the GE industry leader has at the same time announced a withdrawal from Europe for "strategic reasons."

On the day of the trial announcement, the company that has tried and failed to introduce GE crops to Europe said that it is withdrawing its European cereal and seed business. This is a retreat in the face of GE controversy in Europe and means that GE wheat and barley is unlikely to be grown in Europe for the foreseeable future.

Monsanto also faces strong opposition to its GE wheat elsewhere. In North America both farmers and the wheat industry worry about their markets. Meanwhile, the Canadian Wheat Board has threatened to sue Monsanto in Canada if the company does not drop its plans to introduce GE wheat. Numerous farmers' organizations and wheat producers have put ads in Canadian newspapers in which they clearly state: "We are not ready for Roundup Ready wheat". Roundup Ready is Monsanto's trade name for its genetically modified wheat.

Monsanto says that it is ending its GE pharmaceutical crop experiments. We look forward to the end of these dangerous field trials and to the safe disposal of the experimental materials. We hope others will follow also withdraw from this particularly dangerous GE pharma-crop experiment.

It's been a bad few days all round for GE crops. Earlier this week EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom accused US GE companies of "trying to lie" and "force" unsuitable GM technology on Europe. Exposing the myth that GE companies claim they are developing crops to "feed the world" she said: "They tried to lie to people, and they tried to force it upon people. It's the wrong approach. You cannot force it upon Europe. So I hope they have learnt a lesson from this, especially when they now try to argue that this will solve the problems of starvation in the world and so on. But come on ... it was to solve starvation amongst shareholders, not the developing world."

Adding to the woes of the GE industry, two days ago the Southern State of Parana in Brazil adopted a law that prohibits the planting, commercialisation, processing and exports from its port of Monsanto's GE soya.

The trials have vindicated our stance, and that of other environmental groups, who have maintained that GE crops are harmful to the environment and that the industry was promoting mythical benefits.

"These trials... clearly show that the alleged benefits of the use of GE seeds do not exist. For years, the GE corporations have been claiming that their crops would reduce weed killer use and benefit wildlife. Now we know how wrong they are", said Dr. Doug Parr, Science Director of Greenpeace in the UK.

We believe the real comparison should be between GE and organic agriculture. But organic is so obviously better for the environment that the GE industry refused point blank to have this included in the trials. Instead, the trials compared one highly damaging form of agriculture with one that's even worse.

Alternatives

GE crops are being pushed as the only solution to world hunger. However there are different approaches to meeting the demand for environmentally sustainable agriculture. One example comes from China, where efforts to achieve ecological farming show a possible solution which governments should explore. Angus Lam, an expert in ecological farming for Greenpeace in China said: "The UK trials make it clear that the world should close the door on GE for good. GE food is not the solution to world hunger".

Today, together with around 80 other institutions and organisations from Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan, we launched the first Chinese Farming Solutions website, which presents an array of successful ecological farming stories from China. Governments should ban risky GE crop trials and to support the real sustainable solutions to world hunger.

Sir Kenyth · 10-22-2003, 04:44 PM

OK. What harm did the GE crops cause? It make no mention of it.

Skunk · 10-22-2003, 05:13 PM

They caused a large reduction in the bee and butterfly populations - which in turn has an impact on cross-polination and the food chain.

10-16-2003, 05:41 PM	#12
Sir Kenyth Fzoul Chembryl Join Date: August 30, 2001 Location: somewhere Age: 55 Posts: 1,785	I'm skeptical. "Show me the money!". Elevated growth horomones would surely show up in blood tests. Most horomones in what you eat are destroyed by the digestive process and the liver. Horomonal substances are easily broken down by the liver without stressing the organ. All blood returning from the digestive tract makes a first pass through the liver. The by-product of horomone breakdown is cholesterol IIRC. Elevated cholesterol would be the only consequence I can see. Cancer links don't take much to prove either. Cell division itself can cause cancerous cells. Europe also has much to gain from this economically. As far as tariffs go, I think we need more. Our production sectors are going to hell in a handbasket. Part of the reason is us being unable to compete with foreign markets that employ cheap laborers that aren't protected by good labor laws in factories that don't have adequate environmental protection measures. __________________ Master Barbsman and wielder of the razor wit!<br /><br />There are dark angels among us. They present themselves in shining raiment but there is, in their hearts, the blackness of the abyss.

10-17-2003, 11:55 AM	#16
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	I agree with Sir K. Knocking down all trade barriers assumes that standards of production are the same everywhere. They aren't. Without trade barriers, our higher EPA rules here are actually working against our companies, as are higher labor laws. Given an even playing field otherwise, these two externalities act as a surcharge the companies must pay here. So, the companies move to Mexico or close down in bankruptcy. However, the WTO/GATT does not have a "side agreement" on labor an environmental exceptions. It DOES have one on health exceptions -- and it could be argued environmental are inlcuded therein (but that has generally failed before the DSB). The people I've worked with from the WTO admit these externalities are an issue, but insist it is not within their purview to address them until the parties to the WTO/GATT tell them to -- which seems like a reasonable stance. Umm... I think I should just start making a catch-all WTO/GATT thread and link it when it crops up from time to time. Oh, and another thing the WTO/GATT does not address is "dumping" -- selling your wares below cost in a neighboring nation just to drive out competition. NAFTA does address this. If it was Mexico selling steel that cheap in the US, it would be having to demonstrate it was not dumping the stuff under the anti-dumping provisions. __________________

10-22-2003, 01:57 PM	#18
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...item_id=328415 GE crops take a double hit Thu 16 October 2003 UNITED KINGDOM/London Eagerly awaited scientific studies published by the UK Royal Society have substantiated warnings that genetically engineered (GE) crops can be harmful to the environment. The studies expose the risks of GE crops to the environment and challenge the benefits promised by the GE industry. Monsanto, the GE industry leader has at the same time announced a withdrawal from Europe for "strategic reasons." On the day of the trial announcement, the company that has tried and failed to introduce GE crops to Europe said that it is withdrawing its European cereal and seed business. This is a retreat in the face of GE controversy in Europe and means that GE wheat and barley is unlikely to be grown in Europe for the foreseeable future. Monsanto also faces strong opposition to its GE wheat elsewhere. In North America both farmers and the wheat industry worry about their markets. Meanwhile, the Canadian Wheat Board has threatened to sue Monsanto in Canada if the company does not drop its plans to introduce GE wheat. Numerous farmers' organizations and wheat producers have put ads in Canadian newspapers in which they clearly state: "We are not ready for Roundup Ready wheat". Roundup Ready is Monsanto's trade name for its genetically modified wheat. Monsanto says that it is ending its GE pharmaceutical crop experiments. We look forward to the end of these dangerous field trials and to the safe disposal of the experimental materials. We hope others will follow also withdraw from this particularly dangerous GE pharma-crop experiment. It's been a bad few days all round for GE crops. Earlier this week EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom accused US GE companies of "trying to lie" and "force" unsuitable GM technology on Europe. Exposing the myth that GE companies claim they are developing crops to "feed the world" she said: "They tried to lie to people, and they tried to force it upon people. It's the wrong approach. You cannot force it upon Europe. So I hope they have learnt a lesson from this, especially when they now try to argue that this will solve the problems of starvation in the world and so on. But come on ... it was to solve starvation amongst shareholders, not the developing world." Adding to the woes of the GE industry, two days ago the Southern State of Parana in Brazil adopted a law that prohibits the planting, commercialisation, processing and exports from its port of Monsanto's GE soya. The trials have vindicated our stance, and that of other environmental groups, who have maintained that GE crops are harmful to the environment and that the industry was promoting mythical benefits. "These trials... clearly show that the alleged benefits of the use of GE seeds do not exist. For years, the GE corporations have been claiming that their crops would reduce weed killer use and benefit wildlife. Now we know how wrong they are", said Dr. Doug Parr, Science Director of Greenpeace in the UK. We believe the real comparison should be between GE and organic agriculture. But organic is so obviously better for the environment that the GE industry refused point blank to have this included in the trials. Instead, the trials compared one highly damaging form of agriculture with one that's even worse. Alternatives GE crops are being pushed as the only solution to world hunger. However there are different approaches to meeting the demand for environmentally sustainable agriculture. One example comes from China, where efforts to achieve ecological farming show a possible solution which governments should explore. Angus Lam, an expert in ecological farming for Greenpeace in China said: "The UK trials make it clear that the world should close the door on GE for good. GE food is not the solution to world hunger". Today, together with around 80 other institutions and organisations from Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan, we launched the first Chinese Farming Solutions website, which presents an array of successful ecological farming stories from China. Governments should ban risky GE crop trials and to support the real sustainable solutions to world hunger. __________________

10-22-2003, 04:44 PM	#19
Sir Kenyth Fzoul Chembryl Join Date: August 30, 2001 Location: somewhere Age: 55 Posts: 1,785	OK. What harm did the GE crops cause? It make no mention of it. __________________ Master Barbsman and wielder of the razor wit!<br /><br />There are dark angels among us. They present themselves in shining raiment but there is, in their hearts, the blackness of the abyss.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Merck backs down	Larry_OHF	General Discussion	38	03-10-2007 08:18 AM
EU parliament backs constitution	dplax	General Discussion	5	01-16-2005 05:02 PM
Beef Jerky	shadowhound	General Discussion	28	10-04-2004 02:13 PM
beef vs. lamb	Faceman	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	34	06-03-2003 08:06 AM
How to "beef up" before facing Bohdi	skorpyo	Baldurs Gate II Archives	7	07-15-2001 04:50 AM

10-22-2003, 05:13 PM	#20
Skunk Banned User Join Date: September 3, 2001 Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands Age: 63 Posts: 1,463	They caused a large reduction in the bee and butterfly populations - which in turn has an impact on cross-polination and the food chain.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)