Visit the Ironworks Gaming Website Email the Webmaster Graphics Library Rules and Regulations Help Support Ironworks Forum with a Donation to Keep us Online - We rely totally on Donations from members Donation goal Meter

Ironworks Gaming Radio

Ironworks Gaming Forum

Go Back   Ironworks Gaming Forum > Ironworks Gaming Forums > General Discussion > General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-05-2003, 04:34 PM   #1
Timber Loftis
40th Level Warrior
 

Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
Well, as is obvious in the article, this is what you Eurotwits have to look forward to immediately following cajoling on Iraq - cajoling on GMO food.

Personally, I hate GMO food, but don't mind so much if its labelled. I want to know exactly how "fishy" my fish-gene tomato is, thank you very much.

I'm definately with the EU on this one, though - GMO food sucks.

BTW, the labelling issue is mentioned half-way down, and is one of my top-5 favorite pet topics. The US did pass a labelling law last year - but got it bass-ackwards. Rather than making GMO foods put a label on the container (something like "eat this to turn green and glow" ) it allows "certified organic foods" to put a label on their container (something like "eat this if you want something close to real food" ). That's the wrong "burden of proof" IMO, plus it confuses the "organics" issue with the "genetically-modified" issue.

From Today's NY Times
Quote:
U.S. Delays Suing Europe Over Ban on Modified Food
By ELIZABETH BECKER

WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 — With war looming in Iraq, the Bush administration has decided against antagonizing its European allies and has postponed filing a case against the European Union for its ban on genetically modified food, according to a senior administration official.

"There is no point in testing Europeans on food while they are being tested on Iraq," said a senior White House official who asked not to be identified.

Robert B. Zoellick, the United States trade representative, had said that the administration would decide soon whether to sue the Europeans for what he called their "immoral" opposition to genetically modified food. He said that stand was leading to starvation in the developing world.

A cabinet meeting to consider the suit was canceled this week as European agricultural officials descended on Washington to argue for patience.

Even so, the conflict will resurface soon. Mr. Zoellick has said he believes that genetically modified food could help alleviate hunger — as well as open markets for American farmers — and wants the European opposition to be confronted so that developing nations accept food from genetically modified crops.

But the heated rhetoric of a few weeks ago, when Mr. Zoellick accused the Europeans of having a Luddite attitude against biotechnology, was muted this week as both sides stressed the importance of lifting the ban.

The question is when.

Ann M. Veneman, the United States agriculture secretary, has said that "our patience is just running out."

Franz Fischler, the European Union's farm commissioner, said that he met with Ms. Veneman and told her the problem would be resolved within three or four months.

"We do not have a fundamental opposition to genetically modified food," said Mr. Fischler at a press conference today. "We are in the final phases of passing our laws in Parliament and we would strongly advise not to start an action that would disrupt that."

Experts agree that the United States could win a case at the World Trade Organization and force a lifting of the four-year-old ban.

At the same time, they agree that the ultimate resolution of this case will rest on labeling — not opposing notions of science — and that it promises to pit European ideas of proper regulation against American notions about free and unfettered trade.

European consumers have for years questioned the safety of genetically modified food out of fear that those modifications may have unknown, and unintended, consequences for human health.

They are demanding labels that identify which food has been genetically modified and has passed rigorous testing. The agricultural establishment in the United States is just as strongly opposed, saying that once the food has passed tests there is no need to distinguish it with label that could be seen as a warning.

"That implies that there is something wrong with genetically modified food," said Elsa Murano, the Agriculture Department's undersecretary for food safety. "It would be another kind of trade barrier."

Industry also complains of the cost. "Labeling is a sham," said Mary Kay Thatcher, lobbyist for American Farm Bureau, a powerful agricultural group. "It would be so expensive, it would shut down our exports."

Margaret Beckett, the British minister in charge of food and the environment, said both sides of the argument had to understand the serious cultural differences underlying the disagreement.

After the deaths in Europe from mad cow disease and the subsequent killing of herds infected by foot and mouth disease, European consumers are wary of any food that is not clearly labeled and easily traced.

"Extravagant claims are sometimes made on either side of the argument," she said. "Whether we like it or not, there is an expectation of traceability and labeling of all kinds of products among European consumers. You are not going to convince them that GM products should be an exception to what is the norm."

While European nations agree on the need for labeling in the face of deep consumer fears, American lawmakers have had a more mixed record.

Although it took 12 years of lobbying by farmers, chefs and environmentalists, the agriculture department last year created an official organic label to show consumers what produce has been raised without conventional pesticides or fertilizers, antibiotics or growth hormones. The food is growing in popularity — it is a $4 billion industry — and public response was overwhelmingly in favor of the new label.

As industry feared, the cost of the label has proved prohibitive for some of the smallest farmers — averaging $5,000 each year — and the paperwork is time-consuming. Federal officials believe that the process could be streamlined over the years.

In last year's farm bill, Congress included a provision opposed by much of agribusiness that required that all meat, fish and produce be labeled with its country of origin within two years.

Already, Canada has complained that the new country of origin labeling will restrict its trade with the United States, especially in meat. In a study released last month, Canadian officials complained of the cost and suggested that the new provision should be withdrawn.

That is unlikely until the European ban on genetically modified food is lifted and the issue of labeling is confronted head on.

Trade and agricultural experts predict that in the end a compromise may have to be reached among competing interests within the United States as well as between the Europeans and the Americans.

"The United States is not monolithic," said John Audley of Carnegie Endowment. "Business groups may have to yield on labeling while activists will have to yield on allowing genetically modified food to be sold and let consumers decide what they want."
__________________
Timber Loftis is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 04:36 PM   #2
Kaltia
Jack Burton
 

Join Date: May 2, 2002
Location: Canterbury, England
Age: 36
Posts: 5,817
I think this can be summed up with two words: Aw, nuts.
__________________


The wolf is as cunning as he is ferocious; once he's had a taste of flesh then nothing else will do.
Kaltia is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 04:52 PM   #3
wellard
Dracolisk
 

Join Date: November 1, 2002
Location: Australia ..... G\'day!
Posts: 6,123
How about we just quarantine the USA from the world untill its passed safe from fishy tomatos (red herring brand? ) by the United Nations. We could send in some Iraq tomato inspectors [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

[ 02-05-2003, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: wellard ]
__________________


fossils - natures way of laughing at creationists for over 3 billion years
wellard is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 05:01 PM   #4
WillowIX
Apophis
 

Join Date: July 10, 2001
Location: By a big blue lake, Canada
Age: 49
Posts: 4,628
Yepp I agree with you Kaltia, they are nuts! LOL! Could this ban have something to do with those steel tolls? I´m not sure I understand this paragraph
Quote:
Even so, the conflict will resurface soon. Mr. Zoellick has said he believes that genetically modified food could help alleviate hunger — as well as open markets for American farmers — and wants the European opposition to be confronted so that developing nations accept food from genetically modified crops.
I wasn´t aware of any famine in Europe. And I definitely don´t see how Europe can close markets for American farmers. Surely they have the right to trade with whoever they wish without any European consent. Or?

Just label the darn things and get over it already! How expensive can it be to print a few houndred thuosand labels saying "GMO"? Especially considering the billions it took to develop the crop.
Quote:
They are demanding labels that identify which food has been genetically modified and has passed rigorous testing. The agricultural establishment in the United States is just as strongly opposed, saying that once the food has passed tests there is no need to distinguish it with label that could be seen as a warning.

"That implies that there is something wrong with genetically modified food," said Elsa Murano, the Agriculture Department's undersecretary for food safety. "It would be another kind of trade barrier.
Yepp and those US tests are held in such high regard in other countries. And of course there´s something wrong with the food. It´s genetically modified! Pumping hormones into chickens is not normal! I mean a one week old chicken weighing 5 pounds? [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img]

Note: I´m actually in favor of GMO. At least the tried, tested and tested once again kind. If rigorous testing shows no side effects I´ll buy the food. And imagine Africa without famine (this is the closest we´ve been). [img]smile.gif[/img]

Edit: Wellard, ROTFL! I´m not sure teh US government would fully co-operate with those Iraqi tomato inspectors. Then France would have to use their veto. LOLOL!

[ 02-05-2003, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]
__________________
Confuzzled by nature.
WillowIX is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 05:03 PM   #5
Kaltia
Jack Burton
 

Join Date: May 2, 2002
Location: Canterbury, England
Age: 36
Posts: 5,817
The only reason I said Aww nuts was because it's a good word to toss into a debate every now and then so people think you know what you're talking about [img]smile.gif[/img]
__________________


The wolf is as cunning as he is ferocious; once he's had a taste of flesh then nothing else will do.
Kaltia is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 05:09 PM   #6
Timber Loftis
40th Level Warrior
 

Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
Well.....

1. Trade barriers: Under the GATT/WTO it's an exception to the trade barrier rule if you can fit it into one of: (a) Article XX exceptions or (b) Sanitary/Phytosanitary exceptions, among a few others.

In the Beef-Hormone case. The UK/EU argued hormone treated beef was a potential health hazard (sanitary/phytosanitary measure) and produced thousands of pages of science. The US said it wasn't, but could not release studies because they were Monsanto's trade secrets. The US won. Now, this is once again a burden-of-proof shell game: The UK, rightfully, wanted proof it was harmless before approving it; the US, wrongly but winningly, argued the UK must prove it bad before erecting any trade barriers.

2. Just wait till you see where this is going, folks: Tyson has already created the GMO headless chicken.

3. Any famine problem, the world over, can be solved by: (1) controlling population growth, and (2) a vegetarian diet (as the scientists can tell you, when a Cow eats grass and then we eat the cow, 90% of the energy found in the grass is lost - not to menion the resources we wasted caging, injecting, treating, transporting, and butchering the cow).
__________________
Timber Loftis is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 06:02 PM   #7
WillowIX
Apophis
 

Join Date: July 10, 2001
Location: By a big blue lake, Canada
Age: 49
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
In the Beef-Hormone case. The UK/EU argued hormone treated beef was a potential health hazard (sanitary/phytosanitary measure) and produced thousands of pages of science. The US said it wasn't, but could not release studies because they were Monsanto's trade secrets. The US won. Now, this is once again a burden-of-proof shell game: The UK, rightfully, wanted proof it was harmless before approving it; the US, wrongly but winningly, argued the UK must prove it bad before erecting any trade barriers.

But to prove that the UK scientist would of course need access to all US livestock. I can´t see the American farmers endorsing that. Unfortunately scinetists do not have much say in this matter. Politics and greed seem to be more important than health.

3. Any famine problem, the world over, can be solved by: (1) controlling population growth, and (2) a vegetarian diet (as the scientists can tell you, when a Cow eats grass and then we eat the cow, 90% of the energy found in the grass is lost - not to menion the resources we wasted caging, injecting, treating, transporting, and butchering the cow).
Too bad we can´t digest grass. Maybe if we infect all humans with the necessary bacteria. Of course replacing our blood with cholorphyll would be even more effective. LOL!
__________________
Confuzzled by nature.
WillowIX is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 06:15 PM   #8
Timber Loftis
40th Level Warrior
 

Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
Um... Willow, I think my point was made whether it's grass or grain we're discussing.

WARNING: [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img]
But, while we're at it, I have heard that one of the worst trends of medicine is the antibiotic treatment newborns get when they have their first bacterial infection. This kills not only bad bacteria, but also the beneficial ones in the intestinal lining - which never return unless replenished. This is why I make it a point to eat live culture yogurt often. Lack of these gastrointenstinal bacteria, AFAIK, leads to many health problems, including ulcers. Any truth to this???

[ 02-05-2003, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]
__________________
Timber Loftis is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 06:24 PM   #9
WillowIX
Apophis
 

Join Date: July 10, 2001
Location: By a big blue lake, Canada
Age: 49
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
Um... Willow, I think my point was made whether it's grass or grain we're discussing.

WARNING: [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img]
But, while we're at it, I have heard that one of the worst trends of medicine is the antibiotic treatment newborns get when they have their first bacterial infection. This kills not only bad bacteria, but also the beneficial ones in the intestinal lining - which never return unless replenished. This is why I make it a point to eat live culture yogurt often. Lack of these gastrointenstinal bacteria, AFAIK, leads to many health problems, including ulcers. Any truth to this???
Unfortunatley we can´t digest most parts of grain either. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img]
Antibiotics kills almost all bacteria in the body, including the ones lining the intestants. Of course those aren´t really needed BUT they are beneficial to the body. Since the immune system hasn´t destroyed them it is obvious the do not provoce any diseases. When a pathogen bacteria arrives it´s a good thing those bacteria are in place. The new infection can´t grow there since all space is already taken. Of course some bacteria in the intestines is really good for you. One species enables us to digest fibre. Unfortunately when doing so they produce methane and sulhpurdioxide. Add those to air in the colon and you get, well you know... Some physicians even promotes the idea of dabbing childrens mouths with a used dish cloth. Ewww!
__________________
Confuzzled by nature.
WillowIX is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 07:27 PM   #10
wellard
Dracolisk
 

Join Date: November 1, 2002
Location: Australia ..... G\'day!
Posts: 6,123
Breaking news on GMO

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s777028.htm

GMO tabbaco? oh well can't make it any more unsafe can they?

[img]graemlins/docheart.gif[/img]
__________________


fossils - natures way of laughing at creationists for over 3 billion years
wellard is offline  
 


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

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
US/EU dispute regarding GMOs Timber Loftis General Discussion 2 06-15-2004 10:08 AM
Solo Warrior 8: Mundane delays... Bungleau Wizards & Warriors Forum 6 09-20-2002 09:09 AM
Nike is suing Sega!!! Staralfur General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 13 02-12-2002 07:02 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved