08 Jul 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtBut none of what you have said, rules out the possibility that the UK does produce a surplus of some agricultural product that eventually gets dumped on Africa.
Conclusion is we tend to import, process, and then export. This is different from simply "dumping a surplus".
I admit that I do not know of any EU dumping. What I have seen is Wheat from Canada, corn from the US, milk from New Zealand and lamb from New Zealand.
I see from Wikipedia however that New Zealand stopped farm subsidies in 1984. So it is possible their products should not be considered 'dumping'.
08 Jul 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe "dumping" of agricultural produce is not as significant a problem as it used to be (I think the EU abandoned the practise), although imbalances in trade rules still need to be addressed.
But none of what you have said, rules out the possibility that the UK does produce a surplus of some agricultural product that eventually gets dumped on Africa.
I admit that I do not know of any EU dumping. What I have seen is Wheat from Canada, corn from the US, milk from New Zealand and lamb from New Zealand.
I see from Wikipedia however that New Zeal ...[text shortened]... ped farm subsidies in 1984. So it is possible their products should not be considered 'dumping'.
08 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo they are caught up in a vicious cycle of economics, patents and the inability to save some of the seed to use for next year, they are no more free than slaves are free. What is more after using the Monsanto seeds, fertilizers and pesticides I am not entirely sure that the ground may be conducive for reintroducing the natural strains so readily.
No, they just aren't allowed to produce GM seeds that have been patented by Monsanto. They are free to use non-GM, non-Monsanto seeds.
08 Jul 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe fact remains that farm subsidies in the EU are enormous and any agricultural exports from the EU therefore constitutes dumping.
The "dumping" of agricultural produce is not as significant a problem as it used to be (I think the EU abandoned the practise), although imbalances in trade rules still need to be addressed.
But dumping is only half of the problem. The other half is that other countries cannot export to the EU because of the subsidies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy
Mark Malloch Brown, former head of the United Nations Development Program, estimated that farm subsidies cost poor countries about US$50 billion a year in lost agricultural exports:
"It is the extraordinary distortion of global trade, where the West spends $360 billion a year on protecting its agriculture with a network of subsidies and tariffs that costs developing countries about US$50 billion in potential lost agricultural exports. Fifty billion dollars is the equivalent of today's level of development assistance."
08 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead
But none of what you have said, rules out the possibility that the UK does produce a surplus of some agricultural product that eventually gets dumped on Africa.
I admit that I do not know of any EU dumping. What I have seen is Wheat from Canada, corn from the US, milk from New Zealand and lamb from New Zealand.
I see from Wikipedia however that New Zeal ...[text shortened]... ped farm subsidies in 1984. So it is possible their products should not be considered 'dumping'.
But none of what you have said, rules out the possibility that the UK does produce a surplus of some agricultural product that eventually gets dumped on AfricaSorry, it's not up to me to prove a negative.
I found some data on trade in Agricultural produce. These are the percentages, by weight, of fresh vegetables imported from Africa: Morocco 1.59%, Egypt 1.37%, Kenya 1.64%, Senegal 0.72%, and South Africa 0.41%. Our imports are dominated by Spain 39% and The Netherlands 32%, next is France at 4.38%. Total imports were 2 megatonnes of fresh vegetables, so Africa's getting a significant amount of trade from us. We only produce about 10% of our consumption of these things.
08 Jul 14
Originally posted by FabianFnasThere are two distinct rights here that I think are being conflated. The right to eat whatever you want, and the "right" to force others to provide you with information. The second right is where my disagreement lies.
I am against GM, and that is my right.
So if I don't want to buy any GM products, then I don't know how I can avoid them if I am not informed about it.
Until your side converts scientific consensus, it is exclusively your problem to figure out the GMO content of products. Your inherent rights do not include the ability to force others to provide you with information that has no ill effect on you or anything else (which is what scientific consensus says about GMO’s). A person may want to only eat food that was harvested on Tuesday’s, because they believe that this is the only good day for harvesting. They have every right to only eat food harvested on Tuesday's, but they don’t have the right to force others to provide them with the day of the week that the food was harvested, unless they are able to get science to support their claim.
08 Jul 14
Originally posted by PatNovakI think there's a conflict. The right to control what one eats is compromised by inadequate labelling. Removing the possibility of someone being able to discover whether a food contains GM produce eliminates their right to control what they eat. Possibly they should list the variety of plant, the GM status could be deduced from the varietal name, and it is a desirable piece of labelling anyway.
There are two distinct rights here that I think are being conflated. The right to eat whatever you want, and the "right" to force others to provide you with information. The second right is where my disagreement lies.
Until your side converts scientific consensus, it is exclusively your problem to figure out the GMO content of products. Your inherent rig ...[text shortened]... he week that the food was harvested, unless they are able to get science to support their claim.
08 Jul 14
Originally posted by PatNovakMy side? My side??? Who do you think I am? Do you really think I am some kind of authority? And for your information, neither are you.
Until your side...
I am a consumer who want information about what I am about to buy. If I don't like GM products, then I don't want to buy GM products. Simple as that.
If you tell me that I shouldn't care about any labeling about GM content, then you are saying that I should just trust you. That's communism. I want to buy things that is labeled correctly in order to make me chose the right thing. That's free choice.
If you want to make this into a religion, where I shouldn't argue against 'those who know best', then go to the Spiritual Forum and argue for your religion. This is Science Forum.
Let me choose for my own, and you can choose for your own. But don't try to persuade me that I am wrong wanting information of what I buy, just don't do that.
08 Jul 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI think it is safe to say that scientific consensus clearly does not agree with you that a label without GMO content constitutes "inadequate labeling."
I think there's a conflict. The right to control what one eats is compromised by inadequate labelling. Removing the possibility of someone being able to discover whether a food contains GM produce eliminates their right to control what they eat. Possibly they should list the variety of plant, the GM status could be deduced from the varietal name, and it is a desirable piece of labelling anyway.
Please explain why your right to know something that science considers useless information is more important than my right to not have anti-science labeling on food? Once we start forcing anti-science labeling, where should it stop? Should we force companies to label whether or not the food was grown through Biodynamic Agriculture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodynamic_agriculture)? Force them to label food with the religion of the person who planted it, and whether or not they prayed about it? Force them to label if food was raised according to Lysenkoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism)?
Your remedies should be to convert scientific consensus and/or convince enough companies to voluntarily label GMO content. Your remedy should not be to force companies to do something they consider bad, and force the rest of us to have food labels with useless information, because you have taken a position that is against scientific consensus.
08 Jul 14
Originally posted by FabianFnasI think it is very clear which one of us is taking the anti-science position, and does not belong in the science forum.
If you want to make this into a religion, where I shouldn't argue against 'those who know best', then go to the Spiritual Forum and argue for your religion. This is Science Forum.
08 Jul 14
Originally posted by FabianFnasI think perhaps you should spend some time and actually learn what the word "communism" means. In any event, you are the one advocating a government solution, while I have been advocating leaving government out of the matter and letting market forces decide if GMO's should be labeled. Which one of our positions is more communist?
If you tell me that I shouldn't care about any labeling about GM content, then you are saying that I should just trust you. That's communism.
08 Jul 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI never said it was. You did however seem to be claiming it but presenting data that was practically irrelevant.
Sorry, it's not up to me to prove a negative.
Total imports were 2 megatonnes of fresh vegetables, so Africa's getting a significant amount of trade from us.
A few percent is 'significant'?
The fact remains that you import mostly from the EU, and without farm subsidies that would change considerably.
08 Jul 14
"I think it is very clear which one of us is taking the anti-science position, and does not belong in the science forum."
Do you really think that it is anti-scientific to wanting to know what is in a product I want to buy? You really have to look up science in your dictionary.
"I most definitely do not consider you an authority."
This is good, because I am not. I am just an consumer that want to know what I am buying. Do you consider yourself as an authority? No? I didn't think so either.
"I think perhaps you should spend some time and actually learn what the word "communism" means."
Do you think Sovjet informed the public of what was in the market? Do I think that you don't want to inform the public of GM content? I see the paralell quite clearly.
"... you are the one advocating a government solution"
I don't care about governements. You do. I don't. Tell me where I've mentionned the governement? Your rhetorics is very like that of the Spiritual Forum.
The only thing I've said is - I don't want to buy GM products, and therefore I want it labelled on the products. That's all. You want to make that information a secret to the public (as in Sovjet), and that is the only thing I object to.
What you do in USA isn't of my interest, but don't bring the sh... eh... GM products to Europe. Just keep it for yourself.
08 Jul 14
Originally posted by FabianFnasIt is if what you want to know about the product is based on and irrational fear. You don't really care about what is different about the product, you only care about whether or not it is GM. That is unscientific and irrational.
Do you really think that it is anti-scientific to wanting to know what is in a product I want to buy?