Slashdot Mirror


Starving Nation Turns Down Bioengineered Corn

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.

9 of 798 comments (clear)

  1. Slashdot misses the point by Local+Loop · · Score: 5, Informative

    As usual, slashdot editors fail to see the larger picture.

    The problem here is not about patents - it's about
    Europe's refusal to import genetically modified food. Europe is Zimbabwe's primary export market.
    If Zimbabwe's crops were tainted, they could lose their primary source of revenue.

    Furthermore, Zimbabwe is willing to accept the corn if the US will agree to mill it before shipping. The additional cost of milling is minimal, but is not covered by the aid package. Classic snafu.

    1. Re:Slashdot misses the point by wdr1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      As usual, slashdot editors fail to see the larger picture.

      I don't think this is fair.

      It's really only a few, most notably these days Michael. Usually quite uninformed, but not afraid to speak loudly about it. I wish Slashdot would fire him. (Related note: anyone else notice Timothy seems to be getting better. Maybe it is worth while giving honest, non-flaming criticism?)

      Furthermore, Zimbabwe is willing to accept the corn if the US will agree to mill it before shipping. The additional cost of milling is minimal, but is not covered by the aid package.

      As the article states, the milling is actually a significant added cost at an additional ~25% increase. (The corn is estimated to be worth $95/metric ton. To mill it would be an additional $25/metric ton.)

      I think the article is a little skewed. The United States is the one making a very large donation to a poor company for almost no (if any) self-benifit, yet it is painted as the bad guy for not agreeing to mill the corn as well! Note that is the EXACT SAME CORN you get in the grocery store. I.e. we're not subjecting Zimbabwe to a lower standard than we place on our own people.

      If Europe wants to continue to claim to be concerned about the world as well, yet also wants to push back on genetically modified foodstuff, would it be so hard for multiple countries to kick in 25% of the United States donation and pay for it be milled (and thus eliminate the chance that they will be sold genetically modified corn)?

      -Bill

      --
      SlashSig Karma: Excellent (mostly affected by moderatio
  2. Mugabe at Work by agutier · · Score: 5, Informative

    Also, keep in mind that Mugabe ordered a halt to the winter wheat harvest in June. This is part of a plan that will redistribute 95% of commercial farmland. Some 60% of commerical farms, 2,900 farms, where ordered to halt work. This was done during a food shortage, with the country on the brink of salvation. The plan is redistribute the commecical farms from white to black ownership. In practice, the land becomes gifts for Mugabe's cronies. Cereal production has fallen 67% since 1999-2000 accoridnig to the World Food Program, and will certianly tumble further.

    Rather than looking for grand conspiracies by US firms to starve Zimbabwians, look at the corrupt government of Robert Mugabe. It seems unlikely that someone who has wrecked such havoc on his nations agri-business would be interested in protecting his crops for the European market. If he is, then its the nature of the dictator to set absurd priorities.

  3. Re:Ideology and the truth. by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 3, Informative
    You know something? Some sort of agrarian reform is actually necessary in Zimbabwe. I don't like Mugabe's heavy-handed populist way of going about it, but even his critics agree that something needed to be done about a distribution of land resources that was inherited lock, stock and barrel from colonialism.

    I don't know what's going to become of it in the long run, but I know something that could be worse - an unregulated transfer of land to people who don't know how to farm, destroying any chance for agricultural exports. If Mugabe simply gave the land away now, without regulating its transfer, things would be worse in the long run. (I've seen agrarian reform fail in this regard before.)

  4. Re:GE corn? Why the fuss? by hlh_nospam · · Score: 5, Informative

    Best evidence we have is that prior to the agricultural 'revolution', the maximum lifespan was around 70-75 years. The *average* was lower, due to infant mortality, and accident (hunting was a hazardous job). But those folks who managed to get past childhood diseases were actually likely to live to a ripe old age, provided they didn't get eaten by something. Take a look at this article on Dr. Loren Cordain's research on that topic.

  5. Re:Not entirely the whole story by Drogo+Knotwise · · Score: 5, Informative
    One of Mugabe's chief tactics in the recent election was to support land reform. Even after more than 20 years of indepence, white people still own most the farmland in Zimbabwe. Mugabe supported a campaign to drive farmers and their workers off their land, and the government has passed laws to seize farms from their owners which are now taking effect.

    LOL. Chief tactics? His "chief tactics" were:
    • electoral fraud (a car accident a week before the election involving a government vehicle left the neighboring ground strewn with thousands of votes for (surprise!) Zanu-PF's very own... Robert Mugabe!)
    • forced adherence to Mugabe's Zanu-PF party (barricades run by youth leagues would stop drivers on major roads, check their Zanu-PF card, and beat up everyone without one)
    • manipulation of the electoral booths (the pro-MDC (opposition) areas (mainly big cities) had to turn away thousands of voters each because there wasn't time for them to vote in the alloted time frame)
    • intimidation, harassment and "disappearances" of MDC candidates and voters (entire villages were rased because of pro-MDC tendencies)
    • laws prohibiting free press
    • laws prohibiting manifestations against the President.


    In the end, the "land reform" was only an (unsuccessful) PR stunt. In the end, most people didn't like it, because either they didn't believe in property theft, or else simply because the only people benefitting from it were Mugabe cronies, whose votes didn't have to be won.
  6. Zimbabwe is complicated by PaxTech · · Score: 3, Informative
    The situation in Zimbabwe is very complex.. They're normally a food exporter, but there've been issues with food not being harvested due to political concerns. I don't pretend to know a lot about it, but K5 has a couple of articles that can get you up to speed if you really want to know the causes of the famine there.

    Much ado about Zimbabwe

    Much ado about Zimbabwe - Redux

    --
    All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
  7. Re:Not too surprisingly, consider who's in charge by MtViewGuy · · Score: 5, Informative

    AMEN!!

    In the great famines of the 20th Century, just about all of them have been caused NOT by bad climate conditions but by war, political action or poor government decisions.

    I can cite the following examples:

    The Ukraine (1928-1933). The creation of collective farms by force and Stalin's extreme demands on food production essentially sent all of the agricultural production and then some out of the Ukraine with tragic results. Some 14,000,000 people died from the starvation caused by this policy.

    China (1921-1949). The factional fighting of the warlords, the fighting between the Communists and Nationalists, and the Japanese invasion of China resulted in many millions of Chinese starving to death because food could not be grown and distributed under war conditions.

    China (1958-1963). The ill-advised Great Leap Forward resulted in poor agricultural policies that led to massive crop failures and near-starvation for much of the country.

    World War II (1939-1945). It was only the Marshall Plan that saved Europe from starvation due to the complete loss of means of food production and distribution throughout much of Europe. A similar plan saved Japan from the ravages of the war.

    Africa (1960s-today). The departure of the colonial powers resulted in the rise of civil wars, tribal warfare and despotic regimes that often used control of food production and distribution as a weapon. No wonder we had cases of famine on an unbelievable scale all over Africa since the 1960's, with the mass starvation in southern Sudan and in Zimbabwe being the latest examples.

  8. Re:Not too surprisingly, consider who's in charge by nathanm · · Score: 3, Informative

    Don't forget:

    North Korea (1990s-present)