Bush: Europe Partially Responsible for Africa Famine

Great Debates
1

Today I had an urge to let out my december-istic tendencies for a spell.

EU Buisness Reports

The full text may be found here

Now, I am of two minds on the issue. First off, I, despite being a hard-left liberal, generally agree with the sentiments expressed by Mr. Bush. I think that the EU ban on GMOs is doing more harm than good, and should be eventually phased out. I also think it is hurting Africa in that it makes it less profitable for people to investigate such crops. It also forces Africa to use only conventional crops, as any use of GMOs would cause their products to become unsellable in a large portion of the world.

I also agree that agricultural subsidies have been doing far more harm than good. They make it far more difficult for the third world to compete on price, and create an unlevel playing field. My only issue is that Mr. Bush doesn’t go far enough here, and call for an end to them, period. But just getting rid of subsidies on products to the third world would be a huge step.

On the other hand, I think that though I agree with the sentiments of the speech, it’s expression is not the best. I think that Bush overstates in some ways the benifits that GMOs would bring to Africa, making it a bit more difficult to defend this cause. I also don’t think he’s doing enough to ensure it wouldn’t just benefit the United States’ biotech firms.

Also, Mr. Bush isn’t exactly a paragon of free trade himself. The protectionist measures regarding steel, and the United States’ own agricultural subsidies make it seem as though he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth. I would be very interesting to see the reaction of the farmers here if his proposal to eliminate even some types of farm subsidies is accepted.

There’s also the issue of timing. I feel the speech is expressed to bluntly, and not necessarily in the right forum. American/European relations are not at their peak right now, and I don’t see most European countries feeling incredibly inclined to go along with his suggestions, especially given resistance at home. I also feel that a better place to work towards the elimination of agricultural subsidies is the next round of the WTO, which is dedicated to exactly that. Such a forum would, I feel, work far better all around to encouraging Europe to comply with this.

What are the thoughts of the other dopers on this speech?

2

Ending the U.S.'s own vast subsidies would do far far more good for Africa than Europe allowing genetically altered foods. This whole line of argument is laughable: subsidies on exports alone indeed hurt developing nations. But when you subsidize your entire industry, that hurts foriegn industries just as much.

The fact is, despite what Bush has said about Africa, that’s simply the most politically good-sounding motive he had to pluck out of the pack, not a particularly compelling one: the actual effort to end the ban has very little to do with Africa. Genetically altered crops could raise African productivity somewhat over time: but enough to compete with things like the U.S.’ heavily subsidized and industrialized farmers? No way. Especially not given that these industries are hardly pushing poverty reducing technology alone with no strings attached: they are pushing a business model that keeps farmers completely at the beck and call of the patent owners.

And the idea that he would include Japan, which donates a far larger portion of its GDP towards foriegn aid than we do, in a list of countries that should match the “US example” is pretty ridiculous. They may not invest anywhere near as much in Africa, but that hardly makes them slackers.

3

No, the EU ban on GMOs is not making GMO products unsellable in a large portion of the world. As even US trade representatives point out, that ban has massive support in the public over here. Any attempt to wedge it open will further deteriorate relations, and achieve precious little economic advantage. Yes, GMO product will appear on european shelves…supermarket shelves. And that’s where they’ll largely stay, until discarded. More, allowing GMOs in without marking them explicitly is likely to produce a backlash against any and all products from a given nation, as people, unsure as to whether the product is GM or not, stay on the safe side and don’t buy anything from there. It is absolutley silly to open a market for products that barely anyone wants to buy there. I doubt that the revenue will cover the costs.

Bush is simply complaining that he’s being given a hard time opening up another market for the US crop industry. Yes, the WTO would be a better forum for such complaints, but the WTO currently is not exactly a ‘home game’ for Bush. I assume he wants to garner support in advance by painting the EU as the bad guys. That is support from third parties, to have them on his side, and should that fail, support at home for, if need be, scoffing at another international institution. Given how many people, especially Bush supporters, I have seen consider the WTO a European puppet because they merely know about decisions against the US, but not the other way round (of which there are plenty), that gamble might well pay off, though I doubt he will get what he bargained for in the end.

4

The relevant Africans have bigger problems than exports.

5

My own opinion is that GMOs should be tested and they will probably prove safe but President Bush’s rethoric is only aiming to sell American technoligy and not really aimed at helping Africa

So they are dying of hunger but they are afraid they will not be able to sell their food in Europe? How about eating it? How stupid. It makes no sense and ending the farm subsidies in Europe and America would benefit Africa more than any of this stupid rethoric.

6

that’s closer to the truth.

i believe GMOs will probably prove safe and cost effective but I do not see why any country should be forced to be the guinea pig. If America and Africa want to grow them and consume them then good for them. Time will show they were right and those products will be cheaper. If europeans prefer to pay more for food that is their right just like the FDA regulates this in the USA.

7

That is friggin’ rich. When comparing foreign aid as a percentage of GNP among OECD countries, the US comes in dead last. Making the comparison on a per capita basis, the US contribution in 1999-2000 did manage to come in front of such economic powerhouses as Italy, Portugal & Greece.

Link (PDF, sorry): http://www.oecdwash.org/NEWS/LOCAL/oecdwash-oct-nov2002.pdf

8

An interesting contrast: Bush’s position on stem cell research is less enlightened than Europe’s. Yet, Europe is less enlightened than Bush on genetically engineered crops.

9

I guess that depends on how you define enlightenment, december. This is an extraordinarily complicated issue going under a monolithic rubric: it involves not only public health and environmental issues, but also worries about monopolies on seeds–which is what companies such as Monsanto are after–and citizen rights (the Europeans have offered concessions if there were labelling of GM foods, but the US has said it’s impractical and the industry is dead set against labelling). In fact Europeans are very food-conscious: they’ve had bad experiences with “mad cow” disease and there is great demand for organic foods. They also don’t like being bullied by American politicians and corporations into doing what they, as citizens, simply do not want; and with Bush spouting such disingenuous and self-serving rhetoric about famine in Africa, he is unlikely to win them over.

Although I only read up occasionally on this issue–not enough to keep track of the many different kinds of GM foods (and animals) now being contemplated, I believe there probably is a safe way to introduce some and perhaps most of these technologies under controlled conditions after appropriate testing. But with its utter disdain for labeling, its cavalierness about safety, and its seeming indifference to questions of what happens when these plants and animals mix with the rest of nature, American industry has shown itself to be bent wholly on profits, not the public good. One can hardly expect Europeans–who are more active citizens and more vigilant consumers than we are–to be persuaded either by industry spin or Bush’s hamfisted bullying. I doubt very much that the word “enlightened” springs to mind when they reflect on either.

10

I agree with December and Bush(well partially) for once! Europe’s anti-GM outlook is backwards-looking, but also you can’t force European consumers to buy GM if they don’t want to.

11

Mandlestam, I’m quite skeptical about your claims of a “cavalierness about safety” in the GM food industry. Hype aside, my understanding is that they’re quite attentive to issues of testing and safety. Certainly, it would be quite illogical for them not to be - I don’t see much advantage in it - and the remarkable lack of people getting hurt or sick as a result of GM foods would suggest there is not presently a safety problem. If you have a representative sample of evidence to the contrary, by all means provide it.

The issue of LABELLING is a separate one and I’ll admit my mind isn’t made up on that.

As to the issue in the OP: Hey George, screw you. When the U.S. begins to even approach the Western average in humanitarian foreign aid, then we’ll talk. GM or not GM, I can’t help but notice that you spent a lot more money killing Iraqis this year than you will feeding Africans.

12

Does President Rove imagine that this speech will strike the consciences of the European public, causing them to stampede en masse to le Piggly Wiggly to purchase Frankenfoods? Seems unlikely at best.

Or does it have a domestic political component, a painless, cost-free way to demonstrate the Pubbies long-standing concern and committment to the family farm? OK, Monsanto and ADM stand to benefit in some ways. A little bit. Few billion. No biggie.

Smoke and mirrors. He knows it, the Yurpeens know it.

13

teeheee!

:slight_smile:

hi, i’m a Yurpeen
heheh

:smiley:

14

Haven’t you ever heard about the FDA? Or the World Health Organization, which declared that GMO foods could safely be eaten?

Actually, European tariffs on farm products are a little more than twice as high as the US. Cite. So, presuming that eliminating trade barriers would help with African famines, the Europeans have much farther to go than America.

Although I agree that farm subsidies and agricultural tariffs are a bad idea.

Zambia was the country that rejected GMO food aid even though they were starving. In that case at least, allowing bioengineered food would have done more good than eliminating subsidies.

Regards,
Shodan

15

Yes I was going to point that out, the Yuropeens are just as bad as the US in terms of farm subsidies and import-tariffs.

16

>> Zambia was the country that rejected GMO food aid even though they were starving. In that case at least, allowing bioengineered food would have done more good than eliminating subsidies.

So why is President Bush picking on Europe instead of picking on Zambia? Could it possibly be because his rethoric is pure demagoguery for domestic consumption?

Europe accepting GM foods will only benefit US companies, not Africa.

17

Unbelievable. I know Bush is not renowned for his diplomatic abilities but this is ridiculous. The european ban on GM food is not a significant factor in the fact that so many Africans are starving. And he has the cheek to call on Europe, Japan and Canada to do more in terms of aid, when they already spend greater amounts. The EU spent $26 billion on aid in 2001, while the US spent $10.9 billion. All 3 spent more than the US in terms of % of GDP.

Regarding GM foods - there are legitimate concerns about the widespread use of GM foods, but even if there weren’t the fact remains that the european public are overwhelmingly against GM foods. Allowing unlabelled GM food into the EU would effectively force everyone to eat it. I’m all for allowing imports of GM food as long as its labelled, so you can give people the choice.

For what its worth i personally think GM foods are perfectly safe for humans to eat, but i am very concerned about the potential effects on our flora and fauna. If it was up to me i’d allow imports of labelled GM food, but i wouldn’t allow widespread growing of GM crops.

18

yup, they are.
This was brought up in the Summit in South Africa, last year.
Farmers all through Europe are heavily subsidized.
Peopl on that summit said that Third world aid was a joke, and would continue to be a joke, unless Europe opened up its market for African grown goods and prices.

I don’t really understand why Europe subsidezes farming so heavily, can some countries not phase out farming, and buy cheaper products from Africa (ok, there’s a dispatch cost attached, but so what? All fair trade a Yurpeen country does with an African one, can be deducted even from Third World Aid they’re supposed to spend (simplistic, I know, but still. Something along those lines)
Two birds with one stone.

On the other hand then, too: no more pollution from over-fertilizing in Europe! How many countries are suffering from highh nitrates in their drink water, just because of this?
I know Belgium is, and I know Ireland is, too.
There’s a huge problem with manure in Europe. Nearly always there’s too much. And nobody knows what to do with it.

So, it seems to me it would be a win-win situation:
Africa can finally do things on their own
and Europe has no water probs anymore.
I know this is something that’ll go slowly, but would it not be a good idea?

19

>> I don’t really understand why Europe subsidezes farming so heavily,
>> can some countries not phase out farming, and buy cheaper products from Africa

Well, the USA is in the same boat, it’s not only Yurop. Both are just as bad. And yes, giving aid while following protective policies which deny those countries the chance to make a living is worng and is immoral and is just stupid.

20

You don’t say!

I’m sure Bush has a few suggestions.:slight_smile: