Re: GMO in Developing Nations

Bruce Sinclair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

>>Oz:
>>Not quite sure about that, what is so is that in the UK farm
>>mechanisation has more been powered by shortage of people willing to do
>>the job at any money. That was certainly the case with herbicide use in
>>veg (and sugarbeet) in the UK. Farmers turned to herbicides because
>>hoegangs simply were not obtainable at any price. Come to that, that
>>also powered the move to mechanical milking.
>
>Maybe ... but I think you'll find that people are more expensive that 
>mchines to do the same job. 

Having been in that position (sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower etc) I can
say that that is not in fact the case. The entire switch over was
expensive, and forced by increasing lack of hoemen and NOT price.
Expensive sprays (then and now) have efficacy gaps, plants need to be
singles and thinned (so expensive monogerm seed and expensive precision
seeders needed) to make the net result marginal. You don't make a big
investment on marginal gains (if any) unless there is no alternative
(there wasn't).

>>>>>and becuase commodity 
>>>>>prices have fallen.
>>>>Because they can be produced more cheaply.
>>>Nope ... because more and more the buying is in the hands of a very few. IIRC 
>>>we have 2 major supermarket chains in NZ.
>>>I'm not sure how much of NZ's food they handle .. but I'd be prepared to guess
>>>it's be 80 % ? They buy cheap because they can ... and they are the only (ish)
>>>game in town. Again .. this is not related to GE.
>>
>>It's more related to world prices, which is.
>
>Given that most food isn't moved around the world, how can you justify 
>this ?

Oh, to be so naive. Local prices (with adjustments for any tarifs) are
based on world price plus shipping costs. Remember food is very
inelastic so it only requires small imports, or just the threat of
imports, to crash a market to world prices. That's why chicargo, london,
EU traded prices follow each other so closely.

Anyone actually buying or selling knows this. When I decide to sell I
have to take into account world supply and demand to judge whether it's
a good time to sell or not.

>>>>>>Each advance, such as the introduction of tractors, the introduction of
>>>>>>herbicides and pesticides, as merely lead to the increase in production of
>>>>>>food per man, and the fall in price. GM is merely the next step on that
>>>>>>road.
>>>>>Possibly. I am yet to be convinced.
>>>>The look the stats up for yourself.
>>>I have ... as I say ... I am yet to be convinced :)
>>>Remember this is stats :)
>>
>>Look them up for yourself, it doesn't take long on google, since you
>>clearly prefer to disbelieve things that contradict your religion.
>
>I will happily believe reliable numbers. That said, all numbers come 
>with assumptions, conditions ... blah blah blah. Is there such a thing 
>as  a "right" statistic ? ... I doubt it. Not religion ... just a 
>healthy does of cynicism. :) YMMV.

Ignorance, you mean.

>>>>>>As for the benefit to the consumer, the proportion of the income of the
>>>>>>urban population is lower, allowing them more money to spend on other
>>>>>>things. 
>>>>>Proportion used on food ? I'd agree (as minor as I believe that amount is)
>> ...
>>>>>except I've seen nothing to suggest that the food price is in any way
>> related 
>>>>>to GE.
>>>>Take a look at world grains/soya prices.
>>>In NZ (at least) soy price is mostly irrelevant to food. We don't eat much 
>><sigh> That controls world meat prices.
>
>Well, in part it might. It sure doesn't in many places ( <apologies 
>.. shouting accidental ... caps lock :)> COS WE CAN SUPPLY MEAT 
>CHEAPER RIGHT NOW ... BUT TRADE RESTRICTIONS MEAN WE AREN'T ALLOWED 
>TO. Work that one out ... we can't. :)

Tarifs, right. See above.
Generally countries don't like loosing too much of their indigenous
agriculture in case prices move suddenly upwards, which they can, do and
have.

>>>I'm informed that most grain goes for animal feed (particularly in the US).
>>yes, but that controls milling wheat premiums.
>
>Which is relevant how ?

$10 premium on $65 feed price is still $10 premium on $100 feed price.
One you lose money, one you make a bit.

>>>Any concrete ge link to price ... or indeed to any benefit ?
>>I'm not sure if you are simply ignorant of basic food economics, or just
>>have your ears closed.
>
>Show me one single benefit. Show me a decrease in price that is linked 
>to GE. Show me any kind of reliable data that suggests it.

You will have to go to the USDA websites for it.
Obviously I can't offer you any UK data, because GM isn't grown
commercially in the UK. 

>I've looked. I've found nothing. You may be more trusting than me and 
>blindly trust any numbers that you are given  ... so be it :)

Trust blindly?

The facts are:

1) With each advance giving cheaper production, the result has been
cheaper food in real terms. That evidence goes back 100 years.

2) Farmers wouldn't grow GM unless it reduced their production costs.

Go figure.

-- 
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.