Resection to culture

Genetically modified foods

Patented Maize cannot be planted again. It is a one generation crop that has to be bought from the American companies each year

I read somewhere that the somalia famine was caused in large part because of this type of aid wiping out the local stock that could reproduce.

If there is a famine in Africa, then there is no difference between milling it an distrubuting it. A famine occurs because crops cannot be planted, and grain aid is usually intended for direct consumption, and not for planting. So milling is the same thing as sending it raw, but has the advantage of being easier to transport, and will certainly not harm any local stock. And it is not an expensive process to mill it, since all corn goods require it to be milled anyways. For that reason, I am very suspicious of companies that want to give aid, but refuse to mill it. Could there be a hidden agenda?

Genetically modified food is unlikely to harm us, I'd say. But making a country dependent on the whims of a coorperation, which is in the game strictly for the dollar, is a very bad economic idea, and when I take over an economic post, I will certainly not advice any such thing.

Genetically modified foods that do not have an auto-destruct feature are all right, in my opinion.

Meanwhile, American companies encode pesticide resistance into SR Crops. Why? So more pesticides can be sprayed without harming the crops! Hardly a likeable outcome, and clearly one cynically aimed at lining chemical company's coffers. It only takes a loose grasp on irony to perceive that the real promise of SR crops is to create disease resistance WITHOUT using pesticides.

Pesticide resistant crops actually allow the use of less pesticides overall, but more highly concentrated at application. This also helps reduce the development of pest resistance, as more of the pests are killed by the more concentrated dose than with the diluted does used on non-resistant plants.

Encoding pest resistance directly into the plants is not always a better idea as the genes may be spread to other, related weed species, leading the disease causing organism to evolve to overcome the modifications.

IMO, making the crops produce more and using traditional (which include intercropping and other 'organic' practices) methods to protect them produces the most benefits.

One of the problems with the whole debate is that disease organisms are constantly evolving to overcome whatever we throw at them, so the best protection stragtegy is the most flexible one, the one able to use either disease resistant plants or pesticide/herbacide resistant ones depending on the situation (which changes year to year and farm to farm).

Of course that flexibility is lost when nations pass laws based on perceptions and opinions rather than science.

We got a thousand points of light For the homeless man

We got a kinder, gentler, Machine gun hand

Got a man of the people, says keep hope alive Got fuel to burn, got roads to drive.

as far as i know, SR foods are mass-produced seeds, with identical genes.

this will go wrong. you need to grow plants the natural way, because they will develop different genes and will be resistent against a more diverse assortment of plagues and/or pests.

also i have heard that those seeds that are being sold (or that the US wants to sell) to Africa and other poor countries, are indeed very cheap, which makes it seem like charity.

but, those seeds produce plants that dont produce seeds, so they'll have to buy the SR seeds every year again and again.. where's the charity in that?

normally they just used the seeds from last year.. but that wouldn't work, even if the SR-plants would produce seeds, because the SR-ness would select out in a few years anyway. [at least, any SR-ing that is not concerned with the survival-rate of the plants, like for example adding vitamin-A to rice]