This Means War

[Louis VI the Fat]

The US embassy in Paris advised Washington to start a military-style trade war against any European Union (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/eu) country which opposed genetically modified (GM (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gm)) crops, newly released WikiLeaks cables show.

In response to moves by France to ban a Monsanto GM corn variety in late 2007, the ambassador, Craig Stapleton, a friend and business partner of former US president George Bush, asked Washington to penalise the EU and particularly countries which did not support the use of GM crops (http://213.251.145.96/cable/2007/12/07PARIS4723.html).


[...]


"Opportunities exist to press the issue with the Vatican, and in turn to influence a wide segment of the population in Europe and the developing world," says another.

[...]

In addition, the cables show US diplomats working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto. "In response to recent urgent requests by [Spanish rural affairs ministry] state secretary Josep Puxeu and Monsanto, post requests renewed US government support of Spain (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/spain)'s science-based agricultural biotechnology position through high-level US government intervention."

It also emerges that Spain and the US have worked closely together to persuade the EU not to strengthen biotechnology laws (http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/05/09MADRID482.html). In one cable, the embassy in Madrid writes: "If Spain falls, the rest of Europe will follow."
The cables show that not only did the Spanish government ask the US to keep pressure on Brussels but that the US knew in advance how Spain would vote (http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/10/09MADRID1013.html), even before the Spanish biotech commission had reported.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-crops:furious3:

Washington is a mercenary war machine for US corporate interest.

Washington makes strategic interests subordinate to private interests, by running frivolous trade wars with its allies.

Spain must think it is 1939 all over, and is again a secret and willing accomplice to countries conspiring against its neighbour.


Finally, if Europe wishes to preserve its sovereignity in the face of bullies like the Washington mercenary machine, the Russian mobster state, or the Chinese klingon hyve, we ought to stick together instead of letting 27 small countries be picked off one by one. To preserve our sovereignity, we shall have to pool some of it.

[Husar]

Indeed, we need to establish our own evil empire ASAP!

I'm surprised the ambassador is a friend of the Bush administration after all the honesty and love for freedom and democracy that administration has shown I would have never thought one among them would try to further his own corporate interests through political means.
But how about the success? Ok, they try to influence Europe, but so do others, no?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Leaked embassy cables show that US diplomats aggressively pushed foreign governments to purchase Boeing airplanes, helping the US aviation giant in the bitter transatlantic battle with its European rival, Airbus.

In late 2007, the national airline of the Kingdom of Bahrain announced a huge deal to buy airplanes from European aviation giant Airbus. But only a few weeks later, Gulf Air’s decision was suddenly reversed and a new contract signing ceremony with US aerospace rival Boeing was scheduled to coincide with then US President George W. Bush’s trip to Bahrain – the first ever visit of a sitting US president. Airbus had been sidelined by backdoor dealings at the highest levels, and not even an eleventh-hour appeal by French President Nicolas Sarkozy could undo the damage. It was just one of many incidents of US diplomatic wrangling that led foreign governments to favour Boeing over Airbus.

Hundreds of newly leaked cables (http://www.france24.com/en/20101128-wikileaks-documents-leaked-usa-european-media-cables-embassies-diplomacy-washington), obtained by the US daily the New York Times, show that US diplomats have aggressively lobbied foreign governments to buy commercial jetliners built by the Seattle-based airplane manufacturer.

“United States diplomats were acting like marketing agents, offering deals to heads of state and airline executives whose decisions could be influenced by price, performance and, as with all finicky customers with plenty to spend, perks,” the daily wrote.

[...]

In 2006, a senior Commerce Department official hand-delivered a personal letter from former President Bush to the Jeddah office of the Saudi King, urging him to buy 43 Boeing jets (http://www.france24.com/en/20101107-saudi-airlines-orders-20-boeing-777-787-aircraft). According to the cables, the king replied in turn with a personal request: “all the technology that his friend, President Bush, had on Air Force One,” for his own private jet.The US vacuum cleaner salesmen corps...erm...I mean the US diplomatic corps, caught with their pants down.

http://www.france24.com/en/20110103-boeing-airbus-war-usa-france-wikileaks-cables-diplomacy-jet-sales-bush-sarkozy

[Fragony]

Oh don't be so boring (Spain huh)

[Furunculus]

hmmm yes, i remember those piles of british beef remaining banned in france long after it was declared safe.

i have little sympathy i'm afraid.

[rory_20_uk]

A Frenchman giving lessons on the State muscling in on behalf of its companies... :rolleyes:

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

hmmm yes, i remember those piles of british beef remaining banned in france long after it was declared safe.

i have little sympathy i'm afraid.But what of the infringement of sovereignty?

Surely you must be outraged at the foreigners strongarming Britain and other European countries to change their policies?

[Fragony]

But what of the infringement of sovereignty?

*cough* Europian Union

//gets water

[rory_20_uk]

But what of the infringement of sovereignty?

Surely you must be outraged at the foreigners strongarming Britain and other European countries to change their policies?

Exactly when has this not been a major feature of diplomacy?

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Exactly when has this not been a major feature of diplomacy?

~:smoking:

Spot on.

[Husar]

Exactly when has this not been a major feature of diplomacy?

~:smoking:

But the world has changed, it's all peaceful and nice now and problems don't exist!

[Fragony]

MUHAHAHA et HA

LOL@teh Frenchie

Just read this. Guess who is the undisputed world leader in industrial espionage, more than Russia and China combined? But you already knew that didn't you...

[gaelic cowboy]

@Louis


hmmm yes, i remember those piles of british beef remaining banned in france long after it was declared safe.

i have little sympathy i'm afraid.

It's too late anyway Louis a lot of animal feed for beef production is using ingredients that is GMO based.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What the heck is a "military style trade war"?

[Fragony]

Which is a good thing as I don't have to turn the light on to find my toilet-paper after taking a dump

[Beskar]

Which is a good thing as I don't have to turn the light on to find my toilet-paper after taking a dump

I don't recommend using your Laptop screen.

[al Roumi]

I think what's not ok and not run-of-the mill (or bloody shouldn't be) is quite such blatant corporate cronyism at the very top of the United States of Umurica's administration. Yes lobbies etc always influence policy but actually having ex board members of a given industry handling the legislative portfolio as the same industry is always going to be wide open to corruption if not favouritism.

What divides the acceptability of state support for particular companies is your definition of national interest. If that national interest is the individual's "free" choice, then industrial favouritism is clearly wrong. If however you understand national interest to be the GDP bottom line (and by extension that of state champion's of industry), then it's a-ok.

T'is funny for France to complain about states' meddling in industries and leveraging state resources to the benefit of state champions... But then it's also equally absurd to hear the US protest against EU support to Airbus. The biggest joke is that Airbus and Boeing then point to each other saying they did it, so we need to aswell to keep things fair!

[Vladimir]

A Frenchman giving lessons on the State muscling in on behalf of its companies... :rolleyes:

~:smoking:

:laugh4:

Was thinking the same thing. ~;)

I'm lacking in humor today so this is a non-story. :shrug:

[Louis VI the Fat]

What the heck is a "military style trade war"?It is the difference between using diplomatic leverage to promote business interest, that is, business as usual, and a diplomatic scandal, that is, the subject of this thread.

Washington is exposed as a government-for-hire. (Yes nothing new, but like all the other leaked cables that are 'nothing new', something still is exposed in broad daylight). Are none of the Americans here in the least bit annpoyed that their government is hired by private companies to start trade wars? That is, to use public power for private interest? That is, that the US government is used to take something from the average American to benefit other Americans? I thought you guys were supposed to be allergic to government redistributing wealth...
Why can Monsanto suck on Washington's tit but not some single mother?


As for Madrid - I suppose we needn't consult them then, but should directly ask for the manager in charge in Washington? Might as well, what with Washington being informed beforehand what Spain is going to vote when. Bunch of clowns. This rubbish is expected of Rome, and is why nobody takes Italy seriously.
What's the matter with all these weaklings? A century ago we ruled the universe. Now Europe is a continent of subservient wussies. Bunch of spineless dhimmis. Only France dares to formulate an independent policy anymore. :wall:

[Louis VI the Fat]

MUHAHAHA et HA

LOL@teh Frenchie

Just read this. Guess who is the undisputed world leader in industrial espionage, more than Russia and China combined? But you already knew that didn't you...I would read it if you gave us a link.

[Furunculus]

What's the matter with all these weaklings? A century ago we ruled the universe. Now Europe is a continent of subservient wussies. Bunch of spineless dhimmis. Only France dares to formulate an independent policy anymore. :wall:
two world wars and a welfare state my son; we're post war....... well, most of us at least.

[Louis VI the Fat]

two world wars and a welfare state my son; we're post war....... well, most of us at least.Oh why won't you join me in a fine war against the United States. I sense they are weak, what with their homosexual army and Muslim president....

[drone]

No big surprise here. Don't mess with Monsanto, they will put Round-Up in your irrigation systems. :evil:

[Hosakawa Tito]

Oh why won't you join me in a fine war against the United States. I sense they are weak, what with their homosexual army and Muslim president....

Hehehe, too late Frenchie. You gots gm in your foie gras supply. (http://www.rfi.fr/actuen/articles/100/article_38.asp)
U HAVE BEEN ASSIMILATED. Bon Apetit!
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/hoppy84/altered_the_pool_baby.jpg

[Crazed Rabbit]

:furious3:

Washington is a mercenary war machine for US corporate interest.

Washington makes strategic interests subordinate to private interests, by running frivolous trade wars with its allies.

Spain must think it is 1939 all over, and is again a secret and willing accomplice to countries conspiring against its neighbour.


Finally, if Europe wishes to preserve its sovereignity in the face of bullies like the Washington mercenary machine, the Russian mobster state, or the Chinese klingon hyve, we ought to stick together instead of letting 27 small countries be picked off one by one. To preserve our sovereignity, we shall have to pool some of it.

Tell me why then, exactly, Europe (and the US, to be fair) keep restrictions on agricultural imports from third world countries?
:inquisitive:

Seriously, I think you need to up the stakes here Louis. I'm not fazed by a 'military style trade war' (isn't that why we call trade wars trade wars?). I want proclamations of doom for the environment, of giant modified chickens running rampant through Europe and eating small children, of vast masses of people going insane after consuming the hellish concoction that is genetically modified food, leading them to eat the brains of their fellow humans for sustenance. And I want assurances it will all end in a Nuclear firestorm over the earth unless we stop these evil Americans, who are doing something so evil no madman in the history of the world has considered it before.

CR

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Don't bother with it CR, he's just throwing a smokescreen for the Octasquids again. The real menace remains unseen....

[Greyblades]

...Realy? The United States is considering starting a trade war over other countries disapproving of modified plants. They realy dont have anything better to do?

[Louis VI the Fat]

I want proclamations of doom for the environment, of giant modified chickens running rampant through Europe and eating small children, of vast masses of people going insane after consuming the hellish concoction that is genetically modified food, leading them to eat the brains of their fellow humans for sustenance. And I want assurances it will all end in a Nuclear firestorm over the earth unless we stop these evil Americans, who are doing something so evil no madman in the history of the world has considered it before.

CRYou don't understand.

The prospect of US food being imposed on Europe IS the apocalyse to me. It IS the end of the world. American food already is a hellish concoction of madmen, to be forcefed that is the end of European civilisation.

See it is all a joke to Americans. Just some corn. To me, it is the beginning and end of everything, a nuclear missile aimed at the heart of my existence. I shall fight it to the bitter end, at least six weeks. I shall smash up a McDonalds in protest.

[Furunculus]

You don't understand.

The prospect of US food being imposed on Europe IS the apocalyse to me. It IS the end of the world. American food already is a hellish concoction of madmen, to be forcefed that is the end of European civilisation.

See it is all a joke to Americans. Just some corn. To me, it is the beginning and end of everything, a nuclear missile aimed at the heart of my existence. I shall fight it to the bitter end, at least six weeks. I shall smash up a McDonalds in protest.

i'd make a glib comment about CAP, but it might be too close to the mark! :D

[Fragony]

...Realy? The United States is considering starting a trade war over other countries disapproving of modified plants. They realy dont have anything better to do?

And how much does the USA export anyway. Not in my supermarket, all veggies come from the Eurozone and North Africa/Israel

[Yoyoma1910]

You don't understand.

The prospect of US food being imposed on Europe IS the apocalyse to me. It IS the end of the world. American food already is a hellish concoction of madmen, to be forcefed that is the end of European civilisation.

See it is all a joke to Americans. Just some corn. To me, it is the beginning and end of everything, a nuclear missile aimed at the heart of my existence. I shall fight it to the bitter end, at least six weeks. I shall smash up a McDonalds in protest.

I went to France for Christmas and made my wife's family a delicious chicken, sausage, and shrimp gumbo, which I cooked for 7 hours. They all ate it up like it was a drug, and asked for the recipe, even the traditionally picky ones such as my niece and my brother-in-law's non pork eating girlfriend.


In late 2008, as Bush was stepping out, they decided to raise the tariff on Roquefort from 100 to 300 percent. There's your war.

[Louis VI the Fat]

i'd make a glib comment about CAP, but it might be too close to the mark! :D
And how much does the USA export anyway. Not in my supermarket, all veggies come from the Eurozone and North Africa/Israel What good fortune that the two of you posted these two posts just aftern one another.

There is a connection between them. Europe's long project of maintaining food independence preserves our sovereignity. We are not dependent on the Soviet Union / Russia for grain, nor dependent on north America, or Argentina and Brazil etc.

The CAP means that European agriculture is and has been preserved even in areas where, and in times when, it would be more profitable to just import food. With food prices now surpassing those of the 2008 crisis again, we should count ourselves lucky our supermarkets can supply themselves to a large extent with European food.

That is why one needs an agricultural policy. Why should this policy be pan-European? This is too further increase national sovereignity. For example, densely populated Britain is at liberty to convert large areas of its countryside into suburbs to increase the living conditions of its fast growing population, while still maintaing its agricultural independence through subsidising the preservation of agriculture in Ireland and France.


It's all so beautiful and we all gain so much. :smitten:

[Strike For The South]

Not surprised the US has been beholden to corporate interests for a while

That's why we're fat and fighting 2 wars

[gaelic cowboy]

And how much does the USA export anyway. Not in my supermarket, all veggies come from the Eurozone and North Africa/Israel


:laugh4::laugh4: do you eat meat Frag or consume any soya, what about cotton or sugar.

There is basically loads of stuff in your kitchen cupboard or your bedroom closet that is GMO based today :yes:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Not surprised the US has been beholden to corporate interests for a while

That's why we're fat and fighting 2 wars

Are you conducting seances with Smedley Butler? I have heard this theme before....


Though to be fair it has a deal of truth to it, and that truth is why we can't have Smith's impartial "invisible hand."

[Greyblades]

That's why we're fat and fighting 2 wars

Well one war and one manhunt. And that one war isnt over only because ending it and withdrawing would cause the occupied country to collapse.

[rory_20_uk]

What good fortune that the two of you posted these two posts just aftern one another.

There is a connection between them. Europe's long project of maintaining food independence preserves our sovereignity. We are not dependent on the Soviet Union / Russia for grain, nor dependent on north America, or Argentina and Brazil etc.

The CAP means that European agriculture is and has been preserved even in areas where, and in times when, it would be more profitable to just import food. With food prices now surpassing those of the 2008 crisis again, we should count ourselves lucky our supermarkets can supply themselves to a large extent with European food.

That is why one needs an agricultural policy. Why should this policy be pan-European? This is too further increase national sovereignity. For example, densely populated Britain is at liberty to convert large areas of its countryside into suburbs to increase the living conditions of its fast growing population, while still maintaing its agricultural independence through subsidising the preservation of agriculture in Ireland and France.


It's all so beautiful and we all gain so much. :smitten:

CAP is increasinly spent on preserving the countryside, not on preserving food production. Hence then end of the milk lake / butter mountain etc etc.

It is used for such things as keeping alive the archaic and inefficient practices in many countries such as France, which if this were for food sovereignty would be pushing ahead for increasing efficiencies.

You're just trying to justify a subsidy to France and aren't going to look to closely at what this entails.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

:laugh4::laugh4: do you eat meat Frag or consume any soya, what about cotton or sugar.

There is basically loads of stuff in your kitchen cupboard or your bedroom closet that is GMO based today :yes:

You keep vegetables in your bedroom closet?

[rory_20_uk]

Cotton shirts / cotton sheets...

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

CAP is increasinly spent on preserving the countryside, not on preserving food production. Hence then end of the milk lake / butter mountain etc etc.

It is used for such things as keeping alive the archaic and inefficient practices in many countries such as France, which if this were for food sovereignty would be pushing ahead for increasing efficiencies.

You're just trying to justify a subsidy to France and aren't going to look to closely at what this entails.

~:smoking:Quit whinging and just pay up you stingy Brit. :smash:


Cotton shirts / cotton sheets...My money's on some courgettes...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Quit whinging and just pay up you stingy Brit. :smash:

Sure, you going to buy our superior beef now?

[gaelic cowboy]

You keep vegetables in your bedroom closet?

GMO does not just mean Frankenveg :yes:

[Tellos Athenaios]

:laugh4::laugh4: do you eat meat Frag or consume any soya, what about cotton or sugar.

There is basically loads of stuff in your kitchen cupboard or your bedroom closet that is GMO based today :yes:

Soya: Argentine, Brazilian, Asian. Meat: New Zealand, African, Argentine, European. Cotton: African. Sugar: African, European.

To be sure, we do import USA food stuffs. But GMO stuff is really not something people are queuing to buy, does come with various extra hoops that food processing industry must jump through to the point that there's very little market for GMO at the moment. Might be a Dutch peculiarity.

[gaelic cowboy]

Soya: Argentine, Brazilian, Asian. Meat: New Zealand, African, Argentine, European. Cotton: African. Sugar: African, European.

To be sure, we do import USA food stuffs. But GMO stuff is really not something people are queuing to buy, does come with various extra hoops that food processing industry must jump through to the point that there's very little market for GMO at the moment. Might be a Dutch peculiarity.

You are already eating and wearing GMO products my good man, and if you include ingredients or other inputs then GMO has a very big and unseen effect.

[Louis VI the Fat]

MUHAHAHA et HA

LOL@teh Frenchie

Just read this. Guess who is the undisputed world leader in industrial espionage, more than Russia and China combined? But you already knew that didn't you...Thank you for the link.

I have at last discovered what you refer to (http://www.france24.com/en/20110104-france-industrial-espionage-economy-germany-russia-china-business).


It turns out that the allegation of France being 'the undisputed world leader in industrial espionage' is based on a single head of a German firm venting. His firm is in tight competition with a French one for a new government order.
Not a scientific article. Not investigative reporting. Not a source in an intelligence agency. But a single guy venting.
He is bidding for a German government contract, and during the negotiations for this contract, he publicy vents that his French-led competition is a worse threat to Germany than the Chinese and Russians combined, and 'when are German politicians going to make a stand?'

Pfffttt....

Well done. So when Prince Andrew claims that the Americans can't even point out anything on a map, as he did, this is presented as 'Proof at last! Guess who are the world's undisputed most ignorant people?'
And when Strike in the Frontroom claims nobody can eat as much as a Texan, this is presented on other games websites as 'It's offical! Guess who are the world leader in calorie intake?'


:wall: :wall:

[HoreTore]

:laugh4::laugh4: do you eat meat Frag or consume any soya, what about cotton or sugar.

There is basically loads of stuff in your kitchen cupboard or your bedroom closet that is GMO based today :yes:

My meat is all-Norwegian, my soya is from Dutchiestan, my sugar is from Denmark and my cotton is from Egypt.

I very much doubt its any different in Fragistan. Lots of American brands(coca cola, macdonalds, etc), not much actually grown in the US. You have a trade deficit, remember, which means that you import much more than you export....

[Louis VI the Fat]

For actual industrial espionage, instead of some bollox non-story, google 'Renault + management + espionage'. Several members at strategic positions have been selling crucial information to an as of yet undisclosed third party. It rocks the French business world. We might have to rethinbk our anti-espionage strategy, include private business more into national anti-espionage.

Business needs to be open, transparant and free if one wishes a dynamic business culture. But what if third parties systematically steals all your information, blatantly infringes on all your patents and copyrights, and spies on a truly humongous scale? What if this third party is the world's largest country, where there is little distinction between private and public interest? Your competitor is the state of China, fighting you by undermining your business?



Which ties this nicely to the subject of this thread: What exactly is the differnce between the Chinese state strongarming others on behalf of its businesses, and Washington strongarming others on behalf on Monsanto and other US companies?

For with capitalism or an open business environment none of this has got anything to do.

[gaelic cowboy]

My meat is all-Norwegian, my soya is from Dutchiestan, my sugar is from Denmark and my cotton is from Egypt.

I very much doubt its any different in Fragistan. Lots of American brands(coca cola, macdonalds, etc), not much actually grown in the US. You have a trade deficit, remember, which means that you import much more than you export....

Your allready using GMO products you just cant tell easily Horetore, words like Organic food or GM free mean absolutely nothing in agriculture.

It does not matter that your meat is Norweigian the meal fed to the animal was probably using a GMO ingredient.

93% of all the worlds soya is GMO and so therefore impossible to say it is GMO free.

Cotton is more likely from India which is somewhere around 80-90% GMO based but even Eygpt produces GMO cotton nowadays.

In short USA wants GMO food relaxation really because they control the major producers of GMO products and seeds

[HoreTore]

You're forgetting that you're talking to a farmer ~;)

Haven't seen any GM animal food around here, and I don't know of any available animal foods based on it.

And I'm not concerned about consuming Gm-food, I'm only concerned about the bio-diversity issues.

(and the one piece of clothing made out of cotton I'm wearing now(my shirt) is made from egyptian cotton, so no, its definitely not indian ~;) )

[gaelic cowboy]

You're forgetting that you're talking to a farmer ~;)

Haven't seen any GM animal food around here, and I don't know of any available animal foods based on it.

And I'm not concerned about consuming Gm-food, I'm only concerned about the bio-diversity issues.

Your forgetting your talking to an actual Irish Beef farmer here:yes:

The rules on GM ingredients are fuzzy to say the least, chances are the meal has a GM ingredient somewhere along the chain.

I'm not really concerned with eating GM products either but I am distrustful of any product that is roundup ready:yes:

[HoreTore]

Allright, I've seen your raise.

Just skimmed through the information of the powerfoods we've given to pigs and horses, and I can't see any mention of GM there...

Info unfortunately in Norwegian (http://fk-landbruk.no/Documents/Eksterne/Fagdokument/For/Hest/CHAMPION_brosjyre_web.pdf)

Its developed at UMB though, where my ex goes, and I know for a fact that they don't use any GM stuff in their research, unless they have started doing so after 2008(which I doubt).

[Greyblades]

Powerfoods? I dont know about farming but you'd think at least something would have been done to something thats seriously called powerfood.

[HoreTore]

Powerfoods? I dont know about farming but you'd think at least something would have been done to something thats seriously called powerfood.

You'll have to excuse my English... I don't really know the exact english term, I just guessed at "powerfood" because its a direct translation of the Norwegian term, "kraftfor".

Baasically, the food given to animals are divided into two groups: "grovfor", which is hay, and "kraftfor", which is minerals, vitamins, proteins and such.

[gaelic cowboy]

Allright, I've seen your raise.

Just skimmed through the information of the powerfoods we've given to pigs and horses, and I can't see any mention of GM there...

Info unfortunately in Norwegian (http://fk-landbruk.no/Documents/Eksterne/Fagdokument/For/Hest/CHAMPION_brosjyre_web.pdf)

Its developed at UMB though, where my ex goes, and I know for a fact that they don't use any GM stuff in their research, unless they have started doing so after 2008(which I doubt).

They don't need to research GM crops at UMB if the feed contains any soy or maize or any of the 16 GMO ingredients allowed in the EU then the pig ate a GM meal.

[gaelic cowboy]

You'll have to excuse my English... I don't really know the exact english term, I just guessed at "powerfood" because its a direct translation of the Norwegian term, "kraftfor".

Baasically, the food given to animals are divided into two groups: "grovfor", which is hay, and "kraftfor", which is minerals, vitamins, proteins and such.

Generally we call it meal here.

[Subotan]

You don't understand.

The prospect of US food being imposed on Europe IS the apocalyse to me. It IS the end of the world. American food already is a hellish concoction of madmen, to be forcefed that is the end of European civilisation.

See it is all a joke to Americans. Just some corn. To me, it is the beginning and end of everything, a nuclear missile aimed at the heart of my existence. I shall fight it to the bitter end, at least six weeks. I shall smash up a McDonalds in protest.

Surely if the French were as cultured as you say they are, Louis, then even if the tariffs were lifted, the French would still spurn US Style food...right?


What good fortune that the two of you posted these two posts just aftern one another.

There is a connection between them. Europe's long project of maintaining food independence preserves our sovereignity. We are not dependent on the Soviet Union / Russia for grain, nor dependent on north America, or Argentina and Brazil etc.

The CAP means that European agriculture is and has been preserved even in areas where, and in times when, it would be more profitable to just import food. With food prices now surpassing those of the 2008 crisis again, we should count ourselves lucky our supermarkets can supply themselves to a large extent with European food.

That is why one needs an agricultural policy. Why should this policy be pan-European? This is too further increase national sovereignity. For example, densely populated Britain is at liberty to convert large areas of its countryside into suburbs to increase the living conditions of its fast growing population, while still maintaing its agricultural independence through subsidising the preservation of agriculture in Ireland and France.


It's all so beautiful and we all gain so much. :smitten:
We're already dependant on Russia for oil and gas and look how much that buggers up Europe. Preserving agriculture in Europe is essential....



CAP is increasinly spent on preserving the countryside, not on preserving food production. Hence then end of the milk lake / butter mountain etc etc.

It is used for such things as keeping alive the archaic and inefficient practices in many countries such as France, which if this were for food sovereignty would be pushing ahead for increasing efficiencies.

You're just trying to justify a subsidy to France and aren't going to look to closely at what this entails.

~:smoking:
...but this also applies. Pétain was wrong, as the earth does lie, at least today, in that age-old rural lifestyles simply cannot deliver the living standards of modern society without huge government support. THAT SAID - 75% of CAP subsidies go to agribusiness corporations, who should surely be able to produce cheap food themselves without the need for subsidy.

[Veho Nex]

We are the united states corporate mafia. You buy our goods, yes? You don't and we make you buy them at the tip of a blade and the tilt of a hat.

[HoreTore]

They don't need to research GM crops at UMB if the feed contains any soy or maize or any of the 16 GMO ingredients allowed in the EU then the pig ate a GM meal.

Probably, though only marginally.

[gaelic cowboy]

Surely if the French were as cultured as you say they are, Louis, then even if the tariffs were lifted, the French would still spurn US Style food...right?

This is all really about making European agri business source more ingredients from GMO crops, it is not about exporting GMO food from USA although some would inevitably be exported. The real killer app is that GMO crops can be patented and the farmer is made dependent on them because Monsanto controls the production of the seed.

[HoreTore]

Yeah, that the farmer is not allowed to keep a portion of the crop for seeding next year is probably my biggest problem with genetically modified stuff.

Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me.

[Greyblades]

Oh it makes perfect sense; the companies making the seeds wont make money if you are able to produce your own.

[gaelic cowboy]

Yeah, that the farmer is not allowed to keep a portion of the crop for seeding next year is probably my biggest problem with genetically modified stuff.

Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me.

Western farmer source seed from special seed farmers due to hybrid vigour problems but GMO companies wont even allow that if they can manage it.

[gaelic cowboy]

Oh it makes perfect sense; the companies making the seeds wont make money if you are able to produce your own.

Some of the aims are noble like using less water or preventing disease but seed control is what there really after.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You don't understand.

The prospect of US food being imposed on Europe IS the apocalyse to me. It IS the end of the world. American food already is a hellish concoction of madmen, to be forcefed that is the end of European civilisation.

See it is all a joke to Americans. Just some corn. To me, it is the beginning and end of everything, a nuclear missile aimed at the heart of my existence. I shall fight it to the bitter end, at least six weeks. I shall smash up a McDonalds in protest.

Then don't buy it. I don't recall any laws requiring the French to stuff themselves with at least 1 pound of US food per day. Though, come to think of it, bullying the government into passing that would help our exports...

Anyways, if you don't like it, don't buy it. Buy French food.

They'll still be French food available, unless nearly everyone in France decides they'd rather buy something else, in which case it would only be you who doesn't like American food. In that case, it would be a small missile aimed only at your existence and not anyone else's.
~;p
CR

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...seed control is what there really after.

So the key is to defend our prescious essence?

[Tellos Athenaios]

You are already eating and wearing GMO products my good man, and if you include ingredients or other inputs then GMO has a very big and unseen effect.

Oh if you meant selection by the farmer, then yes. Obviously.

[Vladimir]

So the key is to defend our prescious essence?

Sorry, just saw this. It's pretty funny.

[Centurion1]

gmo are perfectly safe. do i know if im eating any? nope and dont give a damn doesnt matter at all.

gmos are the worlds future and you are nothing but a reactionary holding back humanities possibility. by your ridiculous efforts and the efforts of ridiculous groups like greenpeace a legitimate form of crop is being limited. so kudos to them for expanding their trade i approve of corporate espionage. rules and ethics are for losers to feel good about

[a completely inoffensive name]

As TA has alluded to in his post, all food is GMO. Cows were not the killable, milkable food dispensaries that they are today back 10,000 years ago when civilization first began. Wheat of all kinds, rice, fruit, you name it. All of our food has been modified by human guided breeding and selection. 2,000 years ago a bunch of farmers had a bunch of steer have sex with one specific cow because it produced 5% more milk then most other cows. Today a bunch of geneticists take a gene from a fish who lives in freezing temperatures and put it in a tomato so it doesn't die during a harsh winter. It's the same thing, people only freak out because the possibilities are endless. Where breeding limits the amount of genes to what is present in the global population of that species, now any gene from any species can benefit any other species on this Earth.

[Centurion1]

As TA has alluded to in his post, all food is GMO. Cows were not the killable, milkable food dispensaries that they are today back 10,000 years ago when civilization first began. Wheat of all kinds, rice, fruit, you name it. All of our food has been modified by human guided breeding and selection. 2,000 years ago a bunch of farmers had a bunch of steer have sex with one specific cow because it produced 5% more milk then most other cows. Today a bunch of geneticists take a gene from a fish who lives in freezing temperatures and put it in a tomato so it doesn't die during a harsh winter. It's the same thing, people only freak out because the possibilities are endless. Where breeding limits the amount of genes to what is present in the global population of that species, now any gene from any species can benefit any other species on this Earth.

that about sums it up.....

guided breeding is simply gmo's on a slower scale.

i wrote a 23 page university paper defending gmo's surprisingly interesting

[rory_20_uk]

GMOs are not without some risk, mainly when pests get hold of certain genes - such as providing resistance to pesticides.

Bacteria can generally absorb DNA form wherever, and since most antibacterials are form bacteria or fungi this changes little directly.

The next frontier is not cutting and pasting in existing genes for certain proteins, but designing new, more efficient (at last from our rather bias perspective) ones and sticking that DNA in.

~:smoking:

[Tellos Athenaios]

That and the fact that changing genetic markup may have unintended side effects. IIRC BSE is on this level little more than a mutation in m-RNA, a mere side effect of other changes. The problem is we don't really know very well what we are doing, yet. Breeding is comparatively simple: the actual hard, technical, complicated work is taken care of by the various animals/plants themselves.

[gaelic cowboy]

My objection to GMO is based around the idea that these companies think they can literally patent genetics for uses in newer variations of old crops.

Monsanto keep trying to push GMO sugarbeet in order to sell Roundup not save the world, we should be wary of there motives and there GMO products.

[rory_20_uk]

Ideally, things should not be patented. But patents are there to encourage R&D by offering a return for the next 15 years. After that the patent ends and it becomes generic - open to all.

Pharma companies are not there to save the world, but medicine would look very different without them.

~:smoking:

[gaelic cowboy]

Ideally, things should not be patented. But patents are there to encourage R&D by offering a return for the next 15 years. After that the patent ends and it becomes generic - open to all.

Pharma companies are not there to save the world, but medicine would look very different without them.

~:smoking:

All true but the companies should not be given carte blanche either.

With food or secondary inputs into agri products it will be much easier for companies to control the patented material after the 15yrs is up. They will simply cease production of the old seed maybe two to three years before the patent runs out, newer companies will be incapable of producing the generic brand because it takes two strains to make a good seed and that applies even with sheep or cattle.

Imagine a world where a few large corporations control the input into say the worlds wheat supply for bread, the patent on the wheat runs out but they can demand that suppliers only use X brand for "Quality Control" hence your tied to a specific company for GMO wheat products.

The stuff wont kill you but your are stuck in an almost 19th century mining town relationship where you must buy from the company shop etc etc.

[rory_20_uk]

All true but the companies should not be given carte blanche either.

I agree. Regulate them like the Pharma industry is. They are very heavily regulated... Well, not really true in France, but in teh developed world it is.

~:smoking:

[a completely inoffensive name]

GMOs are not without some risk, mainly when pests get hold of certain genes - such as providing resistance to pesticides.

Bacteria can generally absorb DNA form wherever, and since most antibacterials are form bacteria or fungi this changes little directly.

The next frontier is not cutting and pasting in existing genes for certain proteins, but designing new, more efficient (at last from our rather bias perspective) ones and sticking that DNA in.

~:smoking:

If the FDA and USDA were not corrupted heavily from Monsanto and other agriculture businesses, they would regulate properly and ensure that proper testing was done on any new variety of GMO. If a certain gene starts causing problems, it will probably reveal itself from long term inspection and toxicity reports from overseen animal consumption and testing. Companies always just want to rush the product out so they can get the jump which is why there is always at least one major pill from big pharma that is recalled from serious side effects due to lack of testing. At least, that is my understanding of it all.

[rory_20_uk]

What I don't understand is how Monsanto can corrupt them and Big Pharma hasn't. Its not like they're short on money: each company R&D budget is billions a year, and there are a lot of companies. One drug can earn them billions a year in turn.

I don't think you've any concept in how much testing goes on with drugs, nor how difficult it is to stop one being released when the event occurs in less than 1 in 10,000 and often after a length of time in a certain demographic of patients. Oh, and then find that needle from all the background adverse events that are not related... I think your last sentence shows your complete lack of understanding.

~:smoking:

[a completely inoffensive name]

What I don't understand is how Monsanto can corrupt them and Big Pharma hasn't. Its not like they're short on money: each company R&D budget is billions a year, and there are a lot of companies. One drug can earn them billions a year in turn.

I don't think you've any concept in how much testing goes on with drugs, nor how difficult it is to stop one being released when the event occurs in less than 1 in 10,000 and often after a length of time in a certain demographic of patients. Oh, and then find that needle from all the background adverse events that are not related... I think your last sentence shows your complete lack of understanding.

~:smoking:

Wait, who said Big Pharma hasn't? As far as I know, there must be a reason why the US has a problem with how expensive our drugs are compared to other countries. (Although whatever happened to all those stories of people crossing into canada for prescription drugs?)

I admit that I don't know much about the industry. That's specifically why I added that last sentence in there. I understand there is a lot of testing, don't get wrong. I am not saying they create a drug and then start pumping it out into the market immediately. I am just saying that perhaps because making new drugs is an expensive business that the testing is still not as long as it could be because companies do have an incentive to make new products before the patents on their old ones expires. That's all I am saying. Not dissing the hard work people do in Pharma testing labs. To be honest, I don't know the threshold of what crosses the line from "acceptable" into, "we should recall this". If you could enlighten me on this, that would be wonderful. I am just commenting on how I see a news scare every six months or so about the recall of some drug or another (wasn't something called Vioxx or something a big one?) and I wonder how this kind of stuff manages to slip by. Forgive me if I insulted you with my ignorance.

EDIT: yeah here is an article of a judge in australia saying that Vioxx was unfit to sell. http://www.theage.com.au/national/drug-unfit-for-sale-says-judge-in-compo-case-20100305-powh.html

[rory_20_uk]

NP, it's rare there's something I do know something about... I get rather sensitive as I perceive my industry to get more flack than British Aerospace et al who build weaponry for money, and all we do is try to make pills and potions to make people better to make money. Angels? No, we're not. Devils? No, we're not that either.

Like most things in Medicine it's a balancing act between several variables.

Longer trials will probably pick up more adverse events. But it increases the cost of the drug as trials are very expensive
More people in the trials will also pick up more adverse events. But increases the cost of the drug as this increases the cost of the trials.
More groupings (age, race, gender, weight, kidney function, diabetes, cardiovascular disease... I could go on)? Again this would require more people for there to be enough in each group to make it worthwhile.
Indirectly, if more drugs were binned due to this it would further increase the costs of drugs as fewer would make it.

A "signal" in a drugs trial is 3 in 10,000. An arbitrary value - but where does random chance end and adverse reaction start? Difficult to know.

Most drugs also go after-market surveillance every 6 months for 5 years (then yearly). This is how drugs are found to have very low levels of side effects, or side effects in a group of patients who were not directly assessed. If there are worries, then more frequent or targeted surveillance is undertaken.

The other side of the coin is: how many die because a drug is not released? The NNT to NNH ratio? (Not that investigators ever do this by the way). If 10 are needed to save someone who would have died, but 1000 to kill someone who would have lived, one might dispassionately say that is acceptable. But deaths of 1 in 1,000 is a drug recall / catastrophe - even if it saved loads of other people (only the case in areas such as antibiotics or similar).

Most agencies will get clobbered for passing anything that turns out to be harmful, but not rewarded for passing something.

The study was in 2000 - but it was approved in 1999. So at the time of approval neither the company nor the FDA knew about this problem. I agree that a 500% increase in MI risk is a LOT. I am sure that the company's senior Execs were reluctant to let $2.5bn a year walk out the door by recalling (and I would also hasten to add that post-marketing business decisions are a long way from the pre-registration Doctors and Scientists). And so faffed around for a long time. Perhaps they hoped another study would show a lower risk? Who knows?

Edit: Linkey (http://www.pharmatimes.com/Article/11-01-14/Common_painkillers_raise_CV_risk_study_finds.aspx) Looks like it's a class effect.

~:smoking:

[Greyblades]

Hmm, I wonder, do they slacken the restricions on how many survive in a thousand if the drug is only going to be used on an always fatal disease?

[rory_20_uk]

There is the Orphan drug designation, and there is some pragmatism in e.g. Oncology - look at the SPC for any oncology drug and the side effects are very long - but you're dead otherwise.

Orphan drugs again hat more lattitude as there's otherwise nothing else. I still don't think there is a view taken that as long as more are saved than killed compared to standard treatment it is allowed.

The interesting thing is that regulations are tightened up all the time - but once you're passed that's it barring disasters, so many old drugs would never have passed today (paracetamol, aspirin to name two).

~:smoking:

[a completely inoffensive name]

There is the Orphan drug designation, and there is some pragmatism in e.g. Oncology - look at the SPC for any oncology drug and the side effects are very long - but you're dead otherwise.

Orphan drugs again hat more lattitude as there's otherwise nothing else. I still don't think there is a view taken that as long as more are saved than killed compared to standard treatment it is allowed.

The interesting thing is that regulations are tightened up all the time - but once you're passed that's it barring disasters, so many old drugs would never have passed today (paracetamol, aspirin to name two).

~:smoking:

How would aspirin not pass regulations today? As far as I know, it is recommended to take a tiny amount every day and there is no side effects unless you decide to take 20 of them.