Genetic rice produced by Bayer damping rice exports

[Stargazer99]

Japan bans any rice imports from the US, why you say? Because CORPORATE AMERICA IS SCREWING YOU ROYALLY and you are just standing there and taking it! Apparently Bayer produced a genetical modified rice and it has infected regular rice. This genetic crap is not fit for human consumption, no wonder Japan says NO! At least their country is smart, but the idiots that run this country need to get the dollar signs out of there eyes, money isn't the only valuable thing in our culture, but you wouldn't know it! Worship the great god, mammon, US and then wonder why evil exists! When will this nation EVER learn? When it finally desimates its self so badly than we cannot rise above our greed, fraud and careless irregard for mother nature? Any corporation that produces genetic seed (in order to make sure you pay through the nose because that will be the only game in town after their genetic seed contaminates what has been grown for centuries-patent rights you know). The sheeple in the US sure are stupid or brain washed...maybe they are just not informed...what you don't know will hurt you...and the corps are betting you will not know until too late.

[soothsayer]

1. Death to Monsatan! and all their ilk!

[robcon]

2. You have to understand the history...

"Japan bans any rice imports from the US, why you say?"

This has nothing to do with the genetic changes - that's only the latest excuse du jour.

The ruling party in Japan is subservient to the agriculture industry there. Japan has very poor agricultural prospects, and the cost of food is extremely high, because their agriculture is so protected by their government. The exclusion of American rice on some "technical grounds" has been the policy of Japan since at least the 70's - well before genetic engineering of agriculture.

[Clark2008]

3. I really fail to see what's wrong with this.

Why shouldn't the Japanese use their own products?

Think how much better off Americans (and our jobs) would be if we followed suit, and not just with agricultural products.

(P.S. I own three American cars - yes, I know they're not 100 percent manufactured here, but I wish they were; two American televisions - built right up the road in Tennessee and by the only American television manufacturer left in the country and, up until my son feed it peanut butter, I owned a 20-year-old VCR that my father designed and one of the few built in this country. So, yes, I try, but it's pretty damn hard to buy American-made products).

[robcon]

4. Both Americans and Japanese would be better off with free trade.

More competition. Better technological improvements. Better economic prospects. Better use of land. Lower prices.

David Ricardo proved this in 1803, but our uneducated politicians still haven't discovered the Theory of Comparative Advantage.

[alvarezadams]

6. Baloney

"Free trade" improves technology - cutting jobs. It improves economic prospects - for the wealthy, for big business. It uses land better - destroying it in the process. It lowers prices - and lowers wages even more.

Workers have known this for centuries but our uneducated and corrupt politicians still haven't discovered that "natural price" means starvation.

[robcon]

7. Facts are the only problem with your rant.

"Workers have known this for centuries but our uneducated and corrupt politicians still haven't discovered that "natural price" means starvation."

Is the U.S. - one of the most free-trading nations on earth - providing starving wages?

Was India - perhaps the most protectionist democracy in the world until the 90's - providing starvation wages until recently?

Is India - which has opened its economy to the world - the fastest growing economy, and the fastest growing wages in the world?

The only problem with your baloney is that it runs exactly counter to the facts, the theory and the economics of the situation.

[buddhamama]

8. The situation in India is not as rosy

as the picture you paint. Free trade has had negative effcts.

For information you will not get in the MSM, or from Governmental agencies, a good place to start is here:

http://www.vshiva.net/


edited for spelling

[robcon]

9. Oh, NO!!!! Negative effects!!! I didn't know that! (sarcasm)

I've seen the negative effects of economic growth, and have studied Chile, a free-trader. I've seen the shacks/slums the urbanization of Chile has caused, as jobs are increasingly concentrated in Santiago, and housing for the newly arrived is miserable. The average income, however, has grown tremendously in Chile.

The pain of a transition to a less agricultural economy is well-documented in many countries. But when, for example, 80% of the people are involved in growing food for its citizens, getting beyond subsistence levels is impossible. (I'm not arguing that every country has to have a U.S.-like economy, where 2% of the people feed the other 98%.)

The key is open markets, free trade and increasing productivity on the farm and in the factories. That's the only hope for most nations of the world.

[buddhamama]

10. the key is

Fair Trade, not free trade.

i was once told by a very wise man to never completely trust anyone who believes they have all the answers.

you didn't even bother to visit the site, did you?

of course not, because you already know everything there is know on this subject (how's that for sarcasm!)

good day!

[alvarezadams]

11. Not at all

"Is the U.S. - one of the most free-trading nations on earth - providing starving wages?"

You'll pardon the hyperbole - starvation tends to happen in countries subject to economic colonialization. As for the US, the Gini index shows just how well laissez faire works (the US' scores similar to 3rd world nations) and the increasing levels of American poverty show just how things get "better" as limitations on "free trade" are removed.

Do you need data? I can provide tons of it - showing just how social-economically backwards we are compared to most 1st world nations, despite the tremendous advantages of being the holder (and printer) of the moneta franca, the exploiters of tremendous natural resources (domestic and foreign) and the hegemonic power.

"Was India - perhaps the most protectionist democracy in the world until the 90's - providing starvation wages until recently?"

Ah, you mean the India that's current development can be directly attributed to the social investment of previous regimes? The one that has created a semi-middle class in some areas - and starvation wages to the rest?

"Is India - which has opened its economy to the world - the fastest growing economy, and the fastest growing wages in the world?"

I've seen similar claims which invariably interpret statistics in an ideologically-driven way. Chile comes to mind, where there was tremendous growth, growing wages... in fact it was the neoliberal posterboy. Until one noticed that the benefits of said growth and wages was limited to a fraction of the population. Under neoliberalism, despite a "sterile environment" for its application, unemployment and underemployment boomed - and there was a new starvation.

"The only problem with your baloney is that it runs exactly counter to the facts, the theory and the economics of the situation."

Funny - sounds like you're attributing the shortcomings of your post to mine.

FWIW, "free marketism", "laissez faire", "neoliberalism" and other euphemisms for economic anarchy and social darwinism is an extreme - every bit as extreme as communism on the other side of the economic spectrum. Like communism it has proved to be a failure, but unlike communism it has relabelled and repackaged itself time and time again.

[alvarezadams]

12. A message for neoliberals

A peek at economic data shows that nations such as Luxembourg, Norway and Sweden - far from "free market economies" - regularly do better than the US in virtually every statistic.

The Jini index shows that as far as income distribution, the US is between Costa Rica and Mali (at the 92nd place on the list): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality ... and the trend is downwards.

No wonder "trickle down" and the Laffer Curve have been mainstays for rw economic arguments.

[alvarezadams]

5. The EU is also considering

banning the rice.

[bobthedrummer]

13. Bayer is an I.G. Farben spin-off. Not to go way off-topic there are some

facts to consider about Bayer (they also produce Cipro which Tommy Thompson and Jerome Hauer promoted immediately after 9/11-well before any indication of a biological attack of any kind let alone anthrax--Thompson ordered 300 million doses of Cipro from Bayer)

I agree that it's vitally important to know the history of corporations-especially those with a history of facilitating genocide and war crimes (of course there are cases of Japanese businesses that fit the same category)


Here's a link from DU's Demopedia about I.G. Farben
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/I.G._Farben

[alvarezadams]

14. It's ironic that it's an EU-based company

that is has been caught in this mess. The EU has laws and a very strong grass-roots aversion to GM crops which has been a point of contention with the US for years.

In a nutshell EU consumers demand that food made with GM crops be clearly labelled as such, something that nearly caused a trade war with the US. The fact that GM crops have "escaped" from "controlled conditions" (contaminating "original" crops) is very worrying, especially with a strain of rice that has not been tested or approved by any organization.

I have heard many arguments on both sides of the GM line. Yet knowing man's tendencies the idea of GM crops brings about the possibility of "genetic warfare". Can anyone doubt that the Pentagon hasn't at least contemplated the idea of "programming" a plant that is key to a potential enemy (say, rice and China) in order to destroy a country's means to feed itself? And knowing of mankind's fundamental incompetence (especially when fostered by greed), who is to know if a GM crop might not have some unforeseen consequence? Genetic modification is such a new science that I do not yet trust out competency - and the stakes are so very high.

Has the GM question been used as a missile weapon in trade conflicts? Certainly. Our corporate-controlled government has made it easy to use it thus by its incompetence.