Tuis » Lekker » Kos & resepte » Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel
| Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #65828] |
Sat, 31 August 2002 09:38  |
Vusi
Boodskappe: 2211
Geregistreer: February 2001
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Wie weet?
Is geneties regstellende kos ongesond vir inname - of is die probleem nie
bloot beperk tot die verplanting daarvan nie?
Daar is 'n oorgevoede (vet) vrou in Sandton, en op my TV wat die onheil van
die GM-voedsel as ongesond beskou vir die hongerlydende bevolking van
Afrika. (Wat so honger is dat hulle boomblare en gras eet.)
Toe ek die dame met al haar selfvertroue, wat op geen feitlikhede gebaseer
is, waarneem, herinner dit my aan die ou pienk libbies en lefties wat op
kampus allewig die antwoord op alle politieke vraagstukke gehad het. Hulle
het die groot probleme met minagting hanteer, maar hul eie persoonlike
bestaan was gewoonlik 'n gemors.
As ek die Sandtongangers gadeslaan wonder ek of party nie bloot die
"oorlogsverhale" van hulle hippie-ouers glo en hulle, die ouers, probeer
na-aap nie? Bedorwe rykmankinders wat bloot honger ly agv 'n chemiese
afhanklikheid, maar nie vanweë 'n gebrek aan fondse nie.
Of, is ek te sinies.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #65829 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #65828] |
Sat, 31 August 2002 11:01  |
Arthur
Boodskappe: 609
Geregistreer: September 2001
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"Jonas" schreef...
> Of, is ek te sinies.
Nee, mense begryp nie dat amper al ons kos geneties gemanipuleer is. Toe die
mensheid begin het om plante en diere te teel het ook die genetiese
manipulatie begin.
Groete,
Arthur
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #65831 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #65828] |
Sat, 31 August 2002 11:50 |
Annette
Boodskappe: 11112
Geregistreer: August 2003
Karma: 1
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Jonas, ek stem met jou saam. Geneties gemanupileerde voedsel is al bitter
lank met ons - dis net die betotteldes wat 'n rustige ou koei uit die sloot
wil grawe en dit 'n raserige baadjie wil aantrek.
Blykbaar was die oorspronklike mieliepit klein en rooierig. Nou het ons,
danksy genetiese manupilasie die mooi groot geel pit.
Ek weet nie hoekom die raseriges nie al die voor en nadele van die isse en
nie-isse vrylik aan almal voorlê nie - dan kan die mense mos self besluit
hoe hulle wil doodgaan - of deur die "verskriklike gevaarlike" genetiese
voedsel, of deur die gifstowwe wat benodig word vir ekonomiese verbouing van
natuurlike produkte.
Ek is seker, as jy daardie gesette dame vra om vir jou 'n lys te gee van
nie-genetiese gemanipuleerde kosse wat sy eet , sal die lys taamlik kort
wees.
Annette
"Jonas" skryf in boodskap news:akq2qg$a7p$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> Wie weet?
> Is geneties regstellende kos ongesond vir inname - of is die probleem nie
> bloot beperk tot die verplanting daarvan nie?
> Daar is 'n oorgevoede (vet) vrou in Sandton, en op my TV wat die onheil van
> die GM-voedsel as ongesond beskou vir die hongerlydende bevolking van
> Afrika. (Wat so honger is dat hulle boomblare en gras eet.)
> Toe ek die dame met al haar selfvertroue, wat op geen feitlikhede gebaseer
> is, waarneem, herinner dit my aan die ou pienk libbies en lefties wat op
> kampus allewig die antwoord op alle politieke vraagstukke gehad het. Hulle
> het die groot probleme met minagting hanteer, maar hul eie persoonlike
> bestaan was gewoonlik 'n gemors.
> As ek die Sandtongangers gadeslaan wonder ek of party nie bloot die
> "oorlogsverhale" van hulle hippie-ouers glo en hulle, die ouers, probeer
> na-aap nie? Bedorwe rykmankinders wat bloot honger ly agv 'n chemiese
> afhanklikheid, maar nie vanweë 'n gebrek aan fondse nie.
> Of, is ek te sinies.
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #65838 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #65829] |
Sat, 31 August 2002 13:08 |
pop
Boodskappe: 157
Geregistreer: July 2001
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Ek vebeel my ek het gister op die radio gehoor dat
een of ander Afrikaland nie mielies van die VSA wou ontvang nie, want dit
was onaanvaarbaar om " altered" mielies te ontvang. Ek sal soek om te sien
of ek die storie kry.
Pop
"Arthur" skryf in boodskap news:akq7sf$15o8$1@news.kabelfoon.nl...
> "Jonas" schreef...
>> Of, is ek te sinies.
>
> Nee, mense begryp nie dat amper al ons kos geneties gemanipuleer is. Toe die
> mensheid begin het om plante en diere te teel het ook die genetiese
> manipulatie begin.
>
> Groete,
> Arthur
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #65839 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #65838] |
Sat, 31 August 2002 14:06 |
Annette
Boodskappe: 11112
Geregistreer: August 2003
Karma: 1
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Ja Pop, dis is een van die hongerly lande hier rond. Ek is Zambië-bedinges
deesdae - so ek raai dis Zambië:))
Annette
message news:akqf0s$o3a$1@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> Ek vebeel my ek het gister op die radio gehoor dat
> een of ander Afrikaland nie mielies van die VSA wou ontvang nie, want dit
> was onaanvaarbaar om " altered" mielies te ontvang. Ek sal soek om te sien
> of ek die storie kry.
>
> Pop
>
> "Arthur" wrote in message
> news:akq7sf$15o8$1@news.kabelfoon.nl...
>> "Jonas" schreef...
>>> Of, is ek te sinies.
>>
>> Nee, mense begryp nie dat amper al ons kos geneties gemanipuleer is. Toe
> die
>> mensheid begin het om plante en diere te teel het ook die genetiese
>> manipulatie begin.
>>
>> Groete,
>> Arthur
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #65996 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #65831] |
Wed, 04 September 2002 17:32 |
|
|
Oorspronklik gepos deur: Johan Bornman (johanaticondotcodotza)
On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 13:50:41 +0200, "Annette" wrote:
> Jonas, ek stem met jou saam. Geneties gemanupileerde voedsel is al bitter
> lank met ons - dis net die betotteldes wat 'n rustige ou koei uit die sloot
> wil grawe en dit 'n raserige baadjie wil aantrek.
> Blykbaar was die oorspronklike mieliepit klein en rooierig. Nou het ons,
Wakey wakey... daar's 'n groot verskil tussen geneties gemanupileerde
organismes en kruisings.
Aarbeie met visgene om hulle teen koue te beskerm en twee verwante
sade wat kruis is twee verskillende goed.
Verder
Die storie is ook nie so eenvoudig as "is dit giftig/skadelik oftewel
nie."
Daar's die morele sy van die saak. As dit teen my geloof is om vis te
eet, is die GMO aarbei OK of nie? As ek 'n morele staan neem teen
dierewreedheid, is 'n GMO aarbei OK of nie.
Wat ookal die antwoord, ek het die reg om te besluit ja of nee, ek eet
nie dit of dat nie.
'n Ander punt.
GMO is patenteerbaar en maatskappye lisensieer die verbruik daarvan
aan jou. As jou buurman GMO katoen plant en die saad waai oor na jou
plaas toe dan groei jy ongelisensieerde katoen en jy kan vir
skadevergoeding gedagvaar word.
GMOs kan ook daartoe lei dat hibriedsaad uitsterf. Dan is arm mense
afhanklik van GMO saad waarvoor hulle elke jaar 'n lisensie moet
betaal.
Dus, die storie is nie so eenvoudig soos net die gifkwessie nie.
Johan Bornman
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #66006 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #65996] |
Thu, 05 September 2002 03:56 |
Vusi
Boodskappe: 2211
Geregistreer: February 2001
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Johan
Watter sade bestaan nog in hulle oorspronklike vorm?
wrote in message
news:3d764339.17514274@news.icon.co.za...
> On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 13:50:41 +0200, "Annette"
> wrote:
>
>> Jonas, ek stem met jou saam. Geneties gemanupileerde voedsel is al bitter
>> lank met ons - dis net die betotteldes wat 'n rustige ou koei uit die sloot
>> wil grawe en dit 'n raserige baadjie wil aantrek.
>> Blykbaar was die oorspronklike mieliepit klein en rooierig. Nou het ons,
>
>
> Wakey wakey... daar's 'n groot verskil tussen geneties gemanupileerde
> organismes en kruisings.
>
> Aarbeie met visgene om hulle teen koue te beskerm en twee verwante
> sade wat kruis is twee verskillende goed.
>
> Verder
>
> Die storie is ook nie so eenvoudig as "is dit giftig/skadelik oftewel
> nie."
>
> Daar's die morele sy van die saak. As dit teen my geloof is om vis te
> eet, is die GMO aarbei OK of nie? As ek 'n morele staan neem teen
> dierewreedheid, is 'n GMO aarbei OK of nie.
>
> Wat ookal die antwoord, ek het die reg om te besluit ja of nee, ek eet
> nie dit of dat nie.
>
> 'n Ander punt.
> GMO is patenteerbaar en maatskappye lisensieer die verbruik daarvan
> aan jou. As jou buurman GMO katoen plant en die saad waai oor na jou
> plaas toe dan groei jy ongelisensieerde katoen en jy kan vir
> skadevergoeding gedagvaar word.
>
> GMOs kan ook daartoe lei dat hibriedsaad uitsterf. Dan is arm mense
> afhanklik van GMO saad waarvoor hulle elke jaar 'n lisensie moet
> betaal.
>
>
> Dus, die storie is nie so eenvoudig soos net die gifkwessie nie.
>
> Johan Bornman
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #66008 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #65996] |
Thu, 05 September 2002 06:39 |
Threeships Mcduck
Boodskappe: 244
Geregistreer: June 2002
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 17:32:25 GMT, Johan Bornman
(johanaticondotcodotza) served the following to the group:
>
> Die storie is ook nie so eenvoudig as "is dit giftig/skadelik oftewel
> nie."
>
> Daar's die morele sy van die saak. As dit teen my geloof is om vis te
> eet, is die GMO aarbei OK of nie? As ek 'n morele staan neem teen
> dierewreedheid, is 'n GMO aarbei OK of nie.
>
> Wat ookal die antwoord, ek het die reg om te besluit ja of nee, ek eet
> nie dit of dat nie.
>
die vergelykings wat jy tref het absoluut miks met mekaar te doen nie
maar ek stem saam dat dit elke mens se eie keuse behoort te wees wat
hy wil eet en wat nie. ek dink net dat as jy en jou nasie besig is om
dood te gaan agv honger dat word jou opsie so `n bietjie gelimit. dis
maar soos met enige mens wat sonder kos sit, honderde of dalk duisende
mense in ons land leef uit asblikke uit want dis al kos wat hulle kan
kry. nie baie gesond nie maar dit hou hulle aan die lewe. morele
standaarde is goed en reg maar as mense se lewens daarvan afhang? soos
jy se elke een moet maar vir homself besluit.
> 'n Ander punt.
> GMO is patenteerbaar en maatskappye lisensieer die verbruik daarvan
> aan jou. As jou buurman GMO katoen plant en die saad waai oor na jou
> plaas toe dan groei jy ongelisensieerde katoen en jy kan vir
> skadevergoeding gedagvaar word.
>
> GMOs kan ook daartoe lei dat hibriedsaad uitsterf. Dan is arm mense
> afhanklik van GMO saad waarvoor hulle elke jaar 'n lisensie moet
> betaal.
>
soos alle 'kits' oplossings hou dit sekerlik gevare in. dis dalk net
`n kwessie van regulasie. as dit moontlik is behoort dit eerder
gebruik te word as aanvulling in plaas van vervanging.
>
> Dus, die storie is nie so eenvoudig soos net die gifkwessie nie.
>
> Johan Bornman
>
Threeships Mcduck
www.mothership.co.za
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #66011 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #66008] |
Thu, 05 September 2002 07:23 |
Annette
Boodskappe: 11112
Geregistreer: August 2003
Karma: 1
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Dis mos wat ek ook gesê het.
Ek het hier 'n ding aan die gang, en ek sokkkel om te verstaan, maar ek
probeer, ek probeer.
Elke keer as ek iemand sien hier by die woonstel wat in die dromme grou vir
kos dan vloog ek hier uit, en vertel vir hulle hulle moet asseblief dit nie
doen nie, hulle oortree op eiendom, en hulle moet asseblief by die klokkie
voor gaan lui en vra, en ek sal vir hulle kos gee.
Nog net een het die klokkie al gaan lui, en toe nie vir kos gevra nie.
Miskien smaak die asblikkos beter, ek weet nie.
Annette
"Threeships Mcduck" skryf in boodskap news:sfudnusrb0gmhpdiftk84dsers05tk8g7j@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 17:32:25 GMT, Johan Bornman
> (johanaticondotcodotza) served the following to the group:
>
>>
>> Die storie is ook nie so eenvoudig as "is dit giftig/skadelik oftewel
>> nie."
>>
>> Daar's die morele sy van die saak. As dit teen my geloof is om vis te
>> eet, is die GMO aarbei OK of nie? As ek 'n morele staan neem teen
>> dierewreedheid, is 'n GMO aarbei OK of nie.
>>
>> Wat ookal die antwoord, ek het die reg om te besluit ja of nee, ek eet
>> nie dit of dat nie.
>>
>
> die vergelykings wat jy tref het absoluut miks met mekaar te doen nie
> maar ek stem saam dat dit elke mens se eie keuse behoort te wees wat
> hy wil eet en wat nie. ek dink net dat as jy en jou nasie besig is om
> dood te gaan agv honger dat word jou opsie so `n bietjie gelimit. dis
> maar soos met enige mens wat sonder kos sit, honderde of dalk duisende
> mense in ons land leef uit asblikke uit want dis al kos wat hulle kan
> kry. nie baie gesond nie maar dit hou hulle aan die lewe. morele
> standaarde is goed en reg maar as mense se lewens daarvan afhang? soos
> jy se elke een moet maar vir homself besluit.
>
>> 'n Ander punt.
>> GMO is patenteerbaar en maatskappye lisensieer die verbruik daarvan
>> aan jou. As jou buurman GMO katoen plant en die saad waai oor na jou
>> plaas toe dan groei jy ongelisensieerde katoen en jy kan vir
>> skadevergoeding gedagvaar word.
>>
>> GMOs kan ook daartoe lei dat hibriedsaad uitsterf. Dan is arm mense
>> afhanklik van GMO saad waarvoor hulle elke jaar 'n lisensie moet
>> betaal.
>>
>
> soos alle 'kits' oplossings hou dit sekerlik gevare in. dis dalk net
> `n kwessie van regulasie. as dit moontlik is behoort dit eerder
> gebruik te word as aanvulling in plaas van vervanging.
>
>>
>> Dus, die storie is nie so eenvoudig soos net die gifkwessie nie.
>>
>> Johan Bornman
>>
>
> Threeships Mcduck
> www.mothership.co.za
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #66013 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #65996] |
Thu, 05 September 2002 08:14 |
Annette
Boodskappe: 11112
Geregistreer: August 2003
Karma: 1
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Ja, ek het ook die waaistorie gehoor. Pure nonsens. Daardie boere moet
sommer die dasse byvoorbaat hof toe vat sodat as die wind die goed toevallig
na hulle kant toe waai, dan is dit die dasse se skuld, nie die boere s'n
nie.
Die wêreld is ook maar lekker betjoinks - in Malvern ( UK) is daar 'n winkel
wat daarop staatmaak dat hulle geen GPV verkoop nie - en die Engelse wat
daar koop betaal bitter duur vir die oorspronklike natuurlike produk.
My vraag was natuurlik hoe weet ek dit is?
Ek sal nie die verskil kan proe nie, so hoe sal ek weet of ek nie maar net
duur vir 'n foefie betaal nie?
Dis soos in die 60's toe gesondheidswinkels so gewild geword het, en mens
dubbel vir 'n glas suiwer vrugtesap betaal het as vir 'n glas gaskoeldrank.
Daai mense het baie geld baie gou gemaak.
Nou is dit weer die lot wat aan mens water in 'n bottel wil verkoop.
Daar is selfs "gesonde" water winkels - nog nooit iemand in die plek gesien
sit en drink nie - wonder hoe lank dit sal oop bly.
Annette
wrote in message
news:3d764339.17514274@news.icon.co.za...
> On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 13:50:41 +0200, "Annette"
> wrote:
>
>> Jonas, ek stem met jou saam. Geneties gemanupileerde voedsel is al bitter
>> lank met ons - dis net die betotteldes wat 'n rustige ou koei uit die sloot
>> wil grawe en dit 'n raserige baadjie wil aantrek.
>> Blykbaar was die oorspronklike mieliepit klein en rooierig. Nou het ons,
>
>
> Wakey wakey... daar's 'n groot verskil tussen geneties gemanupileerde
> organismes en kruisings.
>
> Aarbeie met visgene om hulle teen koue te beskerm en twee verwante
> sade wat kruis is twee verskillende goed.
>
> Verder
>
> Die storie is ook nie so eenvoudig as "is dit giftig/skadelik oftewel
> nie."
>
> Daar's die morele sy van die saak. As dit teen my geloof is om vis te
> eet, is die GMO aarbei OK of nie? As ek 'n morele staan neem teen
> dierewreedheid, is 'n GMO aarbei OK of nie.
>
> Wat ookal die antwoord, ek het die reg om te besluit ja of nee, ek eet
> nie dit of dat nie.
>
> 'n Ander punt.
> GMO is patenteerbaar en maatskappye lisensieer die verbruik daarvan
> aan jou. As jou buurman GMO katoen plant en die saad waai oor na jou
> plaas toe dan groei jy ongelisensieerde katoen en jy kan vir
> skadevergoeding gedagvaar word.
>
> GMOs kan ook daartoe lei dat hibriedsaad uitsterf. Dan is arm mense
> afhanklik van GMO saad waarvoor hulle elke jaar 'n lisensie moet
> betaal.
>
>
> Dus, die storie is nie so eenvoudig soos net die gifkwessie nie.
>
> Johan Bornman
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #66026 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #66006] |
Thu, 05 September 2002 14:59 |
|
|
Oorspronklik gepos deur: Johan Bornman (johanaticondotcodotza)
On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 05:56:53 +0200, "Skuilnaam Jonas" skryf:
> Johan
> Watter sade bestaan nog in hulle oorspronklike vorm?
Jonas, word tog wakker en lees weer wat ek skryf. Dit gaan nie oor
hibriede nie, maar oor gene van ander organismes wat in die goed
ingemanipuleer word.
Daar is geen manier dat 'n vis en 'n aarbei kan uitbaster nie. Maar jy
kan die twee goed geneties saamsmelt. Dis die punt.
JB
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #66027 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #66008] |
Thu, 05 September 2002 14:59 |
|
|
Oorspronklik gepos deur: Johan Bornman (johanaticondotcodotza)
Skaam Anton skryf :
> die vergelykings wat jy tref het absoluut miks met mekaar te doen nie
Anton, ek trek geen vergelykings nie. Ek gee voorbeelde. Die feit dat
die voorbeelde divers is, is in my guns. Ek sien nie jou punt nie. Wat
is dit?
Johan Bornman
> maar ek stem saam dat dit elke mens se eie keuse behoort te wees wat
> hy wil eet en wat nie. ek dink net dat as jy en jou nasie besig is om
> dood te gaan agv honger dat word jou opsie so `n bietjie gelimit. dis
> maar soos met enige mens wat sonder kos sit, honderde of dalk duisende
> mense in ons land leef uit asblikke uit want dis al kos wat hulle kan
> kry. nie baie gesond nie maar dit hou hulle aan die lewe. morele
> standaarde is goed en reg maar as mense se lewens daarvan afhang? soos
> jy se elke een moet maar vir homself besluit.
>
>> 'n Ander punt.
>> GMO is patenteerbaar en maatskappye lisensieer die verbruik daarvan
>> aan jou. As jou buurman GMO katoen plant en die saad waai oor na jou
>> plaas toe dan groei jy ongelisensieerde katoen en jy kan vir
>> skadevergoeding gedagvaar word.
>> GMOs kan ook daartoe lei dat hibriedsaad uitsterf. Dan is arm mense
>> afhanklik van GMO saad waarvoor hulle elke jaar 'n lisensie moet
>> betaal.
>
> soos alle 'kits' oplossings hou dit sekerlik gevare in. dis dalk net
> `n kwessie van regulasie. as dit moontlik is behoort dit eerder
> gebruik te word as aanvulling in plaas van vervanging.
>
>> Dus, die storie is nie so eenvoudig soos net die gifkwessie nie.
>> Johan Bornman
>
> Threeships Mcduck
> www.mothership.co.za
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #66028 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #66013] |
Thu, 05 September 2002 14:59 |
|
|
Oorspronklik gepos deur: Johan Bornman (johanaticondotcodotza)
On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:14:43 +0200, Skryf Skaam Annette
:
> Ja, ek het ook die waaistorie gehoor. Pure nonsens. Daardie boere moet
> sommer die dasse byvoorbaat hof toe vat sodat as die wind die goed toevallig
> na hulle kant toe waai, dan is dit die dasse se skuld, nie die boere s'n
Annette, lees asb die storie wat ek heelonder hierdie boodskap
aanplak. Dan gesels on weer/
> Die wêreld is ook maar lekker betjoinks - in Malvern ( UK) is daar 'n winkel
> wat daarop staatmaak dat hulle geen GPV verkoop nie - en die Engelse wat
> daar koop betaal bitter duur vir die oorspronklike natuurlike produk.
> My vraag was natuurlik hoe weet ek dit is?
Annette, hoe weet jy opf daai hondekos wat jy vir jou poedel voer
regtig na biefstuk smaak?
Aan die einde van die dag gaan dit om vertroue. Jy vertrou dat daai
regtig koedoebiltong is en nie bobbejaanbiltong nie. Jy vertrou dat as
jy vir gedekaffineerde koffie vra, hulle nie kafieen bygooi nie.
Die wereld is maar meestal opvertroue gebasseer.
Dieselfde gaan vir GMOs (GPVs?) Ek ek vra dat mense dit nie vir my
moet voer nie, en hulle stem in, dan het ons 'n ooreenkoms.
> Dis soos in die 60's toe gesondheidswinkels so gewild geword het, en mens
> dubbel vir 'n glas suiwer vrugtesap betaal het as vir 'n glas gaskoeldrank.
> Daai mense het baie geld baie gou gemaak.
Dis nog steeds dieselfde. Lemoensap kos meer as Coke. Wat is jou punt?
Transcript of : "Patricia's People"
Broadcast on SAfm : 27-Sep-2001
Presented by: Patricia Glyn
Transcript Title : TRANSCRIPT OF "PATRICIA'S PEOPLE
Guests/Reviewers Percy Schmeiser Canola farmer from Canada
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
PATRICIA:
Welcome to you. This is 'Patricia's People' on SAfm 104-107, a
programme designed to profile those who are overcoming great odds. My
guest today hails from Canada, where he's been farming Canola, or
rape, for over 50 years, just like his father before him. Canola, as
you probably know, is an oil-rich seed used in cooking oil, and its
residue for cattle feed.
Percy Schmeiser is his name and he's also been a previous mayor and MP
for his rural constituency, and he's always been active in
representing farmers in various fora for many decades. He's now 70 but
instead of quietly approaching his retirement, comfortably off, he is
a broke and broken man.
It's all due to some genetically modified Canola seed that blew onto
his farm two years ago. What transpired was, and indeed still is, a
full court battle against GMO giant, Monsanto. And because they and
other such multinationals operate here, he wants South African farmers
to hear his story. He's travelled the world telling this story and
received the Ghandi award in India, for instance, for his efforts.
Percy, welcome to you.
PERCY:
Thank you. It's indeed a pleasure to come to South Africa.
PATRICIA:
Well, you're certainly stirring things up here already, I gather.
We'll get to how controversial you've become as a figure but tell me,
Percy, what happened two years ago, when you noticed something
different happening on your farm.
PERCY:
Well, I realised that in the ditch along my farm there were Canola
plants that did not die after being sprayed with Roundup. And that
alarmed me because I was a Canola developer for 50 years and all weeds
should have been dead. And because I was a seed developer, and using
seeds from all my farms the next year, apparently some of those seeds
got into all of my land and therefore contaminated and basically
ruined all my research of 50 years.
PATRICIA:
Tell me, first of all, about Roundup, and resistance to Roundup. What
is that?
PERCY:
Roundup is a herbicide that is sold by Monsanto. It's a glycophate
that, if you spray it on any green plant - living plant - it will die.
But Monsanto genetically engineered Canola to withstand that
herbicide, so you spray it on your Canola and everything else will die
except the GMO (genetically modified organism) Canola. But if you have
conventional Canola, it will kill conventional Canola.
PATRICIA:
All right. So you first saw this happening along a trench. But you say
you'd been developing your own seed stock for many years.
PERCY:
Yes.
PATRICIA:
Just by picking out what was good after each harvest, or what?
PERCY:
Oh, we call it natural plant breeding. What you do is you take
generally samples of Canola and look at the traits - whether it has
large pods - and if you have a plant next to a diseased plant, you'd
take that and set the seeds from that plant... And doing that over
many years, along with my wife, we developed a Canola seed that was
resistant to the major diseases in Western Canada.
To give you an example, Monsanto would say never to seed Canola into
the same field, only once every four years: I was able to seed Canola
continuously in my land for 10 years without a problem and without any
disease. So that's when I became... I developed a seed that was
adaptable and good for my area and my region.
PATRICIA:
Okay, so when you saw these Canola there that were not being killed by
this spray, was that the first you knew that something genetically
modified was happening next door?
PERCY:
I really didn't understand it at that time. Because in that year there
was very little knowledge out about GMO rape seed. You had to go to a
specially-invited Monsanto meeting. I'd never attended a meeting,
never bought their seed; I never knew a rep of theirs. So I didn't
even know. And I thought that because we were spraying Roundup in
those ditches and around those power poles for 15-17 years that maybe
some of it had perhaps built up a resistance. Because companies tell
you never to use the same herbicide year after year. So that's what I
thought had basically happened but I didn't pay much attention because
it was in the road ditch and alongside my field.
PATRICIA:
So what was the next step after that?
PERCY:
Then in the next year ... We had done the same procedure again to
maintain weed control in the ditch, and some plants again didn't die.
And Monsanto on August 6 - and I'll never forget that date - launched
a lawsuit against me and originally charged me with having illegally
obtained some of Monsanto's Roundup-ready Canola without a licence.
And they said I either stole it - they mentioned the word 'stole' - or
got it illegally from a seed house or maybe from another farmer. And
they said I'd violated their patent by not having a licence to do so.
So I said to them, 'If I do have some GMO Monsanto's Roundup-ready
Canola in my field, and it has contaminated my crop, you have
destroyed 50 years of work and you should be liable for all the
damages you've done to me.' And this then went to court. The trial
began in June of the year 2000 and Monsanto then withdrew all
allegations against me that I'd ever obtained a seed illegally, and
they admitted it was a false allegation on their part. But they said
it didn't matter: the fact that there was some GMO Monsanto plants in
my field, or the ditch, meant I was guilty because I'd infringed on
their patent.
I should just mention, at this point, what happened. After two and a
half weeks of trial the judge ruled in favour of Monsanto. And this is
what his ruling was... He firstly said it didn't matter how Monsanto's
Roundup-ready Canola got into my field, and he even specified ways in
which it could have got in. He mentioned cross-pollination, direct
seed movement, falling off a farm truck, falling off a farm combine,
birds, bees, animals and wind, especially wind. He said it didn't
matter - the fact that there was some there meant I'd violated
Monsanto's patent because I used my own seed and I should have or
ought to have known that there could be some in. So basically he took
away my rights of ever using my seed again.
The second issue he ruled on - and I think this is one of the most
important issues for farmers all over the world - was when he said
that if I have a regular, conventional plant - or any farmer having a
conventional plant - and it gets cross-pollinated by Monsanto's gene,
by blowing in the wind or whatever way, such as those he'd mentioned
before, my plant becomes Monsanto's property, even if it comes in
against my wishes and I don't want it. So that has far-reaching
effects because if any seed or any gene blown from a Monsanto plant
gets into any farmer's field, he can no longer use that seed, and he
can be fined on top of it. So that has far-reaching consequences.
The third issue he ruled on was that even though I didn't use
Monsanto's Roundup-ready herbicide on my crop - because if I'd used it
on my crop I would have killed the majority of my Canola crop - he
ruled that even though I'd never used their patent it was immaterial -
those were his exact words - because he said the fact that there's
even a few plants, I'd violated Monsanto's patent regardless of how it
got there, and that I should not have used the seed. He said I ought
to have known, and because I used my own seed there's a probability it
could be in all of my land, and therefore all my profits from my 1998
crops goes to Monsanto.
PATRICIA:
But, you see, to an outsider this judgement seems absolutely absurd,
Percy. I mean, are you appealing it?
PERCY:
Yes. Since the judgement came down it's now appealed before three
judges in the Federal Court of Canada. Legal people in Canada tell me
it will never stop there, that it will go on to the Supreme Court.
Because, first of all, can you patent a life-giving form such as a
gene? And if you do patent a life-giving form and you put it out into
the environment where you know it will do property damage to other
people - destroy organic farmers' crops - then there's a liability
issue.
But the whole deal now of what my issue is really about... The issue
is farmers' rights, farmers' privileges versus intellectual property
law. Now, what the judge ruled was that basically all farmers' rights
are taken away by a patent law. So you can have all the property
rights, farmer's privileges, and plant breeders' rights, as we call it
in Canada - you can have all those and in Canada, by federal law, a
farmer's allowed to use his own seed from year to year.
PATRICIA:
Right.
PERCY:
But Monsanto's patent takes all those rights away from a farmer. All
these issues now have to be addressed, the rights of farmers.
PATRICIA:
Let me just ascertain that, as they are not here... If you sign up
with one of these genetically modified bodies or multinationals -
let's refer not only to Monsanto - you have to use new seed and their
seed every year, do you?
PERCY:
That's correct. You sign that contract stating that you must sell all
the seed and go back and buy the seed again from them the following
year. When you sign a contract you also agree to buy the seed from
them, buy their chemical, you must pay a 15 dollar technology
charge... But worst of all you must permit Monsanto's police force -
they have their own individual police force which we call 'goon
squads' in Canada, or 'gene police' - to go onto your land, into your
granaries, with or without your knowledge, to take samples to see if
you've been cheating or not. And if you're caught having used some of
the old seed they will confiscate or destroy it or they'll take all
your profits from that crop. That's how vicious that contract is.
And furthermore they advertise in local papers that, if a farmer
thinks his neighbour is growing Monsanto's Roundup-ready Canola
without a licence, you should squeal or rat on him. And then they'll
send their police out to this farmer and say, 'We have a tip or a
rumour that you're growing Monsanto's Roundup-ready Canola without a
licence. If you don't confess we'll get you, we'll destroy you, and
you won't have a farm left.'
So we have a real harassment and intimidation problem. After
Monsanto's police leave that particular farmer he'll think, 'Which
neighbour did this to me, the one on this side or that side?' So you
now have breakdown of the social fabric of our rural community, of
farmers not working together. They're scared to talk to one another!
It's a culture now of mistrust. And we need farmers to work together!
PATRICIA:
But it must also make you very wary of farming anywhere near people
who want to use this genetically modified seed, so are people banding
together to have areas where they farm only their own seed, or how is
it working?
PERCY:
Well, it's impossible. There's no such thing as containment. Through
cross-pollination and direct seed movement there is no such thing.
Monsanto will say to farmers, 'Well, leave a bumper strip of so many
yards or feet'... Now they're saying two miles. Why should a farmer
that's not growing it leave two miles of land without producing a
crop? So it will spread. And that's why the organic farmers now can no
longer grow Canola chemical- and fertilizer-free. So they've lost one
of their crops.
In the United States, the Red Cross - across the border from us - can
no longer grow organic soy beans. It is all contaminated. So what has
happened to our seed? - Every bit of rape seed or Canola in Canada is
now contaminated with Monsanto's GMO gene.
PATRICIA:
Is this because a rape seed is very light and very easily airborne?
PERCY:
That's right.
PATRICIA:
And are other crops very susceptible to this, or are there some which
will not be affected?
PERCY:
Well, any close relative of rape seed or Canola - such as turnips,
cauliflower, radish and so on - can also be contaminated. And also
distant cousins such as wild mustard. But now what has happened as a
result of this cross-pollination and direct seed movement is we now
have what we call a super weed that's developed.
PATRICIA:
A super weed?
PERCY:
A super weed.
PATRICIA:
Explain that to me.
PERCY:
A super weed is this: it's because Monsanto is not the only company
that sells GMO Canola. So they're not the only company; there's about
4 or 5 others. And now what has happened is the fact that genes from 2
of those companies and Monsanto now is getting into one conventional
plant. So you now have 3 GMO genes in 1 plant which now takes a new
super chemical to try and control it. Otherwise you now need 3
chemicals to control 1 plant. And when Monsanto originally brought out
GMO oil, they told farmers 'less chemicals', and as a result farmers
are now using 6-10 times more chemicals of the new super weed.
PATRICIA:
How ironic, because that is one of the selling points of genetically
modified seeds, isn't it?
PERCY:
Yes. And that is a totally false statement that Monsanto's making. It
took only four years before we had super weeds and organic farmers'
crops destroyed. And then there's the liability issue. Who is
responsible? - If Monsanto sells a GMO product or grain or seed to a
farmer and it contaminates that farmer's neighbour's field, who is
responsible for the liability? Who do you sue?
PATRICIA:
Well, the court will decide this eventually, I suppose. But this
cannot have been an isolated case. This must have emerged elsewhere in
the world, Percy. So what's happened? Have people put moratoriums on
growing genetically modified crops? Are there precedents being set in
the courts elsewhere?
PERCY:
Well, mine is actually the first case in the world that's gone to
court but there's about 2 000 cases or more in North America that
Monsanto has under investigation. They've been put on hold until what
happens with my case is clear. So my case has now become a focal point
for farmers all over the world. It has become a very, very big issue.
Now, the other issue is, can any company or any multinational put a
life-giving form in the environment knowing it will destroy or
contaminate other people's crops? So that liability issue is one where
I have a counter lawsuit against Monsanto for that to be decided. Even
if you have a patent on a plant or a seed, it doesn't give you the
right to put it into an environment where you know that it will
destroy the property of others.
PATRICIA:
Percy Schmeiser is my guest today on 'Patricia's People'. He's a
Canola farmer in Canada and he's talking about what happened to his
crop of Canola when he was discovered to be farming next door to a
genetically modified crop of Canola.
It worries me that Monsanto are not here to speak for themselves. It
also worries me, Percy, that you say almost categorically libellous
things about them. Are you concerned about that? I mean, don't you get
your fingers burnt doing this? Because I know you've done it right
around the world.
PERCY:
No. Because I have documents proving completely... I have documents
where they advertise, I have documents of their contracts, I have
documents given to me by farmers, extortion letters where they've sent
letters to farmers demanding, such as in this one particular case,
27-28 thousand dollars from a farmer because they think he might be
growing Roundup-ready Canola without a licence. So we have extortion
letters.
Why does a big multinational company like Monsanto have to stoop to
such a low culture to try and divide and conquer farmers and their
rights away? And that's why I feel so strongly about this. Because
I've always been involved with agricultural issues - as you said, as a
member of government and so on - and I feel that farmers' rights
should never, ever be taken away with regard to being able to use your
own seed. Because if that right is taken away, future development of
new seeds will be lost, farmers trading with one another, developing
their own seed for their particular region. So if they give up that
right they've given up a basic freedom and they lose control of the
food supply. And in many countries, when you lose control of the food
supply, then whoever is in control of the food supply will control
that country.
PATRICIA:
Oh, now there's a scary prospect! What crops in South Africa do you
see farmers being especially vulnerable to in terms of this
dissension?
PERCY:
Well, the two crops would be especially soybeans and Canola. Now, the
other big issue is the fact that the economic alliance where we as
farmers cannot sell our rape seed, farmers in US can no longer sell
their soybeans, the European Common Market... So economic loss has
been terrific.
There are big lawsuits against the multinationals now in North America
because of the cotton balls falling off prematurely. Farmers were
really talked into it by being told how much money they would make and
would save, and would make per acre. But now they have a major
problem. After one or two years, because of the mutants - because
genetic engineering is not a precise science and a lot of people in
North America call it now 'a mad science' because we don't know what
will happen with the mutants...
To give you an example, Monsanto this past spring, in May in our
country, came out with a new variety of genetically altered Canola and
had sold some to farmers... Some farmers had already planted it, and
they found that again there was an unwanted gene in it that was
harmful to human health. They had to recall.
In the United States last year we had the issue where genetically
altered corn or maize which was only fit for animals got into the
regular GMO that was fit for human consumption - it got mixed
together. People in America were eating animal feed with a gene that
was not healthy for human beings.
PATRICIA:
But, you know, Percy, I've heard so many wonderful arguments for
genetic modification. I remember listening to a minister from Kenya,
on one of our sister programmes, saying that for rural farmers it was
the answer. They didn't have to spend money on herbicides and
fertilisers. They just grew this stuff and the yields were fantastic.
The protein- and calorie-rich food that arrived on their tables made
it really worth their while. Do you really have an argument against
that?
PERCY:
It's totally false because when you use a herbicide or an insecticide
and it does one thing... Basically all chemicals - whether an
insecticide, pesticide or herbicide - have one thing in common and
that is that they're meant to kill. Whether it's a BT (BP?) toxin in
corn or one in potatoes, or Monsanto's herbicide, Roundup, it doesn't
make that plant more nutritious or a bigger yielder. The only way
you'll get more of a yield is when you kill the weeds.
Now, Monsanto's way of farming, to me, is really bad farming practice.
And the reason is that a farmer must let his crop grow along with its
weeds till the crop reaches maybe 5-6 inches in height. The weeds are
also growing at the same time, robbing precious moisture and also, if
he's used fertiliser, using up maybe 30% of his fertiliser and 30% of
his moisture. That is bad farming practice. You have to try and
control those weeds at the germination stage, before it has robbed any
moisture or any fertilisers.
PATRICIA:
And what sort of message are you getting from South African farmers
regarding their awareness of these problems?
PERCY:
I think, from information I just received this morning, that there are
farmers now banding together in South Africa and saying no to GMOs.
It's a zone: none in that area - an area of many, many farmers. So
that's a first indication that South African farmers are now
concerned. That's why I've gone all over the world talking to farmers
and telling them to never sign a contract, never to give up their
rights to use their own seed. Because they'll then become serfs and
slaves of the land. Secondly, it's the health and safety aspect of the
food. There's many reports coming out and a lot more studies being
done revealing that it's not a safe and healthy food. The third issue
is that of the environment. What is it doing to our animals, our birds
and our insects?
PATRICIA:
Yes, what about insects? What about things like bees?
PERCY:
Some of the fallouts from GMOs are that honey from Canada can no
longer be sold into Europe because it's all contaminated with GMOs. A
bee doesn't know, when it transfers pollen from one yellow flower to
another, if one plant is GMO altered and the other not. So all our
honey is contaminated now. It's destroyed another market for farmers.
Now, what is really startling about this is we now have scientific
studies that are showing that, besides transferring the pollen from
flower to flower, the GMOs get into the bee itself. So we don't know
what the environmental impact will be on the bee.
We do know, in the United States now, that in maize the pollen from
the maize gets into a weed which is called milkweed and the
butterflies feed on the milkweed and are dying off in their thousands.
So it's destroying those types of insects. And a butterfly is a very
important insect in the US.
So those are just some of the things that are starting to happen, so
we don't know what will be the total fallout. And to give an example
of how concerned we are in Canada, in the last four months or so they
were going to come out with GMO flax. Now, flax is a crop, it's also
an oil crop where you make linseed oil from it and this is primarily
used in the manufacture of paint. And the government was forced to
destroy millions of dollars' worth of GMO-altered flax seed because
farmers said, 'No, we don't want any more GMOs in our country.' And
the same thing is happening with the development of GMO wheat. Farmers
are saying no. And I'm sure we'll be able to stop that too.
So what is happening is I think companies have realised that they've
reached a plateau in regard to their sales in North America and are
now looking for new dumping grounds where they can push this GMO. And
the arguments that I've heard from Monsanto in various countries in
Africa is statements they made 4-5 years ago in Canada, and they're
now making those statements here in Africa. They were false then and
they're false now.
In 1996, when GMO rape seed and soybeans in US got regulatory
approval, we didn't have anybody from anywhere in the world come and
tell us, 'Look, this is what can happen.' I have not come to Africa to
tell people what to do. I've come here to tell them what has happened
to us. I wish that somebody had come to us in 1996 and told our
farmers and myself, 'Look, this is what can happen. You can destroy
your seed. You'll be using more chemicals.'
PATRICIA:
You'll also destroy your life! I mean, just let's quickly end on a
personal note. What has this all done to you and to your life and your
lifestyle?
PERCY:
Well, it really has changed my life and also that of my wife. I don't
have my head in the sand when you stand up against a multinational:
they have deep pockets. They've dragged me through the courts; they've
prolonged it; they tried to delay it. And they made statements to my
neighbours and said they're going to destroy me, that they're going to
'get me' somehow and I won't have anything left.
To give an example, my lawyer fees alone have amounted to 200 thousand
dollars. The appeal will probably cost another 100 thousand dollars,
but I have help from people and organisations around the world to help
me on that, because they feel now it's not just my issue any more but
that of farmers all over the world.
Now what has also happened is that on November 19 of this year
Monsanto is taking me back to court and they're suing me for a million
dollars for court fees that they said going to court has cost them.
They want all their court costs paid and they're trying to get that
money from me, even for the entertainment of the nine lawyers that
they had.
So this shows you how they're trying to destroy me. They want to shut
me up. But I feel that my grandparents came originally from Europe in
the early 1900s, settled in Western Canada to be free, and to use
their own seed and to get away from this type of system. Are we now
going to go back into this sort of culture? No.
That is why I've come to Africa. It's to warn farmers that they should
never give up their right to use their own seed. And also, be careful:
do a risk assessment and put the positives and negatives to the test.
Also, go slow: that's what they have to do.
So it's been a tremendous stress on my wife and myself. And not only
my wife and myself but the rest of my family. Also on my neighbours
and people I used to represent in Parliament. They're all concerned.
Because they realise I'm fighting for farmers' rights.
PATRICIA:
Well, I think I'm not alone in admiring your tenacity, and we'll be
keeping an eye on your story and on what happens to you, Percy. Thank
you very much for joining us today on 'Patricia's People'.
PERCY:
Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to come to South Africa.
PATRICIA:
Percy Schmeiser, Canola farmer from Canada, and hero to the
anti-genetic engineering movement. He has a website which you might
like to visit, which is www.percyschmeiser.com. He's here at the
invitation of Safe Age, the South African Freeze Alliance on Genetic
Engineering, and their person to contact is Karin on 082 578 9195. I
don't know how much time Percy has left to come and talk to you but
I'm sure he can put you in touch with the people on the ground who
know what's going on here. Thank you, as always, for your attention,
and I'll speak to you soon. Bye-bye.
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
Back to Search Results
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE:
Apologies for any names that might have been spelt incorrectly but,
working from an audio cassette, one does not have access to the
printed word, and errors may therefore occur.
COPYRIGHT:
Except as otherwise expressly permitted under copyright law, no
copying, redistribution, retransmission, publication or commercial
exploitation of this material will be permitted without the express
permission of the South African Broadcasting Corporation (a statutory
body constituted in terms of the South African Broadcasting Act of
1976) herein represented by SAfm, the copyright owner. In the event of
any permitted copying, redistribution or publication of copyrighted
material, no changes in or deletion of author attribution, or
copyright notice, shall be made and full acknowledgment of SAfm as the
source will be required. The user acknowledges that it does not
acquire any ownership rights by downloading copyrighted material from
SAfm.
ends
Johan Bornman
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #66082 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #65996] |
Sat, 07 September 2002 11:41 |
Ferdi Greyling
Boodskappe: 1232
Geregistreer: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 17:32:25 GMT, Johan Bornman
(johanaticondotcodotza) wrote:
> GMO is patenteerbaar en maatskappye lisensieer die verbruik daarvan
> aan jou. As jou buurman GMO katoen plant en die saad waai oor na jou
> plaas toe dan groei jy ongelisensieerde katoen en jy kan vir
> skadevergoeding gedagvaar word.
Sover ek weet het presies dit reeds al in Kanada gebeur.
Daar is onlangs ook berig dat bewyse gevind is dat genetiese
verandering wel in - organismes in die maag, dink ek - onvoorsiens
oorgedra kan word in ander organismes.
Die ander punt van sulke saad wat as deel van hulp gegee word, is
natuurlik dat groor Amerikaanse groepe soos Monsanto gemanipuleerde
saad aan boere in Afrika gee en hulle dan vang in die sirkel. Om weer
te plant, moet hulle NUWE saad koop omdat die wat groei uit die
eerstes nie meer die verandering het nie of nie juis geplant kan word
nie.
En dan moet hulle begin betaal vir die nuwe saad!
Ek weet nie of die scenario hom reeds afgespeel het nie, maar dit is
een van die vrese.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #66083 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #66008] |
Sat, 07 September 2002 11:52 |
Ferdi Greyling
Boodskappe: 1232
Geregistreer: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 08:39:28 +0200, Threeships Mcduck wrote:
> die vergelykings wat jy tref het absoluut miks met mekaar te doen nie
> maar ek stem saam dat dit elke mens se eie keuse behoort te wees wat
> hy wil eet en wat nie. ek dink net dat as jy en jou nasie besig is om
> dood te gaan agv honger dat word jou opsie so `n bietjie gelimit.
Inderdaad, maar dit beteken nie mens moet dan agteroor val en se doen
met my wat jy wil nie.
Soos ek verstaan het die VN 'n klomp geld gehad om graan (ek dink dit
is graan, nie mielies nie) mee te koop vir verligting van hongersnood
in Suider-Afrilka.
Indie" het 'n moerse surplus gehad was te koop was en NIE geneties
gemanipuleer was nie.
Op die einde is dit van die VSA gekoop en dit was geneties
gemanipuleer - teen die wense van die mense wat dit moet eet.
Check dan bietjie die sirkel (ek is nie seker of dit die keer
geaktiveer is nie): Die VSA gee 'n groot deel van hulp-geld aan die
VN. Die VN koop (op VSA se aandrang) graan van die VSA wat genties
gemanipuleer is deur Amerikaanse maatskappye wat die patent het om dit
te doen. Die graan word aan Afrika gegee wat tot op daardie stadium
hul eie graan geplant/geoes/geplant het in die ou landbou-siklus. Die
nuwe graan wat hulle nou egter gebruik (oues is weg, opgedroog ens)
vereis dat hulle NIE meer die ou landbou-siklus kan toepas nie OMDAT
dit geneties so gemanipuleer is. Nou moet hulle elke jaar van die
Amerikaanse maatskappye die graan koop. Of as hulle lande dit self wil
maak, moet hulle groot bedrae geld aan die Amerikaanse maatskappy
betaal wat die patent het!!
Raai wie het hier gegee en wie het hier gekry!!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #66085 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #66013] |
Sat, 07 September 2002 12:04 |
Ferdi Greyling
Boodskappe: 1232
Geregistreer: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:14:43 +0200, "Annette" wrote:
> Ja, ek het ook die waaistorie gehoor. Pure nonsens. >>
Nee jy is baie verkeerd.
Dis bevind dat wil WEL so oorwaai. In Brittanje en elders. Gaan soek
die berigte by New Scientist (www.newsientist.com) as ek reg onthou
het hulle daaroor berig.
In fact, hier is 'n paar vir jou:
Weeds get boost from GM crops
--------------------
10:17 15 August 02
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition
Weeds become stronger and fitter by cross-breeding with genetically
engineered crops, US researchers have shown for the first time. And at
the same time, a team in France has demonstrated how easily weeds
might be able to swap genes with the GM strains of sugar beet already
in field trials.
Sunflowers' wild relatives could pick up insect-resistant genes
(Photo: GAMMA)
The findings emphasise the need for developers of GM crops to be
cautious about which traits they introduce into plants, in case they
spread irreversibly to weeds.
They also strengthen the case for using technologies that would
prevent gene spread altogether, argues Jeremy Sweet of the National
Institute for Agricultural Botany in Cambridge, UK. "If you're worried
about a gene which alters the fitness of wild populations, then
stopping the GM plant breeding has got to be a good thing," he says.
Allison Snow's team at Ohio State University showed in controlled
tests that wild sunflowers, considered a weed by many farmers in the
US, become hardier and produce 50 per cent more seeds if they are
crossed with a GM sunflower resistant to seed-nibbling moth larvae.
"We were shocked," says Snow.
However, Pioneer Hi-Bred of Iowa, which developed the GM sunflower,
says it has no plans to sell the strain commercially.
Snow, whose results were presented to a conference last week, cautions
against overstating the significance of the results. "It doesn't prove
all GM crops are dangerous," she says. "I just think we need to be
careful because genes can be very valuable for a weed and persist for
ever once they're out there."
Pioneer Hi-Bred spokesman Doyle Karr adds that existing GM crops such
as soybeans and maize do not have any wild relatives in the US. And
although GM canola, or oilseed rape, is related to wild mustard, the
only spread of genes so far has been to commercial non-GM rape,
especially in Canada.
"It's all gene- and crop-specific," he says. "You ask beforehand what
the implications are if there's crossover, and that's been true all
along."
However, various companies are developing GM sugar beets. Studies of
normal beet fields by Henk van Dijk and his colleagues at the
University of Lille in France suggest that they have underestimated
the likelihood of GM beets swapping genes with the beet weeds that
grow among them. "We found gene flow to be possible between all
forms," they write in the Journal of Applied Ecology.
The situation with beet is particularly complicated because there is a
two-way flow, with weed genes often polluting farm strains and
reducing yields. The beet weeds could become even more of a nuisance
to farmers if they pick up herbicide-resistance genes.
Van Dijk says that while tricks such as doubling the number of
chromosomes in GM strains could reduce the chance of gene spread, they
would not eliminate it. "It's almost inevitable," he says. But despite
the risk, he still believes GM strains could help farmers.
Journal reference: Journal of Applied Ecology (vol 39, p 561)
------------------------
Crop pollen spreads further than expected
19:00 27 June 02
NewScientist.com news service
Pollen from genetically modified crops can travel at least three
kilometres to contaminate neighbouring crops, according to a new study
in commercial fields. The findings pose a serious problem for organic
farmers, and will strengthen calls for tougher controls on planting GM
crops.
The study followed the spread of genes from a new herbicide-resistant
variety of oilseed rape, or canola, introduced into Australia two
years ago. It found that the genes travelled much further than
expected.
The rape variety was not itself genetically modified. But, says the
team led by Mary Rieger at the University of Adelaide, the gene flow
through cross-pollination mimics that from a GM crop.
Rieger says this is the first investigation of potential GM
contamination from large commercial fields. It suggests, she says,
that "real world" genetic contamination from GM crops could be more
widespread and less predictable than suggested by small-scale trials.
"Laboratory and small-scale experiments may not necessarily predict
pollination under commercial conditions," she warns.
Patrick Mulvany of the Intermediate Technology Development Group says:
"The reality is that we cannot stop genes from GM crops spreading
across the landscape. To suggest otherwise flies in the face of the
evidence," says.
The researchers collected seeds from 63 conventional canola fields
near fields planted with the new variety in three states. In all,
almost 50 million seeds were tested.
They found that the contamination -- through insects and the wind
spreading pollen -- was not large. No more than 0.2 per cent of seeds
taken from one traditional field contained genes from the new fields.
But it did spread a long way. The furthest gene uncovered was three
kilometres from its source.
Equally surprising, says Rieger, there was no obvious gradient of
contamination according to distance from the source. The genes turned
up almost randomly in the study area, she says.
This was different from the pattern found in previous small-scale
trials, where contamination dropped off exponentially with distance.
Rieger guesses that this could result from insects ranging far and
wide in search of pollen, particularly early or late in the season
when flowers are scarce.
Other crops may not spread their genes so widely. The flowers of wheat
and barley, for instance, can self-fertilise. This could make them
less likely to pick up foreign genes.
But campaigners against GM crops will seize on the findings about the
ability of oilseed rape to spread its genes. They fear the pollution
of both traditional crop varieties and their wild ancestors and want a
moratorium on imports of GM crops to the major centres of their
natural biological diversity.
The new findings follow warnings from scientists from the UK
government's wildlife agency, English Nature, last year that
cross-pollination could result in genes from genetically modified
oilseed rape accumulating in plants, creating "superweeds" resistant
to a range of herbicides.
Fred Pearce
This story is from NewScientist.com's news service - for more
exclusive news and expert analysis every week subscribe to New
Scientist print edition.
--------------------------
Van http://www.southcentre.org/
PAY DAMAGES FOR WIND-BLOWN GM SEEDS, SAYS CANADIAN COURT
Geneva, 2 April (South Development News) -- A Canadian judge has
ordered a farmer to pay Monsanto thousands of dollars for violating
the Gene Giant's monopoly patent on genetically modified canola seed,
which had blown into his fields, according to information by the
Canada-based RAFI-Rural Advancement Foundation International.
The court action, of 29 March 2001, has dealt a crushing blow to
Farmers' Rights, says RAFI. Percy Schmeiser, a third generation
Saskatchewan farmer has filed a counter-suit against Monsanto, but his
family faces enormous legal costs that cannot be sustained without
outside assistance.
Under Canadian patent law, as in the US and many other industrialised
countries, it is illegal for farmers to re-use patented seed, or to
grow Monsanto's GM seed without signing a licensing agreement.
If the Gene Giants and US Trade Representatives get their way, every
nation in the world will be forced to adopt patent laws that make seed
saving illegal, says RAFI. "The ruling against Schmeiser establishes
an even more dangerous precedent be-cause it means that farmers can be
forced to pay royalties on GM seeds found on their land, even if they
didn't buy the seeds, or benefit from them."
Percy Schmeiser did not buy Monsanto's patented seed, nor did he
obtain the seed illegally. Pollen from genetically engineered canola
seeds blew onto his land from neighbouring farms. (Percy Schmeiser's
neighbours and an estimated 40% of farmers in Western Canada grow GM
canola).
Monsanto's GM canola genes invaded Schmeiser's farm without his
consent. Shortly thereafter, Monsanto's "gene police" invaded his farm
and took seed samples without his permission. Percy Schmeiser was a
victim of genetic pollution from GM crops - but the court says he must
now pay Monsanto $10,000 for licensing fees and up to $75,000 in
profits from his 1998 crop. "It's like saying that Monsanto's
technology is spreading a sexually transmitted disease but everyone
else has to wear a condom," RAFI observed.
Although Monsanto disavowed "suicide seeds" in the wake of
international public protest, the company has routinely employed
Draconian measures to prevent farmers from re-using patented seed,
including the use of private police to root out seed-saving farmers,
and toll-fee hotlines to encourage rural residents to snitch on their
farm neighbours, says the RAFI report.
Monsanto has reportedly threatened to "vigorously prosecute" hundreds
of cases against seed saving farmers, but Schmeiser's was the first
major case to reach the courts. Schmeiser courageously decided to
fight back and speak out against "bioserfdom."
Monsanto (acquired by Pharmacia last year) is the world's premiere
Biotech giant. The court ruling has far-reaching implications for
farming communities around the world, RAFI maintains. Last year,
Monsanto's GM seed technology was planted on 41.6 million hectares
(103 million acres) worldwide. That means Monsanto accounted for 94%
of the global area sown to genetically modified seeds in 2000. (Total
worldwide area = 44.2 million hectares or 109.2 million acres.)
North American farmers grew three-quarters of the world's commercial
GM crops last year, and now they're showing signs of biotech battle
fatigue, RAFI adds. Illegal traces of Aventis' StarLink maize
(unapproved for human consumption) have disrupted grain markets and
jeopardised exports. Unsold stockpiles of US maize are at their
highest level since GM crops were commercialised. The US government
announced last month that it would spend $20 million in taxpayer money
to bail out the biotech industry, by purchasing maize seed that was
contaminated with Aventis' StarLink genes. To add insult to injury,
the federal bailout is using money that would normally go to disaster
relief for farmers, Rafi added
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #66087 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #66083] |
Sat, 07 September 2002 12:28 |
Arthur
Boodskappe: 609
Geregistreer: September 2001
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"Ferdi Greyling" schreef...
> Raai wie het hier gegee en wie het hier gekry!!
Mens praat mos van 'n gift, nie van 'n offer nie? Daar is geen wet wat sê jy
mag self net nadeel ondervind wanneer jy enigiets weggee nie.
Dis amper soos die gedagte dat mens net ryk kan word deur anderes armer te
maak.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #66097 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #66087] |
Sun, 08 September 2002 00:12 |
NoS...[2]
Boodskappe: 234
Geregistreer: September 2002
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Sat, 7 Sep 2002 14:28:48 +0200, "Arthur" wrote:
> "Ferdi Greyling" schreef...
>> Raai wie het hier gegee en wie het hier gekry!!
>
> Mens praat mos van 'n gift, nie van 'n offer nie? Daar is geen wet wat sê jy
> mag self net nadeel ondervind wanneer jy enigiets weggee nie.
Daar is egter 'n algemene morele kode wat in alle samelewings en alle
godsdienste geld wat min of meer sê dat wanneer jy praat, moet jy
eerlik wees. Wanneer jy hulp aan 'n ander gee met woorde van
medemenslikheid, moet dit nie 'n Trojaanse perd wees wat hulle eintlik
gaan opdonder en jou vet gaan maak ten koste van hulle nie.
Daar is ook iets anders - wanneer jy kastig gee en eintlik is dit maar
net gekamoefleerde vat, durf jy nie vir almal wat wil luister vertel
hoe goed jy is en hoe baie jy doen vir die andere nie.
Want dan is jy mos 'n bedriee"r en 'n liegbek.
"Snake oil salesmen" soos die Amerikaners self sê.
Dis amper soos die gedagte dat mens net ryk kan word deur anderes
armer te maak.
Interressant dat jy dit noem.....
Gegee die situasie dat daar 'n bepaalbare hoeveelheid rykdom op die
aarde is, en dat "ryk en arm" eintlik maar 'n spreekwoordelike manier
is van praat oor hoe dit verdeel word....
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #66103 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #66097] |
Sun, 08 September 2002 11:44 |
Arthur
Boodskappe: 609
Geregistreer: September 2001
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"Ferdi Greyling" schreef...
> "Arthur" wrote:
>
> >> Raai wie het hier gegee en wie het hier gekry!!
>>
>> Mens praat mos van 'n gift, nie van 'n offer nie? Daar is geen wet wat sê jy
>> mag self net nadeel ondervind wanneer jy enigiets weggee nie.
>
> Daar is egter 'n algemene morele kode wat in alle samelewings en alle
> godsdienste geld wat min of meer sê dat wanneer jy praat, moet jy
> eerlik wees. Wanneer jy hulp aan 'n ander gee met woorde van
> medemenslikheid, moet dit nie 'n Trojaanse perd wees wat hulle eintlik
> gaan opdonder en jou vet gaan maak ten koste van hulle nie.
Daar was geen sprake van 'ten koste van' in hierdie geval.
Waarom enigiets gee wanneer dit beteken dat jy al jou beweegredens moet
verdedig?
> Daar is ook iets anders - wanneer jy kastig gee en eintlik is dit maar
> net gekamoefleerde vat, durf jy nie vir almal wat wil luister vertel
> hoe goed jy is en hoe baie jy doen vir die andere nie.
Ek stem dat om onbaatsugtig te gee moreel baie hoogstaand is, maar die
realiteit is dat amper almal dinge (of dit nou mielies is of 'n deel van jou
waardigheid) weggee om hulself 'goed' te voel.
>
> Interressant dat jy dit noem.....
> Gegee die situasie dat daar 'n bepaalbare hoeveelheid rykdom op die
> aarde is, en dat "ryk en arm" eintlik maar 'n spreekwoordelike manier
> is van praat oor hoe dit verdeel word....
Dis 'n baie ou Marxistiese doktrine. Daar is geen bepaalbare hoeveelheid
rykdom op die aarde. As die doktrine waar gewees was, dan was die bevolking
van 10.000 BC onmeetlik ryk .....
Meestentyds maak ons die rykdom self.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #66121 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #66103] |
Mon, 09 September 2002 01:23 |
NoS...[2]
Boodskappe: 234
Geregistreer: September 2002
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 13:44:02 +0200, "Arthur" wrote:
>> Daar is egter 'n algemene morele kode wat in alle samelewings en alle
>> godsdienste geld wat min of meer sê dat wanneer jy praat, moet jy
>> eerlik wees. Wanneer jy hulp aan 'n ander gee met woorde van
>> medemenslikheid, moet dit nie 'n Trojaanse perd wees wat hulle eintlik
>> gaan opdonder en jou vet gaan maak ten koste van hulle nie.
>
> Daar was geen sprake van 'ten koste van' in hierdie geval.
In teendeel.....
Wanneer boere gevang is in 'n betal siklus aan Monsanto of wie ookal
om gereeld te kan plant en dit is die gevolg van die "skenking" is
daar 'n moerse groot "ten koste" in die spel.
> Waarom enigiets gee wanneer dit beteken dat jy al jou beweegredens
moet verdedig?
Omdat dit jou ryk maak en die beweegrede is so verskuil dat mense dit
nie maklik agterkom nie?
Waarop dink jy is Amerikaanse kommersiele kolonialisme gebou?
> Daar is ook iets anders - wanneer jy kastig gee en eintlik is dit
maar
>> net gekamoefleerde vat, durf jy nie vir almal wat wil luister vertel
>> hoe goed jy is en hoe baie jy doen vir die andere nie.
>
> Ek stem dat om onbaatsugtig te gee moreel baie hoogstaand is, maar die
> realiteit is dat amper almal dinge (of dit nou mielies is of 'n deel van jou
> waardigheid) weggee om hulself 'goed' te voel.
Dis nie die issue nie. Die feit dat baie mense dit doen beteken
eenvoudig dat baie mense dit doen. Baie mense steel ook.
Dis amper soos die gedagte dat mens net ryk kan word deur anderes
>> armer te maak.
>> Interressant dat jy dit noem.....
>> Gegee die situasie dat daar 'n bepaalbare hoeveelheid rykdom op die
>> aarde is, en dat "ryk en arm" eintlik maar 'n spreekwoordelike manier
>> is van praat oor hoe dit verdeel word....
>
> Dis 'n baie ou Marxistiese doktrine. Daar is geen bepaalbare hoeveelheid
> rykdom op die aarde. As die doktrine waar gewees was, dan was die bevolking
> van 10.000 BC onmeetlik ryk .....
As jy se dis 'n Marxistiese doktrine en jy ken Marxisme, dan is dit
seker so, maar vir my is dit bloot 'n kwessie van logika.
As daar 'n woud met 1000 bome in is, is daar net 1 000 bome waarmee
rykdom gemaak kan word in daardie woud. En net soveel maniere om die
rykdom te maak op enige gegewe tydstip. Dit is die beperkinge van die
fisiese werklikheid waarin ons bestaan.
Meestentyds maak ons die rykdom self.
Inderdaad. Maar waaruit maak ons die rykdom? Uit hulpbronne, of dit
nou landbou-produksie of goud of kiaat-bome is wat uitgekap word (en
tyd vat om te groei) of riviere is wat standhoudend is of nie.
Gegee die realiteite van die wereld wat wissel van beperkte
hoeveelhede goud in die grond of reenval-siklusse, die diepte van
grond of die moeite om goed te vervoer - daar is net soveel rykdom wat
op enige gegewe tyd beskikbaar is. Wat my betref het dit niks met
Marxisme of wat ookal te doen nie, maar met die realiteit waarin ons
lewe.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #66138 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #66121] |
Mon, 09 September 2002 16:29 |
Arthur
Boodskappe: 609
Geregistreer: September 2001
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"Ferdi Greyling" schreef...
> "Arthur" wrote:
>> Daar was geen sprake van 'ten koste van' in hierdie geval.
>
> In teendeel.....
> Wanneer boere gevang is in 'n betal siklus aan Monsanto of wie ookal
> om gereeld te kan plant en dit is die gevolg van die "skenking" is
> daar 'n moerse groot "ten koste" in die spel.
(ik val even terug op Nederlands, dat schrijft wat makkelijker ...)
Wie zegt dat het bovenstaande het geval is? In een andere draad bracht je
zelf al het mogelijke probleem van verspreiding van gemodificeerde rassen
naar het wild ter sprake. Als zo'n ras niet steriel is, wat weerhoudt
Afrikaanse boeren dan ervan om het zelf op te telen?
> moet verdedig?
>
> Omdat dit jou ryk maak en die beweegrede is so verskuil dat mense dit
> nie maklik agterkom nie?
Die beweegredenen zijn niet zo goed verstopt. Het probleem is denk ik meer
de door links gedomineerde publieke opinie in het Westen ....'geld verdienen
is slecht'. Dit 'verdedigen' zou eigenlijk helemaal niet nodig moeten zijn.
> Waarop dink jy is Amerikaanse kommersiele kolonialisme gebou?
Gezond verstand. Hoe meer klanten, hoe beter. Wat dat betreft zijn de
Amerikanen onge�venaard. Kijk eens naar het Marshall-plan van vlak na WO II.
Ze hebben een half continent er weer bovenopgebracht omdat ze beseften dat
een klant zonder geld niets kan kopen (de andere helft zouden ze er ook
bovenop hebben gebracht als de Sovjets het niet hadden tegengehouden). Eerst
Een goed verkoper vertroetelt zijn klanten.
>> Ek stem dat om onbaatsugtig te gee moreel baie hoogstaand is, maar die
>> realiteit is dat amper almal dinge (of dit nou mielies is of 'n deel van jou
>> waardigheid) weggee om hulself 'goed' te voel.
>
> Dis nie die issue nie. Die feit dat baie mense dit doen beteken
> eenvoudig dat baie mense dit doen. Baie mense steel ook.
Hmm, misschien komt het omdat ik het woord 'kastig' niet kon vertalen. En
verder heb je gelijk, de realiteit is de realiteit omdat dat de realiteit
is.
> > armer te maak.
>
>>> Interressant dat jy dit noem.....
>>> Gegee die situasie dat daar 'n bepaalbare hoeveelheid rykdom op die
>>> aarde is, en dat "ryk en arm" eintlik maar 'n spreekwoordelike manier
>>> is van praat oor hoe dit verdeel word....
>>
>> Dis 'n baie ou Marxistiese doktrine. Daar is geen bepaalbare hoeveelheid
>> rykdom op die aarde. As die doktrine waar gewees was, dan was die bevolking
>> van 10.000 BC onmeetlik ryk .....
>
> As jy se dis 'n Marxistiese doktrine en jy ken Marxisme, dan is dit
> seker so, maar vir my is dit bloot 'n kwessie van logika.
>
> As daar 'n woud met 1000 bome in is, is daar net 1 000 bome waarmee
> rykdom gemaak kan word in daardie woud. En net soveel maniere om die
> rykdom te maak op enige gegewe tydstip. Dit is die beperkinge van die
> fisiese werklikheid waarin ons bestaan.
Nee, dit is een veel te simpele weergave. De werkelijkheid is dat bomen
groeien en dat een goed beheer de opbrengst kan verhogen. Bovendien kun je
spelen met de mate van efficientie waarmee je het materiaal oogst en
gebruikt. En men kan technieken ontwikkelen waardoor die bomen helemaal niet
meer nodig zijn om de economie te steunen; bakstenen, stalen schepen,
keramische borden, plastic tafels, .....
> Inderdaad. Maar waaruit maak ons die rykdom? Uit hulpbronne, of dit
> nou landbou-produksie of goud of kiaat-bome is wat uitgekap word (en
> tyd vat om te groei) of riviere is wat standhoudend is of nie.
Nee, de grootste component van de Westerse economie is tegenwoordig de
dienstensector. Die maken absoluut niets tastbaars .....
> Gegee die realiteite van die wereld wat wissel van beperkte
> hoeveelhede goud in die grond of reenval-siklusse, die diepte van
> grond of die moeite om goed te vervoer - daar is net soveel rykdom wat
> op enige gegewe tyd beskikbaar is. Wat my betref het dit niks met
> Marxisme of wat ookal te doen nie, maar met die realiteit waarin ons
> lewe.
Marxisme is op zich een theorie die stoelde op 19e eeuwse denkbeelden over
de economische realiteit. Jouw denkbeelden sluiten daar kennelijk bij aan,
maar in de tussentijd is de economische realiteit revolutionair veranderd
(voornamelijk gedreven door technologische vooruitgang) en de inzichten in
de werking van de economie zijn navenant mee-ontwikkeld.
Jammer dat onze Duitse milieu-econoom niet meer meeleest op deze groep ...
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #66141 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #66138] |
Mon, 09 September 2002 20:14 |
Ferdi Greyling
Boodskappe: 1232
Geregistreer: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 18:29:12 +0200, "Arthur" wrote:
> Die beweegredenen zijn niet zo goed verstopt. Het probleem is denk ik meer
> de door links gedomineerde publieke opinie in het Westen ....'geld verdienen
> is slecht'. Dit 'verdedigen' zou eigenlijk helemaal niet nodig moeten zijn.
Nee. Lieg is sleg.
En verslawing onder voorwendsel van hulp is lieg.
Niks met geld verdien as morele beginsel te doen nie.
Nee, de grootste component van de Westerse economie is tegenwoordig
de
> dienstensector. Die maken absoluut niets tastbaars .....>
As jy dink die dienstesektor het geen verband met die
hulpbronne-sektor nie, is jy in vir 'n moerse surprise.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #66142 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #66141] |
Mon, 09 September 2002 20:43 |
Arthur
Boodskappe: 609
Geregistreer: September 2001
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"Ferdi Greyling" schreef...
> Nee. Lieg is sleg.
> En verslawing onder voorwendsel van hulp is lieg.
> Niks met geld verdien as morele beginsel te doen nie.
Maar dan is alle materiele hulp fout. Iets wat sommige hulporganisaties hier
al jaren verkondigen. Geef een man een vis en hij heeft één dag te eten.
Leer hem te vissen en ....
Toch vind ik dat je in het geval van die voedselhulp van de Amerikanen zeker
niet van 'liegen' kunt spreken. Ze geven geen zaaigoed, ze geven voedsel!
> As jy dink die dienstesektor het geen verband met die
> hulpbronne-sektor nie, is jy in vir 'n moerse surprise.
Waar zie je me voor aan? Over die 'surprise' hebben we het hier al eerder
gehad.
Toch lijkt het erop dat zelfs jij moet toegeven dat het niet zo is dat de
'rijken' rijker worden ten koste van de 'armen'. Hooguit ten koste van de
natuurlijke hulpbronnen. Vandaar dat we moeten streven naar een meer
duurzaam gebruik van de aarde en naar een stevige bevolkingsafname, maar die
komt vanzelf. Hier hebben we een uitdrukking; de wal zal het schip wel
keren.
Prettig zal het in ieder geval niet worden wanneer de Westerse beschaving
door honger gedreven op jacht gaat naar hulpbronnen. Veel morele
verworvenheden zullen dan wel sneuvelen, het laagje beschaving is maar dun.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #66148 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #66142] |
Tue, 10 September 2002 06:11 |
NoS...[2]
Boodskappe: 234
Geregistreer: September 2002
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 22:43:14 +0200, "Arthur" wrote:
> Maar dan is alle materiele hulp fout. Iets wat sommige hulporganisaties hier
> al jaren verkondigen. Geef een man een vis en hij heeft één dag te eten.
> Leer hem te vissen en ....
Nee. Nie alle hulp is 'n fout nie. Dis tog logies. Die punt is dat dit
niks help as jy iemand verslaaf aan jou ekonomie met sogenaamde hulp
nie.
Hulp sal bv. wees om mense in Afrika te help om bedrewe te word met
boerdery, ja. Maar dit sal NIKS beteken as Europa nie subsidies aan
hul eie boere afskaf - soos hulle verwag Afrika-lande moet doen voor
hulle hulp kan kry nie.
Dn kan Afrika produkte uitvoer na Europa, geld maak en actually hulle
self begin help.
> Waar zie je me voor aan? Over die 'surprise' hebben we het hier al eerder
> gehad.
>
> Toch lijkt het erop dat zelfs jij moet toegeven dat het niet zo is dat de
> 'rijken' rijker worden ten koste van de 'armen'. Hooguit ten koste van de
> natuurlijke hulpbronnen. Vandaar dat we moeten streven naar een meer
> duurzaam gebruik van de aarde en naar een stevige bevolkingsafname, maar die
> komt vanzelf. Hier hebben we een uitdrukking; de wal zal het schip wel
> keren.
>
> Prettig zal het in ieder geval niet worden wanneer de Westerse beschaving
> door honger gedreven op jacht gaat naar hulpbronnen. Veel morele
> verworvenheden zullen dan wel sneuvelen, het laagje beschaving is maar dun.
Die rykes word wel ryker ten koste van die armes. Dalk nie in die
sosialisties beskermde omgewing van Nederland nie, maar wel elders.
Die syfers is daar.
Die stelsel wat jou in Nederland beskerm hierteen is natuurlik self
ook deel van die verskynsel. Europa het ryker geword en Afrika armer.
Afrika het nie dieselfe gebly en Europa het ryker geword nie. Dis ook
nie dat Afrika ook ryker geword het en Europa baie ryker nie.
Afrika het ARMER geword en Europa RYKER.
Dit het die gaping tussen die twee so groot gemaak.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #66165 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #66148] |
Tue, 10 September 2002 15:36 |
Arthur
Boodskappe: 609
Geregistreer: September 2001
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"Ferdi Greyling" schreef...
> Afrika het nie dieselfe gebly en Europa het ryker geword nie. Dis ook
> nie dat Afrika ook ryker geword het en Europa baie ryker nie.
>
> Afrika het ARMER geword en Europa RYKER.
Hoe meet je rijkdom? Ik heb geen absolute cijfers, maar ik vermoed dat in
beide gevallen de hoeveelheid economische winmiddelen (de rijkdommachine) is
toegenomen. Alleen groeit de bevolking in de meeste Afrikaanse landen
procentsgewijs harder dan de mogelijkheid om rijkdom te produceren.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #66168 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #66165] |
Tue, 10 September 2002 20:16 |
Ferdi Greyling
Boodskappe: 1232
Geregistreer: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:36:26 +0200, "Arthur" wrote:
Hoe meet je rijkdom?
Infrastruktuur, werkgeleenthede en koopkrag.
Ik heb geen absolute cijfers, maar ik vermoed dat in
> beide gevallen de hoeveelheid economische winmiddelen (de rijkdommachine) is
> toegenomen. Alleen groeit de bevolking in de meeste Afrikaanse landen
> procentsgewijs harder dan de mogelijkheid om rijkdom te produceren.
Dis een van die byprodukte van armoede - bevolkingsaanwassing. In alle
lande neem bevolkingsaanwassing af namate die bevolking ryker word en
meer individuele geleenthede kry.
Die verskynsel is plaaslik in verstedelikte gebiede soos Soweto ook
gesien.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #66174 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #66148] |
Wed, 11 September 2002 09:06 |
Pieter[2]
Boodskappe: 93
Geregistreer: September 2002
Karma: 0
|
Volle Lid |
|
|
Ek dog dan al die swartes in Afrika is boere, hul is dan so grond honger om
te boer. Wat kan die Weste hulle in elk geval leer van boer ?
"Ferdi Greyling" skryf in boodskap news:3d7ede9d.8072750@news.is.co.za...
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 22:43:14 +0200, "Arthur"
> wrote:
>
> hulporganisaties hier
>> al jaren verkondigen. Geef een man een vis en hij heeft één dag te eten.
>> Leer hem te vissen en ....
>
> Nee. Nie alle hulp is 'n fout nie. Dis tog logies. Die punt is dat dit
> niks help as jy iemand verslaaf aan jou ekonomie met sogenaamde hulp
> nie.
>
> Hulp sal bv. wees om mense in Afrika te help om bedrewe te word met
> boerdery, ja. Maar dit sal NIKS beteken as Europa nie subsidies aan
> hul eie boere afskaf - soos hulle verwag Afrika-lande moet doen voor
> hulle hulp kan kry nie.
>
> Dn kan Afrika produkte uitvoer na Europa, geld maak en actually hulle
> self begin help.
>
>
> eerder
>> gehad.
>>
>> Toch lijkt het erop dat zelfs jij moet toegeven dat het niet zo is dat de
>> 'rijken' rijker worden ten koste van de 'armen'. Hooguit ten koste van de
>> natuurlijke hulpbronnen. Vandaar dat we moeten streven naar een meer
>> duurzaam gebruik van de aarde en naar een stevige bevolkingsafname, maar die
>> komt vanzelf. Hier hebben we een uitdrukking; de wal zal het schip wel
>> keren.
>>
>> Prettig zal het in ieder geval niet worden wanneer de Westerse beschaving
>> door honger gedreven op jacht gaat naar hulpbronnen. Veel morele
>> verworvenheden zullen dan wel sneuvelen, het laagje beschaving is maar
dun.
>
> Die rykes word wel ryker ten koste van die armes. Dalk nie in die
> sosialisties beskermde omgewing van Nederland nie, maar wel elders.
> Die syfers is daar.
>
> Die stelsel wat jou in Nederland beskerm hierteen is natuurlik self
> ook deel van die verskynsel. Europa het ryker geword en Afrika armer.
>
> Afrika het nie dieselfe gebly en Europa het ryker geword nie. Dis ook
> nie dat Afrika ook ryker geword het en Europa baie ryker nie.
>
> Afrika het ARMER geword en Europa RYKER.
>
> Dit het die gaping tussen die twee so groot gemaak.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #66177 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #66174] |
Wed, 11 September 2002 09:24 |
emmy[1]
Boodskappe: 865
Geregistreer: April 2001
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Pieter
> Ek dog dan al die swartes in Afrika is boere, hul is dan so grond honger om
> te boer. Wat kan die Weste hulle in elk geval leer van boer ?
Ze kunnen leren om meer voedsel uit hun grond te halen..en hun grond niet te
verarmen door steeds dezelfde gewassen te verbouwen . er zijn gewassen die
de grond weer vruchtbaar maken
dan heb je weinig of geen meststoffen meer nodig.
Er zijn hulpprojecten van westerse specialisten op dit gebied actief bezig
grt emmy
> "Ferdi Greyling" wrote in message
> news:3d7ede9d.8072750@news.is.co.za...
>> On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 22:43:14 +0200, "Arthur"
>> wrote:
>>
>> > hulporganisaties hier
>>> al jaren verkondigen. Geef een man een vis en hij heeft één dag te eten.
>>> Leer hem te vissen en ....
>>
>> Nee. Nie alle hulp is 'n fout nie. Dis tog logies. Die punt is dat dit
>> niks help as jy iemand verslaaf aan jou ekonomie met sogenaamde hulp
>> nie.
>>
>> Hulp sal bv. wees om mense in Afrika te help om bedrewe te word met
>> boerdery, ja. Maar dit sal NIKS beteken as Europa nie subsidies aan
>> hul eie boere afskaf - soos hulle verwag Afrika-lande moet doen voor
>> hulle hulp kan kry nie.
>>
>> Dn kan Afrika produkte uitvoer na Europa, geld maak en actually hulle
>> self begin help.
>>
>>
>> > eerder
>>> gehad.
>>>
>>> Toch lijkt het erop dat zelfs jij moet toegeven dat het niet zo is dat de
>>> 'rijken' rijker worden ten koste van de 'armen'. Hooguit ten koste van de
>>> natuurlijke hulpbronnen. Vandaar dat we moeten streven naar een meer
>>> duurzaam gebruik van de aarde en naar een stevige bevolkingsafname,
maar
> die
>>> komt vanzelf. Hier hebben we een uitdrukking; de wal zal het schip wel
>>> keren.
>>>
>>> Prettig zal het in ieder geval niet worden wanneer de Westerse beschaving
>>> door honger gedreven op jacht gaat naar hulpbronnen. Veel morele
>>> verworvenheden zullen dan wel sneuvelen, het laagje beschaving is maar
> dun.
>>
>> Die rykes word wel ryker ten koste van die armes. Dalk nie in die
>> sosialisties beskermde omgewing van Nederland nie, maar wel elders.
>> Die syfers is daar.
>>
>> Die stelsel wat jou in Nederland beskerm hierteen is natuurlik self
>> ook deel van die verskynsel. Europa het ryker geword en Afrika armer.
>>
>> Afrika het nie dieselfe gebly en Europa het ryker geword nie. Dis ook
>> nie dat Afrika ook ryker geword het en Europa baie ryker nie.
>>
>> Afrika het ARMER geword en Europa RYKER.
>>
>> Dit het die gaping tussen die twee so groot gemaak.
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #66183 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #66177] |
Wed, 11 September 2002 10:29 |
Pieter[2]
Boodskappe: 93
Geregistreer: September 2002
Karma: 0
|
Volle Lid |
|
|
dit was met 'n duim in die oor gese
"emmy" skryf in boodskap news:3d7f0aa4$0$87560$8fcfb86b@news.wanadoo.nl...
>
> Pieter
>> Ek dog dan al die swartes in Afrika is boere, hul is dan so grond honger
> om
>> te boer. Wat kan die Weste hulle in elk geval leer van boer ?
>
> Ze kunnen leren om meer voedsel uit hun grond te halen..en hun grond niet te
> verarmen door steeds dezelfde gewassen te verbouwen . er zijn gewassen die
> de grond weer vruchtbaar maken
> dan heb je weinig of geen meststoffen meer nodig.
> Er zijn hulpprojecten van westerse specialisten op dit gebied actief bezig
> grt emmy
>
>
>
>
>
>> "Ferdi Greyling" wrote in message
>> news:3d7ede9d.8072750@news.is.co.za...
>>> On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 22:43:14 +0200, "Arthur"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> hulporganisaties hier
>>>> al jaren verkondigen. Geef een man een vis en hij heeft één dag te
> eten.
>>>> Leer hem te vissen en ....
>>>
>>> Nee. Nie alle hulp is 'n fout nie. Dis tog logies. Die punt is dat dit
>>> niks help as jy iemand verslaaf aan jou ekonomie met sogenaamde hulp
>>> nie.
>>>
>>> Hulp sal bv. wees om mense in Afrika te help om bedrewe te word met
>>> boerdery, ja. Maar dit sal NIKS beteken as Europa nie subsidies aan
>>> hul eie boere afskaf - soos hulle verwag Afrika-lande moet doen voor
>>> hulle hulp kan kry nie.
>>>
>>> Dn kan Afrika produkte uitvoer na Europa, geld maak en actually hulle
>>> self begin help.
>>>
>>>
>>> >> eerder
>>>> gehad.
>>>>
>>>> Toch lijkt het erop dat zelfs jij moet toegeven dat het niet zo is
dat
> de
>>>> 'rijken' rijker worden ten koste van de 'armen'. Hooguit ten koste
van
> de
>>>> natuurlijke hulpbronnen. Vandaar dat we moeten streven naar een meer
>>>> duurzaam gebruik van de aarde en naar een stevige bevolkingsafname,
> maar
>> die
>>>> komt vanzelf. Hier hebben we een uitdrukking; de wal zal het schip wel
>>>> keren.
>>>>
>>>> Prettig zal het in ieder geval niet worden wanneer de Westerse
> beschaving
>>>> door honger gedreven op jacht gaat naar hulpbronnen. Veel morele
>>>> verworvenheden zullen dan wel sneuvelen, het laagje beschaving is
maar
>> dun.
>>>
>>> Die rykes word wel ryker ten koste van die armes. Dalk nie in die
>>> sosialisties beskermde omgewing van Nederland nie, maar wel elders.
>>> Die syfers is daar.
>>>
>>> Die stelsel wat jou in Nederland beskerm hierteen is natuurlik self
>>> ook deel van die verskynsel. Europa het ryker geword en Afrika armer.
>>>
>>> Afrika het nie dieselfe gebly en Europa het ryker geword nie. Dis ook
>>> nie dat Afrika ook ryker geword het en Europa baie ryker nie.
>>>
>>> Afrika het ARMER geword en Europa RYKER.
>>>
>>> Dit het die gaping tussen die twee so groot gemaak.
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Geneties gemanipuleerde voedsel [boodskap #66193 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #66183] |
Wed, 11 September 2002 13:34 |
emmy[1]
Boodskappe: 865
Geregistreer: April 2001
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Pieter schreef in berichtnieuws
3d7f1ac0$0$18843@hades.is.co.za...
> dit was met 'n duim in die oor gese
Begrijp ik niet ;-))
grt emmy
>
>
> "emmy" wrote in message
> news:3d7f0aa4$0$87560$8fcfb86b@news.wanadoo.nl...
>>
>> Pieter
>>> Ek dog dan al die swartes in Afrika is boere, hul is dan so grond
honger
>> om
>>> te boer. Wat kan die Weste hulle in elk geval leer van boer ?
>>
>> Ze kunnen leren om meer voedsel uit hun grond te halen..en hun grond
niet
> te
>> verarmen door steeds dezelfde gewassen te verbouwen . er zijn gewassen die
>> de grond weer vruchtbaar maken
>> dan heb je weinig of geen meststoffen meer nodig.
>> Er zijn hulpprojecten van westerse specialisten op dit gebied actief bezig
>> grt emmy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Ferdi Greyling" wrote in message
>>> news:3d7ede9d.8072750@news.is.co.za...
>>>> On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 22:43:14 +0200, "Arthur"
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>> hulporganisaties hier
>>>> >al jaren verkondigen. Geef een man een vis en hij heeft één dag te
>> eten.
>>>> >Leer hem te vissen en ....
>>>>
>>>> Nee. Nie alle hulp is 'n fout nie. Dis tog logies. Die punt is dat dit
>>>> niks help as jy iemand verslaaf aan jou ekonomie met sogenaamde hulp
>>>> nie.
>>>>
>>>> Hulp sal bv. wees om mense in Afrika te help om bedrewe te word met
>>>> boerdery, ja. Maar dit sal NIKS beteken as Europa nie subsidies aan
>>>> hul eie boere afskaf - soos hulle verwag Afrika-lande moet doen voor
>>>> hulle hulp kan kry nie.
>>>>
>>>> Dn kan Afrika produkte uitvoer na Europa, geld maak en actually hulle
>>>> self begin help.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >>> eerder
>>>> >gehad.
>>>> >
>>>> >Toch lijkt het erop dat zelfs jij moet toegeven dat het niet zo is
> dat
>> de
>>>> >'rijken' rijker worden ten koste van de 'armen'. Hooguit ten koste
> van
>> de
>>>> >natuurlijke hulpbronnen. Vandaar dat we moeten streven naar een meer
>>>> >duurzaam gebruik van de aarde en naar een stevige bevolkingsafname,
>> maar
>>> die
>>>> >komt vanzelf. Hier hebben we een uitdrukking; de wal zal het schip
> wel
>>>> >keren.
>>>> >
>>>> >Prettig zal het in ieder geval niet worden wanneer de Westerse
>> beschaving
>>>> >door honger gedreven op jacht gaat naar hulpbronnen. Veel morele
>>>> >verworvenheden zullen dan wel sneuvelen, het laagje beschaving is
> maar
>>> dun.
>>>>
>>>> Die rykes word wel ryker ten koste van die armes. Dalk nie in die
>>>> sosialisties beskermde omgewing van Nederland nie, maar wel elders.
>>>> Die syfers is daar.
>>>>
>>>> Die stelsel wat jou in Nederland beskerm hierteen is natuurlik self
>>>> ook deel van die verskynsel. Europa het ryker geword en Afrika armer.
>>>>
>>>> Afrika het nie dieselfe gebly en Europa het ryker geword nie. Dis ook
>>>> nie dat Afrika ook ryker geword het en Europa baie ryker nie.
>>>>
>>>> Afrika het ARMER geword en Europa RYKER.
>>>>
>>>> Dit het die gaping tussen die twee so groot gemaak.
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| |
  |
Gaan na forum:
[ XML-voer ] [  ]
Tyd nou: Sun Dec 22 05:09:48 UTC 2024
|
Supertaal
Blog
Soek
Hulp
Lede
Registreer
Teken aan
Tuis
