On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 19:53:11 +0200, "Javi" <poziyoNOSPAM@hotmail.com
wrote:

I understand it is cheap, be it 7% or 12%. Half the human beings'
income is less than two dollars a day, and most of these two dollars
is spent in food.

But, the question is: from the observation that country A spends a
smaller proportion of its total disposable income on food than country
B -- do we conclude that, of these two countries, country A has the
cheapest food?

The carbon unit using the name Torsten Brinch <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> in
news:gbuajvkutv0lm4gf5hbbfqntod5ueo2t41@4ax.com gave utterance as follows:

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 19:53:11 +0200, "Javi" <poziyoNOSPAM@hotmail.com
wrote:

I understand it is cheap, be it 7% or 12%. Half the human beings'
income is less than two dollars a day, and most of these two dollars
is spent in food.

But, the question is: from the observation that country A spends a
smaller proportion of its total disposable income on food than country
B -- do we conclude that, of these two countries, country A has the
cheapest food?

I'd say that food in country A is cheaper than in country B *for its
inhabitants*. If we only compare A and B, or if in A the food is cheaper
*for its inhabitanrs* than in every country compared, I'd say that, *for its
inhabitants*, country A have the cheapest food. Of course, as I understand
it, it's essential that the words "for its inhabitants" be added explicit or
implicitly. Anyway, I had no problem in understanding the original post, as
I added "for its inhabitants", because I think that affluence, when speaking
about people, not about countries, is a relative term: the rich man in one
country is the poor man in another.

"Moosh:}" <almostnothing@very.little> wrote:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 18:16:43 -0700, Walter Epp
NOSPAAMfor7gen@idiom.com> posted:

"Gordon Couger" <gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
When the FDA and USDA say that there are no differences worth labeling most
of the people trust them as they trust them for assuring the safety of their
milk, meat and drugs. Our government does not work like a lot of
parliamentary governments that form a gang and railroad things though until
they can no longer agree and break up and make a new gang. Every issue
stands on its own.

Since we have reguatutory agencies with a long history and proven expertise
we trust them more than people in Europe seem to trust theirs.

Only if we are ignorant of how they are operating.
Michael Taylor worked for Monsanto, then went to work for the FDA where he
wrote the rules for labels regarding Monsanto's genetically engineered product
saying there's no difference, then he went back to work for Monsanto.

And you have evidence of any fraud or other wrongdoing?

Fraud is not needed when your own people are writing the rules.
Do you know what conflict of interest is?

When Richard Burroughs at the FDA held up approval due to scientifically
inadequate research and challenged company studies that dropped sick cows
from test trials and manipulated data in other ways to make health and
safety problems disappear, he was fired.

And where did you get this story from?

You commented elsewhere on http://www.psrast.org/bghsalmonella.htm but
now your question indicates you didn't bother to actually read it.

See also http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9904b/monsantofda.html

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:38:42 GMT, Mooshie peas
almostnothing@very.little> wrote:

Well, Gordon's original comment, in response to which you provided the
price list in US$, was "We do pay a price for having the cheapest food
on the planet"

To me, cheapest means most affordable. Comparing prices using
arbitrary exchange rates is far less relevant than comparing them as
minutes of average workers' wages. YMMV.

Bill Gates goes into a bar where nine unemployed workers are nursing
their beers. "Whoopee!" shouts one of them. "This room now has the
cheapest beer on the planet."

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:21:57 +0200, Torsten Brinch
iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> posted:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:38:42 GMT, Mooshie peas
almostnothing@very.little> wrote:

Well, Gordon's original comment, in response to which you provided
the
price list in US$, was "We do pay a price for having the cheapest
food
on the planet"

To me, cheapest means most affordable. Comparing prices using
arbitrary exchange rates is far less relevant than comparing them
as
minutes of average workers' wages. YMMV.

Bill Gates goes into a bar where nine unemployed workers are
nursing
their beers. "Whoopee!" shouts one of them. "This room now has the
cheapest beer on the planet."

If you wish to take it to ridiculous extremes by individualising it.

We were comparing nations, remember? Bill Gates, the Queen of
England,
or the Sultan of Brunei are quite irrelevant to this discussion.
They
are hardly averages of the different nations' workers.

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:21:57 +0200, Torsten Brinch
iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> posted:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:38:42 GMT, Mooshie peas
almostnothing@very.little> wrote:

Well, Gordon's original comment, in response to which you provided the
price list in US$, was "We do pay a price for having the cheapest food
on the planet"

To me, cheapest means most affordable. Comparing prices using
arbitrary exchange rates is far less relevant than comparing them as
minutes of average workers' wages. YMMV.

Bill Gates goes into a bar where nine unemployed workers are nursing
their beers. "Whoopee!" shouts one of them. "This room now has the
cheapest beer on the planet."

If you wish to take it to ridiculous extremes by individualising it.

We were comparing nations, remember?

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 01:28:36 -0700, Walter Epp
NOSPAAMfor7gen@idiom.com> posted:

"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 21:03:33 -0700, Walter Epp
NOSPAAMfor7gen@idiom.com> posted:

"Gordon Couger" <gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
In the greenest
part of the country a vote on and anti GM law lost 3 to 1. We have some

That result was bought with over $6 per vote of out of state money
spent on a blitz of deception and scare tactics.

For instance? Show too where it is wrong please.

http://www.voteyeson27.com/Counterpoints1.pdf
This does not mention the possibility that labeling could increase jobs,
reduce costs of selling overseas, and make Oregon more competitive.
As Consumers Union points out in its letter supporting labeling, "Europe,
Japan, South Korea, China, Australia and New Zealand all have mandatory
labeling requirements, and a labeling law in Oregon would put the state in
a good position to sell products in those markets."

My query referred to the last part, "a blitz of deception and scare
tactics"

The best genetically modified democracy money can buy.

That's nearly as good as "Frankenfoods".

That law was not anti-gm, it only required that the consumer be allowed
to know what they're getting so there could be a free market.

Garbage. So that your lying scare campaigns could take effect.

Freedom is by definition the ability to make choices.

Only if you know and understand the facts.

Without labelling the consumer is denied knowing the facts.

Rubbish, you lot have bent any facts. Any label will only say "May
contain GM". What information does this convey?

You lot have gone out of your way to spread lies.

Show me which statement I have made that's a lie and why.

That there is any harm from GM foods. Otherwise, show us just ONE
example.

If there's no labeling, there's no choice, if there's no choice, there's
no freedom. To call this a free market is a fraud - it's a rigged market.

Then tell the truth. If there are scary lies promulgated, there can be
no informed choice, whatever information is given on a label.

And when biotech companies are censoring troubling information
there can be no informed choice.

Which troubling information?

Their opposition to labelling shows that genetic engineering proponents
don't believe their own propaganda.

Their opposition to labelling is due to gross ignorance of the general
public

Lack of labelling keeps the public in the dark.

No, after all the lies about scary consequences, nothing but darkness
confronts the public.

light.

screaming that any trace of GM must be labelled is a tad hypocritical.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:25:46 GMT, Mooshie peas
almostnothing@very.little> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:21:57 +0200, Torsten Brinch
iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> posted:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:38:42 GMT, Mooshie peas
almostnothing@very.little> wrote:

Well, Gordon's original comment, in response to which you provided the
price list in US$, was "We do pay a price for having the cheapest food
on the planet"

To me, cheapest means most affordable. Comparing prices using
arbitrary exchange rates is far less relevant than comparing them as
minutes of average workers' wages. YMMV.

Bill Gates goes into a bar where nine unemployed workers are nursing
their beers. "Whoopee!" shouts one of them. "This room now has the
cheapest beer on the planet."

If you wish to take it to ridiculous extremes by individualising it.

The whoopee guy compares the price of beer in the room with elsewhere,
using your suggested aggregate measure. I reckon one could nitpick if
now the room has the absolute rock bottom cheapest beer on the planet.
But, I understand his point that it must come pretty close to it, on
that measure, and also his pointed expressing of its non-applicability
to measure the affordability of beer to individual members of the
population the measure is aggregated across.

We were comparing nations, remember?

Yes, yes. Same thing, rooms, houses, neighborhoods, cities, regions,
nations, continents. Some area with a group of people in it, with
some aggregated income and some aggregated number of working minutes.

Within each area, prices can be expressed as price in
currency/aggregated wage in currency*aggregated working minutes,
and compared. Is that not what you are suggesting?

Moosh:} <almostnothing@very.little> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 01:28:36 -0700, Walter Epp
NOSPAAMfor7gen@idiom.com> posted:

"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 21:03:33 -0700, Walter Epp
NOSPAAMfor7gen@idiom.com> posted:

"Gordon Couger" <gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
In the greenest
part of the country a vote on and anti GM law lost 3 to 1. We have some

That result was bought with over $6 per vote of out of state money
spent on a blitz of deception and scare tactics.

For instance? Show too where it is wrong please.

http://www.voteyeson27.com/Counterpoints1.pdf
This does not mention the possibility that labeling could increase jobs,
reduce costs of selling overseas, and make Oregon more competitive.
As Consumers Union points out in its letter supporting labeling, "Europe,
Japan, South Korea, China, Australia and New Zealand all have mandatory
labeling requirements, and a labeling law in Oregon would put the state in
a good position to sell products in those markets."

My query referred to the last part, "a blitz of deception and scare
tactics"

The best genetically modified democracy money can buy.

That's nearly as good as "Frankenfoods".

That law was not anti-gm, it only required that the consumer be allowed
to know what they're getting so there could be a free market.

Garbage. So that your lying scare campaigns could take effect.

Freedom is by definition the ability to make choices.

Only if you know and understand the facts.

Without labelling the consumer is denied knowing the facts.

Rubbish, you lot have bent any facts. Any label will only say "May
contain GM". What information does this convey?

You lot have gone out of your way to spread lies.

Show me which statement I have made that's a lie and why.

That there is any harm from GM foods. Otherwise, show us just ONE
example.

It is rather hard for peole to pin it down when they do not know
whether they are eating GM food or not.

Yes ordinary foods can make some people very sick. They learn by
themselves or are educated by others how to avoid them. With
unlabelled GM it is not possible to know because it may not look
different.

I have pointed out how animals choose non-GM given the choice, and
that they are healthier.

I have pointed out that genes from food are found in human organs
after they have eaten the food.

If there's no labeling, there's no choice, if there's no choice, there's
no freedom. To call this a free market is a fraud - it's a rigged market.

Then tell the truth. If there are scary lies promulgated, there can be
no informed choice, whatever information is given on a label.

And when biotech companies are censoring troubling information
there can be no informed choice.

Which troubling information?

Many people are in a state of concern because so much of what was
public information in regard to foodstuffs has become private
information.

If the info were good for the market they know it would
be published. So they know it must be bad.

Their opposition to labelling shows that genetic engineering proponents
don't believe their own propaganda.

Their opposition to labelling is due to gross ignorance of the general
public

Lack of labelling keeps the public in the dark.

No, after all the lies about scary consequences, nothing but darkness
confronts the public.

So publish and shed light.

Education and the facts are the only way to shed
light.

And research. And I see how research has started to be
published on movement of genes in soil. Why not before?

Telling lies about all the harm that will ensue, and then
screaming that any trace of GM must be labelled is a tad hypocritical.

I think it oppressive to deny people the right to know whether they
are eating modified food.

The world is turning. North America is
turning to a place run overlords in food, and in China this is
recognised and there is resistance. China now has more freedom than
North America.

Linkname: GM Potato = Malnutrition
URL: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMPEM.php


GM Potato = Malnutrition

A GM potato will solve Third World hunger, said pro-GM
scientists in India and Britain. Dr. Vandana Shiva and Afsar
Jafri expose the lies they tell to force GM foods on a defiant
world that will also put school children at risk from
malnutrition by displacing nutrient-rich indigenous staples.

At the start of Britain's public GM debate in June, the British
Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) said that approval for commercial
growing of a genetically modified potato is expected in India
within six months. Indian scientists were reported to have said
that the protein-rich genetically modified potato could help
combat malnutrition in India. This is reminiscent of an earlier
attempt by pro-GM scientists to convince critics that GM `golden
rice' is needed to cure vitamin A deficiency among the poor in
the Third World, a `potential benefit' that's being hyped by the
pro-GM British scientific establishment to this day.

At the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology
(RFSTE), we have shown that fruits and green vegetables that
could be grown in every backyard provide hundreds of times more
Vitamin A than `golden rice'.

Now the people of India and the rest of the world are sold a
`protein-rich potato' hoax by our scientists as part of an
anti-hunger plan, formulated jointly with government institutes,
the biotech industry and charities. The potato, it is claimed,
contains a third more protein than normal, including essential
high-quality nutrients, and has been created by adding a gene
from the protein-rich amaranth plant.

According to the BBC, Dr. Manju Sharma, Head of the Department
of Biotechnology (DBT), said that the GM potato will "reduce the
problem of malnutrition in the country", and she plans to
incorporate it into the government's free midday meal programme
in schools.

But, inserting protein genes from amaranth into potatoes and
promoting potato as a staple for school-children's mid-day meals
is also a decision not to promote amaranth and pulses, the most
important source of protein in the Indian diet. Amaranth
contains 14.7 gm protein per 100 gm of dried grain, compared to
6.8 gm/100gm milled rice, 11 gm/100gm wheat flour and a mere 1.6
gm/100 gm potato.

Compared to the nutritional value of grains like amaranth, GM
potatoes will actually create malnutrition because it will
represent a huge protein deficit, and deny to vulnerable
children many other essential nutrients present in much higher
amounts in amaranth (see Table 1) or that are not available in
potato.
Table 1. Nutritional content of Amaranth compared with GM potato
___________________________________________________________

Content (per 100gm)
Nutrient Amaranth Potato Deficit
Protein 14.7gm 2.1gm* - 12.6gm
Iron+ 11.0mg 0.7mg - 10.3mg
Calcium+ 510.0mg 10.0mg -500.0mg
___________________________________________________________

*Assuming an increase of 33% protein content in GM potato, as
reported.
+Assuming these remain unchanged.

As can be seen, the GM potato will actually cause severe iron
and calcium deficiencies in children as well as severe protein
deficiency. The ancient people of the Andes regarded amaranth
sacred. In India, it is called "Ramdana" or God's own grain. The
root word "amara", in both Greek and Sanskrit means eternal or
deathless. A much smarter option is to promote the widespread
cultivation and use of amazing grains like amaranth. [Editor's
note: In Britain, amaranth has already entered the specialty
market as a high protein and nutritious breakfast cereal, thus
fully exposing the short-sightedness if not downright hypocrisy
and wickedness of those who are intent on promoting monoculture
grains at the expense of far superior indigenous varieties.]

In any case, amaranth is not the only source of protein in
India's rich biodiversity and cuisine. Our dals, (also pulses
and legumes), a staple mixed with rice as dal-chawal and with
wheat as dal-roti are also very rich in protein (see Table 2).
The consumption of dals also provides much higher levels of
proteins than GM potatoes.

Poor Indian children will get a full balanced diet in dals,
pulses and amaranth, instead of getting malnutrition on "protein
rich" GM potatoes.
Table 2. Protein content of some Indian pulses
___________________________________________________________

Pulses Protein per 100 gm
Bengal gram (whole) 17.1 gm
Horse gram 22.0 gm
Bengal gram roasted 22.5 gm
Lentil 25.1 gm
Black gram 24.0 gm
Moth bean 23.6 gm
Cow pea 24.1 gm
Peas dry 19.7 gm
Field Bean 24.9 gm
Rajma 22.9 gm
Green gram dal 24.5 gm
Redgram 22.3 gm

RELEVANT LINKS
from the ISIS website
(see all articles on the SITE MAP)
Allergenic GM Papaya Scandal
The Need for Another Research Paradigm
GM-free Food Aid!
Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments
Risks of Viral Resistant Transgenic Crops
Biotech Fever Burning, Burning Out?
Dr Arpad Pusztai Talks on Food for the 21st Century
Genomics for health
Horizontal gene transfer - new evidence

[see http for contacts]
Science in Society gets inside science, puts science under the
political spotlight to demand it is accountable to society
MATERIAL ON THIS SITE MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT
PERMISSION, ON CONDITION THAT IT IS ACCREDITED ACCORDINGLY AND
CONTAINS A LINK TO http://www.i-sis.org.uk/