FoodBanter.com - View Single Post - The collusion of federal regulators and Monsanto

J. Clarke[_2_]

In article >,
says...
>
> Landon > wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 21:38:52 -0700, Ranee at Arabian Knits
>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>In article >,
> >> Landon > wrote:
> >>
> >>> If you have more than 3 children, YOU are why GMO plants are
> >>> necessary. Period. End of story. Don't like it? Then stop having
> >>> children when you have your third child. If you don't, then don't
> >>> whine about what it takes to feed them all.
> >>
> >> That's amazing since my family of nine does not buy or eat GMO
> >>products. We have a smaller "carbon footprint" than most single people
> >>(according to those how to reduce your carbon footprint websites, etc),
> >>we produce less trash than most folks, use less gasoline, aren't huge
> >>consumers.
> >
> >I'm happy for you and your family of nine.
> >
> >I'm not so sure that the six million children who die each year from
> >starvation would think so highly of you however.
> >
> >Is it the "End of the world"?
> >
> >No.
> >
> >Will it be?
> >
> >No.
> >
> >However, the world has ended prematurely for six million children in
> >the last 12 months because they didn't have enough to eat.
> >
> >Six million children.
> >
> >That's just the children.
> >
> >A BILLION people are malnourished on our planet right this minute.
>
> I think it's important to point out that what's driving starvation
> and disease worldwide -- at least in the immediate sense -- is
> overconsumption in the first world, not overpopulation per se.

It's more a matter of difficulty of distribution. To distribute food in
Somalia the UN had to send a military expedition and finally gave up
trying. There was plenty of food to distribute but the warlords wanted
to control the distribution so they could systematically starve their
opponents.

> To the extent that additional persons (e.g. children) become
> overconsumers, they become part of the problem; but if a given household
> is consuming below-average amounts of energy and consumer products
> generally, then they are not a disproportionate part of the problem.
> So it is not particularly fair to heap criticism on a resource-conserving
> household with a high head-count.

Consumption isn't the issue. You can have enough food reserves to feed
everybody a hundred times over and until you find a way to get it to
where it's needed people will continue to starve.