|
flubno (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@jasonladeroutejason Sounds like she was on point to me.
myndy86 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@TheMalar Let me give you an example of what I mean. In Northern Potosí, Bolivia organic fertilizer costs US$18/ha, which compares with the US$170/ha for an equivalent amount of inorganic fertilizer. That is just fertilizer, you want them to use synthetic pesticides, glyphosate, etc. If organic costs less to produce and sells for more, they can make the same profit from a farm half the size, and the wife could work the farm and the husband get another job, thus reducing poverty.
myndy86 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@TheMalar How can the farmer who can barely afford to feed himself afford glyphosate which is more expensive than labor in poor countries? Organic food costs more primarily because the demand is high and the supply is low, hence the higher price. Organic farmers in the U.S. had an estimated average net income of about $20k per farm per year higher than the all-farm figure. So poor countries should grow organic, so they make more profit and can hire labor and reduce poverty.
TheMalar (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@myndy86 So how that farmer that can bearly affor to feed himself can afford extra labor? And organic is not less expensive, if it was organic food would not be 2 times or 4 times more expensive. You seem to know nothing about the relations between demand, supply and the prices.
myndy86 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@TheMalar Many people make about $1(U.S.) a day in poor countries, so it is significantly cheaper to pay labor than the cost of glyphosate in poor countries. Most jobs in poor countries are related agriculture, food processing etc. so the more money farmers make the better the economy. Organic is less expensive to produce(no expensive synthetic inputs, etc.) and sells for money(more profit), this creates more and better paying jobs which reduces poverty and reduces hunger.
TheMalar (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@myndy86 In poor countries farmers are to poor to afford hireing someone to weed for them. Using herbicides is still a better option for them. And paying for weedeng does not reduces poverty it creates it. Because you have to pay for the food, and we all need to buy food so all the economy suffers. So what? We will eat weeds to maintain our diet? How more does organic food costs? How does paying two times more for food reduces poverty and hunger?
myndy86 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@TheMalar In poor countries using glyphosate costs more because they don't have easy access to it and labor is cheaper. Also paying people to weed creates jobs and reduces poverty which is a main cause of hunger. All of the conventionally bred crops I mentioned in my last post were developed for use in poor countries. Many of the weeds you want to kill with glyphosate in poor countries, often have high levels of beta carotene, so manual weeding provides more jobs and more nutrients.
TheMalar (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@myndy86 Exactly, because other weeding methods cost more, using only one pesticide is much cheaper, and we need cheap food. But we are talking about countries that don't grow crops rich in beta carotens. Milions of children go blind because their diet has not enough beta carotens in it, but they eat rice as the main source of calories. Not all people afford functional food.
myndy86 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@TheMalar Glyphosate is used primarily for convenience, rather than use other more manual methods of weeding. Most countries don't use GE tomato anymore, they are rarely used. Golden Rice is still largely experimental, it's not widely available commercially. Also Golden Rice is more about increased nutrition than it is production and there are numerous conventionally bred(used in organic) nutrient enhanced crops like Orange Maize, Orange Sweet Potato, High Beta Carotene Tomato, etc.
TheMalar (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@myndy86 Because you look at the most popular ones like corn. But what about golden rice or tomatos? And if using glyphosate would reduce production, why would people use it? |
