NATION
July 7, 2003
ildfire
iring
Opinion
The Battalion
Page
5 • Monday, July Jl
EU should adopt use of CMOS
CSOH Pressure from the United States and famine in Africa make GMOs a viable choice
Steve Elliott
SSOCIATED PRESS
)N, Ariz. — Smelt
rom slopes above i
y as firefighters stiife
irees to halting a w|
eping descent aloiis
es.
iters buzzed ovei
lomes, dropping water
othills of the Sanu
Mountains, and 3S
patrolled the area,
aid the fire posed in
threat to the homes,
ibout a half-mile fra
r center at Sabino
oopular recreation area
to the fire,
ic human-caused fire
yed more than 3M
cabins, most of them
t month across the top
emmon. It had bumej
TOO acres and was 5)
tained Sunday,
e north, a communil)
» south of Prescott,
a scare when a fire
Saturday night ani
msumed 25 acres,
residents were urged
On Sunday, firefighi-
fire ringed with lines
ctures were lost,U.S,
vice spokeswoman
: said.
xico fire crews said
t the ancient Indian
ios Pueblo was out of
1,500-acre wildfire
y from the ancient
lark.
ay, the lightning-
burned to within i
the village, whicliii
w Mexico’s majo'
/s. By Sunday It
5 miles away, fire
officer Bill
id.
O n June 23, President George W. Bush gave
a speech at the Biotechnology Industry
Organization’s annual convention. This
year,'17,000 representatives from biotech compa
nies and universities around the globe were sched
uled to attend. In front of this audience, Bush jus
tifiably criticized, the European Union’s stance on
genetically modified organisms —- a stance which may indirect
ly be contributing to famine in Africa.
“Acting on unfounded, unscientific fears, many European
governments have blocked the import of all new biotech crops,”
he declared. Bush is right. Not only is the EU’s regulatory poli
cy on GMOs based on “unscientific fears,” it prevents develop
ing countries from accepting biotechnology and, according to
international trade law, is illegal. When these developing coun
tries refuse to use GM foods, often to guarantee that their
exports will sell to the EU, they do so at the expense of their
own citizens’ health.
The president’s words reinforce the lawsuit the United States
filed last month with the World Trade Organization against the
EU. The court case says the EU freeze on approving GMOs is
not based on scientific proof that genetically modified products
cause environmental or health problems. Thus, the GMO
‘moratorium’ is illegal under the Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Agreement, which says that all regulatory policies are to be
based upon scientific principles. Not only is the moratorium
illegal, but it also denies many starving people access to food
— food they may needlessly fear will harm their health.
But to date, there is no credible evidence that genetically
modified foods adversely affect the environment or human
health. Lester Crawford, the deputy commissioner of the Food
and Drug Administration, testified before Congress that there
was no data showing that any bio-engineered foods currently
sold were unsafe to eat. “The evidence shows that these foods
are as safe as their conventional counterparts,” he said.
Europe’s own scientific associations, such as Britain’s Royal
Society and the French Academy of Sciences, maintain that
there is no evidence that GMOs pose a risk to human health.
Professor Patrick Bateson, vice president of the Royal Society,
even challenged critics of biotechnology: “The public have
been told for several years that GM foods are inherently unsafe
to eat... We have examined the results of published research,
and have found nothing to indicate that GM foods are inherent
ly unsafe. If anybody does have convincing evidence, get it out
in the open so that it can be evaluated.”
However, Pascal Lamy, the EU Trade Commissioner, criti
cized the United States for blaming EU regulations. “The U.S.
(j^jms.that there is a so-called ‘moratorium,’ but the fact is that
MIDHAT FAROOQI
the EU has authorized GM varieties in the past
and is currently processing applications.” He neg
lects to mention that the EU has
approved no new agricultural GM
product since October 1998.
Thus, in practice, there is a mora
torium.
Also, in the same speech, Bush correctly
argues that, “because of these artificial obsta
cles, many African nations avoid investing in
biotechnology, worried that their products will
be shut out of important European markets. For
the sake of a continent threatened by famine, I
urge the European governments to end their
opposition to biotechnology.”
The EU, however, refused to acknowledge
that its position on GMOs contributed, if only
indirectly, to the famine in Africa. “These sugges
tions made by the U.S. are simply not true,” said an EU
spokesman.
This flies in the face of truth. Last year, Zimbabwe, a
country in famine, rejected a shipment of U.S. corn,
because it was not certified as GMO free. The country’s
government feared that local farmers would plant the corn
or use it to feed livestock, and would result in crops and
animals that could not be sold to the EU.
Zimbabwe is not the only country to express such wor
ries. Namibia refused to buy South Africa’s cattle
feed because it contained GM corn. The country
wished to keep from hurting its beef exports to
Europe. Uganda would not plant a disease-resistant
type of banana because of fears that it would
endanger exports to Europe. India, China and
various Latin American countries have simi
lar misgivings.
Bush did well to criticize the EU’s
anti-GMO policy. The moratorium is
invalid, and its adverse effects are felt far
beyond Europe’s borders. Since 1998, it
has caused American farmers to lose
$300 million annually. For five years, the
United States has been patient with the EU
on this issue. It is about time the EU
relaxed its restrictions.
/ft
’"t
Vi
m.
A
,\
Midhat Farooqi is a senior
genetics major.
Graphic by Seth Freeman.
ilia
MAIL CALL
•e on the Colvillt
vation in north-ceii-
ton state swelled to
wernight, increasinj
area nearly 50 per-
ay.
iller fire consumed
the Spokane Indi:
to the east, and i
asayten Wilderness,
rovered a total of
cres.
Winthrop, a fire
about 100 acres
1,360 acres, said
1 with the state
of Natural
was the largest of
hat area,
tral Oregon, three
anday in a collision
• and truck hauling
it to an 800-acre
ce said. Officials
tot consider the fire
; of the deaths.
IN BRIEF
starting to
d image
P) - Roughly two-
;ge students play
)ut the image of a
spends all day in a
blowing up com-
d bad guys is off
; to a new study,
ars are not neces-
or anti-social her-
e about a third of
admitted playing
is during class, the
lly don't conflict
□dies, says the
o conducted the
Pew Internet S
reject.
ng the place of
s it taking away
activities," says
e Jones, chairman
ions department
ity of Illinois at
t they seem to
icorporated gam-
nultitask-oriented
the survey data,
conclusion from
le and fellow
e while watching
ge computer labs
t writing papers, |
t breaks to play
and send online
ids.
Supreme Court's sodomy
decision is disappointing
In response to Midhat Farooqi's July 3 column:
Perhaps Midhat Farooqi's opinion on the
Supreme Court's sodomy ruling should have
been kept private. His claim that heterosexuals
may legally engage in sodomy is specious,
because sodomy is by definition a homosexual
act.
Homosexuality is defined by actions; it is
entirely different from the issue of race. The State
of Texas does indeed have a legitimate purpose
in prohibiting homosexual behavior, which is
associated with a 6,000 percent higher incidence
of HIV and other STDs, as well as a significantly
higher incidence of child molestation, than het
erosexual behavior. Mr. Farooqi also makes the
claim that "States...cannot write laws based on
morality." Yet every law is based on the premise
that one thing is right, while another is wrong.
That is morality; without it, we could have no
laws. Mr. Farooqi does, in fact, ask the appropri
ate question: "Which morality code should the
state follow?" The answer is, the "Christian" one
-or, more accurately, the "Judeo-Christian" one
- because that is the moral code upon which
our foundational law is based.
Noah Webster, founder of the U.S. public edu
cation system, said, "The religion which has
introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ
and His apostles, which enjoins humility, piety,
and benevplence; which acknowledges in every
person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with
equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to
this we owe our free Constitutions of
Government."
I can say it no better than Mr. Webster. It is a
pity that our Supreme Court has seen fit to
despise, yet again, both the moral foundation of
law and the right of states to govern themselves
as they see fit. It may be a happy day for the sex
ually deviant, but it is a sad day indeed for
America.
Jon L Gardner
Class of 1989
Decision to run editorial cartoon
was in poor taste, 'ill-advised'
In response to the July 2 political cartoon:
I was shocked and profoundly disappointed to
see the cartoon on the editorial page of The
Battalion on Wednesday, July 2. I firmly believe
that the decision to include an editorial cartoon
that depicts members of the Klan commenting
on the recent Supreme Court decision related to
higher education admissions policies was at best
ill-advised and at worst a deliberate attempt to
fan flames of emotion over an issue that
deserves intelligent discussion.
The decision to print this cartoon is in direct
opposition to the values and principles of Texas
A&M. Dr. Gates clearly articulated A&M's position
regarding affirmative action and the Supreme
Court's recent decision.
Although The Battalion has every right to dis
agree with Dr. Gates' and the University's posi
tion, the decision to print this inflammatory and
disgusting cartoon is counter to your recently
expressed desire for the paper to be more
responsive to the community it serves.
Bill Kibler
Interim Vice President for Student Affairs
Affirmative action only
perpetuates racism on campus
In response to a July 2 mail call:
Affirmative action, which Mr. Prehn and other
liberals so joyfully tout in their efforts to gain
minority votes, does nothing to dispel age-old
racism. Are liberals so naive as to think that, after
more than a century of racism and mistreatment
of minorities in our nation, they can end racism
simply by reversing its target and labeling it
"diversity?"
Affirmative action at universities such as Texas
A&M will only serve to perpetuate racism by
drawing a clear line between Caucasians and
minorities. Mr. Prehn himself illustrates this point
when he claims that we should be willing to
trash the rights of "a few borderline white
males." Affirmative action splits and ranks socie
ty along racial lines, and it will cause the next
generation of Americans, our future children, to
harbor negative feelings toward their minority
peers who will be seen as having unfair oppor
tunities in education and in life.
While recruiting high quality students to Texas
A&M is an important goal, race shouldn't be a
factor. Who are we to decide that a high quality
minority student will bring more value to this
University than would an equally-qualified white
student? Recruitment should be based on aca
demic prowess, strength of character and an
individual's determination to succeed in life —
not race. A good "other" education is built off of
diverse personalities, opinions and values.
Affirmative action is an ill-conceived attempt to
bandage over our country's regrettable past. It is
a poor treatment that will only delay the healing
of our nation by causing the wounds of racism to
fester and remain open to the generation of our
children. We have all heard the old adage, "Two
wrongs don't make a right," and it definitely
applies to this issue. Only time and the passage
of generations will heal and leave behind the
centuries-old scars of racism in our nation.
Michael Murphey
Class of2006
War critics cannot
also support troops
(U-WIRE) BOWLING GREEN, Ohio — A
few months back, I heard Rush Limbaugh say
something on his radio program that I found to
be jaw-droppingly shocking-; shocking because
I agreed with him completely. Limbaugh in his
usual tactful way was discussing the city of
Chicago and a recent resolution that the windy
city had passed. In short, the resolution stated
that while the city of Chicago opposed a pre
emptive strike on Iraq it pledged its “uncondi
tional support to U.S. military personnel serv
ing at home and abroad in their tireless battle
against global terrorism.”
Limbaugh took issue with people condemn
ing the war while at the same time, shouting
“support our troops” at the top of their lungs,
and as much as it pains me to say so, I agreed
with him then and I agree with him now.
It has been my opinion that opposing the
war while supporting the troops is as illogical
as opposing the guns but supporting the bul
lets. The government sent the troops to Iraq,
but it is the troops doing the work. It is like
wise illogical to use the justification that many
of the young troops currently serving in the
armed forces are there strictly for financial
reasons, college or otherwise.
When an individual joins the military, it is
more than a possibility that they might be put
into combat, after all it is the military. If one
believes that the war was illegal and unethical,
one must likewise condemn the troops who
carried out the war. This is not to say I’m
advocating a return to a Vietnam era of spitting
on returning soldiers, nor have I wished them
harm at any point in the fighting, but I will not
support the actions of what I perceive to be an
immoral war that potentially has dire long
term consequences both domestically and
abroad. Many people may disagree with my
position on the matter, but unlike the Bush
Administration, at least I'm honest about my
stance on that matter.
On Monday, an editorial ran in the Army
Times that blasted the Bush Administration for
the two-faced manner in which it has treated
the individuals serving in the armed forces.
This editorial should not be taken lightly given
the fact that Army Times is part of the Military
Times Media Group and delivers news directly
relevant to those both serving in and with rela
tives in the army. In other words. Army Times
is about the last place one might expect to find
criticism of the current administration, which
is all the more reason to stand up and take
notice. The editorial accuses both the Bush
Administration and the Republicans-in con
gress of practicing “nothing but lip service.”
The editorial further goes on to point out
how on one hand the Bush Administration is
quick to give praise to the armed forces, but
falls short in every other respect. Rather, the
Bush Administration has cut veterans benefits,
cut danger pay, and cut family separation
allowance for troops in combat zones.
What is perhaps most sickening of all, how
ever, is that in a time when the Bush
Administration seems quick to send troops
overseas and to implement force the same
White House opposes as a measure in congress
which would double the $6,000 gratuity
received by families of troops who are killed
on active duty. Over 200 American soldiers
have been killed in the Iraqi war, 50 alone
since Bush declared the fighting over and he
opposes a measure that seeks to better com
pensate the families of those killed.
This sort of hypocrisy should not come as a
great surprise to anyone who follows the
actions of the current administration, however.
After all this is the same president who was
only admitted into the Texas Air National
Guard after the governor called in a favor. This
is the same president who was AWOL for over
a year before reporting for duty. This is the
same president whose staged performance
aboard the USS Lincoln was so over the top it
might as well have been pulled from the film
“Independence Day.” Time and time again,
Bush has offered nothing but “lip service”
when it comes to the military, urging support
for the military in one breath and undermining
it in the next.
I do not support the actions of the troops in
this war; but I’ve been honest about that from
the beginning. It is time for the Bush
Administration to demonstrate this same level
of honesty. It is time for the government to
either offer the soldiers something more sub
stantial than praise or to bring them home. As
it stands now the ones doing Bush’s dirty work
are the ones being exploited, and it is time for
the Bush Administration to support the troops
in more than words alone.
Keith J. Powell is a student
at Bowling Green State University.