- To: "Gentch lista OGM" <email@example.com>
- Subject: "food security"
- From: "Co-op" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 16:58:49 -0500
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1"
- Resent-From: email@example.com
I agree that poverty in some countries is a problem of infrastructure.
Please explain the statement : "And that is why the United States had
insisted during the first World Food Summit at Rome not to treat food
security as a global prerogative." I do not understand "food security".
>From: Devinder Sharma <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>To: Christoph Reuss <email@example.com>
>Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>;
>Ban-GEF@lists.greenbuilder.com <Ban-GEF@lists.greenbuilder.com>; Peter M.
>Date: Friday, April 30, 1999 9:41 AM
>Subject: Re: 100% Total Worldwide Ban of GE Food
>>The genetic engineering industry has been claiming that at a time when
>>than 800 million people go to bed hungry, and the number is likely to
>>to over 1.5 billion in the next ten years, biotechnology provides the only
>>hope to feed the burgeoning population. This is merely a PR statement
>>somehow clicks with the ignorant masses and more importantly with the
>>politicians and policy makers.
>>The fact is that even now the world has enough food to feed these 800
>>million hungry people. The problem is not of production but of access and
>>distribution. And that is why the United States had insisted during the
>>first World Food Summit at Rome not to treat food security as a global
>>prerogative. Accordingly, food security is a national problem and there is