As the debate about the safety and fairness of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by large agribusinesses intensifies around the world, is it rational for the United States not to be debating the use of such products as food-aid to poor countries? Mandated by law in the United States, 75 perecent of all U.S. food donations must be produced, processed, and shipped by U.S. companies.

Large agribusinesses have recently been lobbying around the world to secure markets for their GMO products. Major agricultural oligopolies claim that their genetically modified products are completely safe. Furthermore, any attempt by governments to guard local farmers from their more advanced products was simply "protectionism".

But that hasn't stopped the groundswell of resistance in the European Union for example. Many countries inside the European Union refuse to accept many varieties of GMO's which are bought and sold in the United States. Citing higher safety standards than the United States, European countries remain committed to denying access of some GMO's into their territories. Eleven European Union countries will call next week for the right to opt-outs for growing genetically modified crops.

In response, to the question "should GMOs be banned in Europe?” conducted in April 2009, 79 percent said yes, 18 percent no and 3 percent did not know. There is no question that in Europe there is a deep skepticism about the growing pressure from agricultural powerhouses to pump their products into European markets.

In the US, fifteen groups in the top wheat-exporting countries of Canada, the U.S. and Australia released a joint statement of opposition to GMO wheat this month. The group cited competitive concerns as their primary resistance.

"If (genetically engineered) wheat is released commercially, contamination would be inevitable and markets would view all wheat produced from these areas as GE unless proven to be non-GE...Farmers growing GE wheat will take on all of the responsibilities, costs and liabilities, with little available legal recourse to recover their losses."

If such a resistance is emerging in the global North on the grounds of either safety concerns or competition with larger oligopolies, why is there virtually no debate about the use of these same genetically modified products flooding into poorer countries as aid, let along be sold in the US?

These products have been long criticized by advocacy organizations for hurting local farmers who can't compete. Concerns about the safety of these products are also voiced in regions of the world where cash-strapped governments are less likely to question the safety standards.

As the United States looks to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign assistance to developing countries. There is an important but sadly absent debate about US food aid and GMOs that could prevent us from doing more harm than good.

It would be a complete shame if a little pink cat on youtube could host a more honest discussion on GMOs than the US government. Well i'll be darned....

On Friday, Italy became the latest European nation to condemn the C.I.A. practice of extraordinary rendition—the abduction of a foreign citizen for questioning in a third location, usually a country in the Middle East (where normal protections against torture are obsolete).  Italy has indicted 26 U.S. citizens, mostly C.I.A. officials, in the illegal rendition of a radical cleric known as Abu Omar.  Abu Omar was taken to Egypt for questioning, where he was tortured.

The Italian indictment is the latest development in European outrage over the practice of extraordinary rendition.  In January, a German judge issued arrest warrants for 13 C.I.A. officials that colluded in the kidnapping of Khaled El-Masri, and earlier this month the European Union issued a scathing report condemning member states for actively participating in the practice of extraordinary rendition.  In another high-profile case, a Canadian commission slammed the rendition of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was tortured in Syria, and cleared him completely of charges of terrorist links.  Even the outrage in the U.S. is slowly mounting, most recently with the hard line of questioning Leahy gave Gonzales last month.

Extraordinary rendition clearly violates countless international human rights laws, and the C.I.A. doesn’t even try to conceal its malicious and brutal objectives.  The only reason to send a terror suspect to Syria, Egypt or Afghanistan for questioning—nations that the U.S. State Department consistently cites for committing outrageous rights violations of prisoners in custody—is to torture the suspect without doing it on U.S. soil.  This is madness.

Will the practice of extraordinary rendition end?  I think it has the potential to infuriate the masses, but most people in the U.S. still don’t know that such a practice even exists.  Even for those who believe in the so-called War on Terror, kidnapping foreign citizens and sending them to be tortured in the Middle East offends the base standards of human decency.  The American agents indicted in Italy and Germany will never actually face trail, as the U.S. would have to agree to extradite its officials to be judged for a policy it created.  But one thing is clear—extraodinary rendition relies on the collusion of Canadian and European law enforcement to continue.  So if Canada and the E.U. decide they will no longer be complicit in the practice, it will end.  Let’s see if this string of indignation will encourage other governments to refuse to cooperate in extraordinary rendition.