Slashdot Mirror
Europe Needs Genetically Engineered Crops, Scientists Say
First time accepted submitter Dorianny writes in with a story about the ongoing battle over genetically engineered crops in Europe. "The European Union cannot meet its goals in agricultural policy without embracing genetically engineered crops (GMOs). That's the conclusion of scientists who write in Trends in Plant Science, a Cell Press publication, based on case studies showing that the EU is undermining its own competitiveness in the agricultural sector to its own detriment and that of its humanitarian activities in the developing world. 'Failing such a change, ultimately the EU will become almost entirely dependent on the outside world for food and feed and scientific progress, ironically because the outside world has embraced the technology which is so unpopular in Europe, realizing this is the only way to achieve sustainable agriculture,' said Paul Christou of the University of Lleida-Agrotecnio Center and Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats in Spain."
for 1000 posts claiming that monsanto causes cancer...
How is scientific process going to get affected by Europe depending on othe nations for food?
When the lid is opened there is no way of closing it again.
There are certain technologies mankind is not yet responsible enough to use.
If nuclear power leaves waste for 10000s of years... gene modification does so for the rest of existence.
And no. Cross breeding is not the same as gene modification. There are very few herrings that mate with a tomato IRL.
No one *needs* genetically-engineered crops, they simply result in a higher profit (and possibly various unknown health risks).
I really wouldn't call dumping a big surplus in agricultural products humanitarian. It destroys the incentive to grow crops locally and we still destroy a lot of food, because we just produce too much. Europe is in a nice spot to have plenty of food grown and could produce even more. The governments here pays the farmers to leave fields alone in an attempt to stabilze prices.
EU pays farmers for not growing stuff because it it produces too much food. There have been surpluses for decades, only recently they have been depleted because of the world market.
Yes, obviously there are imports, but only in winter time or for exotic fruits.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
And does their name begin with M? Also, when does this obsession with profit and short termism start to wane over long term stewardship? As a species, we are getting so fucked up. In history we used to wonder how once great nations could possibly collapse back to nothing, well here it is on a global scale.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Is this also according to definition is "technology taking away human freedom", or it is just like with some products, where biggest profit will take over normal food, no GMOs should be even allowed for future production, as there is small tests on there affection to human body-we can't allow next century cancerogens aveable anywhere.
... IP laws where removed so as to prevent the monopolization of species when (not if, look for the literature) genes jump from GMO to naturally occuring varieties.
If agriculture policy was about competitiveness, then it would completely exclude any type of subsidies and the market would have been allowed to work out who produces food and where, and in that case prices would drop, many farmers would stop farming what they are farming and Africa would be a much wealthier continent.
Agriculture policy by government is not about competitiveness at all, it's about a huge subsidy and corruption, in that case all normal market considerations are removed, so there is no real pricing mechanism and nobody can really say what will happen to supply, we can only be sure that prices will stay artificially high.
Propaganda
1. The world, and the EU, produce plenty of food. People in certain areas do not have enough food due to problems in the food distribution system.
2. 90%+ of GMO food is either herbicide resistant or produces its own insecticide. It's focus is not producing more or better food. Yes, this could change some day, but that's how it is and has been for a long time.
"Yuck, no thanks, keep your s..."
Except for those getting paid for saying otherwise...
Except the people that sell them...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
the EU has a food surplus for decades
What a load of nonsense, the Netherlands alone is responsible for most of the vegetables grown in the world : http://www.hollandtrade.com/sector-information/agriculture-and-food/?bstnum=4909 and that's not even mentioning France!
First, this guy developed the first transgenic soybean, which has then been sold by Monsanto ( http://www.sciforum.hu/programme/speakers/paul-christou-research-professor-university-of-leida-spain.html ). What else is he gonna say?
Then, there's enough food everywhere for everybody provided : it's seasonal, regional and mostly vegetarian.
Sure, if you want huge steaks for every meal, with tomato salads, mango and strawberries for dessert all year round, you'll need a lot of antibiotics, pesticides, GMO's, oil and water.
Paul Christou
He received a first class honors degree in Chemistry (University of London) followed by a PhD in plant biochemistry (UCL, London) in 1980. Following postdoctoral research at UCL, he joined one of the very first plant biotechnology companies, Cetus Madison Corp (subsequently Agracetus, Inc.) Madison Wisconsin, USA. He led a research group which achieved the first genetically transformed staple crop (soybean). Subsequently his team developed a variety-independent gene transfer method for rice. These two achievements had a significant impact, as the first transgenic soybean on the US and global markets sold by Monsanto was a direct output of his group’s research efforts.
Problem is complex. There's general fear of anything related with "genetic modification", because of this theme exploited so heavily in tabloids, junk and paperback sci-fi, and by conservative politicans betting heavily on science fearing crowd. And then there's huge greedy corporations like Monsanto, which are blinded by gold rush in this field. Then there's politicians, desperate to have at least some kind of investment in countries, relaxing some rules so far that it's really irresponsible.
In overall, GMO debate has almost same semantics as nuclear one. Done right, this field would really do right for humanity. However, there's that very strong question - can we really do right for humanity? It seems that we as society don't trust ourselves - or current capitalistic system we embrace.
So, this is actually discussion "we don't trust multinational corporations to do theoretically dangerous stuff", not "is GMO good or bad", isn't it? However no one discuss corporations, because it's well...just not worth it. Because when money talks, everyone asks how high to jump (including media).
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
This looks like GMO industry backed research to me.
And whats this about "undermining its own competitiveness in the agricultural sector"? the EU has never been competivie in the agricultural sector and thats clear, precisely why its highly subsidized. Its not GMOs that will make the EU competive against lower cost produce coming from the global south and the US. What the US is really looking for is a change in EU policy so that they can have a new market for all their Franken-crops.
Also, the whole research is based on the assumption that GMOs produce higher yeilds: not always the case.
DANGEROUS CULTS IN 2013 AMERICA
dangerous cults in media 2013
dangerous cults in government (GUS) 2013
dangerous cults in the monetary system 2013
dangerous cults in the food industry 2013
dangerous cults in the health industry 2013
dangerous cults in the spy agencies 2013
dangerous cults period wherever they lay 2013
Factors: (low)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10(high)
1 Internal Control: Amount of internal political and social power exercised by leader(s) over members; lack of clearly defined organizational rights for members.
2 External Control: Amount of external political and social influence desired or obtained; emphasis on directing members external political and social behavior.
3 Wisdom/Knowledge Claimed by leader(s); amount of infallibility declared or implied about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations; number and degree of unverified and/or unverifiable credentials claimed.
4 Wisdom/Knowledge Credited to leader(s) by members; amount of trust in decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations made by leader(s); amount of hostility by members towards internal or external critics and/or towards verification efforts.
5 Dogma: Rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal inflexibility or ôfundamentalism;ö hostility towards relativism and situationalism.
6 Recruiting: Emphasis put on attracting new members; amount of proselytizing; requirement for all members to bring in new ones.
7 Front Groups: Number of subsidiary groups using different names from that of main group, especially when connections are hidden.
8 Wealth: Amount of money and/or property desired or obtained by group; emphasis on membersÆ donations; economic lifestyle of leader(s) compared to ordinary members.
9 Sexual Manipulation of members by leader(s) of non-tantric groups; amount of control exercised over sexuality of members in terms of sexual orientation, behavior, and/or choice of partners.
10 Sexual Favoritism: Advancement or preferential treatment dependent upon sexual activity with the leader(s) of non-tantric groups.
11 Censorship: Amount of control over members access to outside opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s).
12 Isolation: Amount of effort to keep members from communicating with non-members, including family, friends and lovers.
13 Dropout Control: Intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning dropouts.
14 Violence: Amount of approval when used by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s).
15 Paranoia: Amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies; exaggeration of perceived power of opponents; prevalence of conspiracy theories.
16 Grimness: Amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).
17 Surrender of Will: Amount of emphasis on members not having to be responsible for personal decisions; degree of individual disempowerment created by the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).
18 Hypocrisy: amount of approval for actions which the group officially considers immoral or unethical, when done by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s); willingness to violate the groups declared principles for political, psychological, social, economic, military, or other gain.
According to a bio of Paul Christou, http://www.icrea.cat/Web/ScientificForm.aspx?key=319, he "Worked as senior scientist at Agracetus Inc. Madison WI USA." According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agracetus), "The Agracetus Campus of Monsanto Company is the world's largest soybean transformation laboratory.". Not surprising therefore his comments, being a Monsanto man and all.
I sometimes see headlines from the future. It's a gift! :-)
"ironically because the outside world has embraced the technology which is so unpopular in Europe, realizing this is the only way to achieve sustainable agriculture"
What kind of propaganda-soaked, bullshit statement is that? So for the past 4000 years humanity has been performing natural, "unsustainable" agriculture? The whole article reeks so much of bundles of pharmaceutical 100 dollar bills that it stinks.
http://www.sciforum.hu/programme/speakers/paul-christou-research-professor-university-of-leida-spain.html
"He led a research group which achieved the first genetically transformed staple crop (soybean). Subsequently his team developed a variety-independent gene transfer method for rice. These two achievements had a significant impact, as the first transgenic soybean on the US and global markets sold by Monsanto was a direct output of his group’s research efforts."
Hardly objective and impartial science.
People still have to consume in order to live. Please do not make crapy food from crapy crop. Know there are nonsense studies, don't they are so nonsense.
Well, no surprise here, considering this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-crops
and this: http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/09/leaked-us-to-start-trade-wars-with-nations-opposed-to-monsanto-gmo-crops-2-2464512.html
According to this cables story, Spain and 'Murrica work closely together to get Europe to adapt GM-crops.
F*** them. They all should choke on their GM shit.
He may never been employed by Monsanto but based on the fact that are the assignee on a number of his patents I would say he could be susceptible to bias:
http://www.patentmaps.com/inventor/Paul_Christou_1.html
There is already today an excess of food production. People do not starve because there is not enough food, they starve because they are not given the food, usually because they are too poor to afford it, or because their supply lines have been cut by wars or embargoes. There is no need to increase world food production, only to get the food to those needing it.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
I've been successfully cultivating anti-americanism in my backyard, thanks to the constant fertilization my crops receive from news like these. Growing perfectly fine without pesticides and\or GM.
But hen again I have noticed some deficits and unemployment in Spain, Cyprus, Greece, Italy and some of those other places that are...well mostly in Europe...they have a lot of people needing jobs, why not get them into farming? Sure, it's more efficient to use giant machines and GM crops to make certain key corporations filthy rich but on the flip side if they are obligated to employ a reasonable amount of people we might make a dent in those countries negative figures & turn that big Euro zone frown upside down...
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
Matt Riley of "The Rational Optimist" (http://www.rationaloptimist.com/) also argues for increased use of GM crops. GM crops can produce higher yields, using fewer insecticides and chemicals than even organic foods do.
Of course, the question is: what will we do with this increased yield? If we use it to convert redundant farm land into nature reserves and green spaces, then I'm all for it. If we use it to help ourselves to a nice population burst, then hell no.
gmo foods that are compsted start leeching iinto the water table/ecosystem than what? Hmm dead bugs = less pollination and less heirloom/natural plants = more food crop control in the hands of gmo producers. Someone somwhere is salivation over this food control future.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
This works like the cabinet shop on the corner. The owner can not compete if he pays his workers more than what he suspects his competitors
pay their workers. So if Europe does not apply the most modern methods in raising food the food providers will be out of business in short order.
Since food is vital in essence Europe has no real option. Whether it is good, safe, moral or wise are not even part of the decision process.
Our politicians can never confront the problem. We have way too large numbers of people to care for and the only real solution is serious birth control. Science does provide breakthroughs and the edge of the cliff does get pushed back a bit from time to time but the plain and simple truth is that we are in a death spiral due to over population. It is the root of almost all of our issues. Pollution, global warming, employment, energy are all nothing more than proof of excess population. Wars and hostile politics are also driven by over population.
The sad truth is that only in a dictatorship does the government have the ability to consider reproduction a privilege and determine exactly
who can create babies. In the US if a politician breathed a hint of wanting firm reproduction control he would be out of a job permanently.
Keep your GMO-poison away from EU!
Problem is, we have humans applying it and that's where it gets screwed up.
Same with GMOs.
Or Nuclear power.
https://www.campact.de/saatgutvielfalt/appell/teilnehmen/
That's not news, that's propaganda from Monsanto, that company, that slaves farmers by IP.
Karma level is the same as BP and Exxon Mobile.
Mega bullshit! Europe is easily able to feed its own 450 million people with traditional crops. Hungary alone is able to feed its own 9.9 million and a further 14 million via exports, even though she has less territory than Maryland. Luckily Hungary has recently put into her national constitution that genetically altered crops are banned. Even if Monsanto bribes the European Union politicians, we will not let GMO into our country. Those lands where they were utilized previously have been torched and plowed over on government decree.
Remain GMO-free if you want to live!
Monsanto wants more money. Let them plant seeds in *one* plot, then they'll sue all the crops in the EU for royalties...
I apologize for the lack of a signature.
The problem is not the food production, it's how we waste it. The US imports 4 times more food than it physically can consume (even factoring in the obesity and things like this). I got this from a TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/tristram_stuart_the_global_food_waste_scandal.html
Home
Though frankly climate change means better weather for crops for Europe, Canada, Russia, Iceland and so on, so: meh.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
We don't need this poison. Keep it in the USA and in American bellies, where it belongs. Thanks.
That's why they went about making colonies. GMO's won't change that. The only way solve that is depopulation.
The entire world is facing this same oriblem, and GMO's aren't going to solve it.
That said, the agriculture Europe has is some of the most sustainable in the world, and the biggest threat to world food is desertification.
They assume, that genetically engineered plants would cause a bigger yield than other plants. This has not been true for any genetically engineered plant so far. However, it allows big companies to control the plant and seed market. We all know how good private monopolies work.
Furthermore, in the EU, a lot of food is wasted (50%) before it reaches the customer. And large land areas are in an unused state, due to subventions to reduce the capabilities to produce goods. Even considering potential risks due to climate change, the production should be more than suffice for the EU itself and also provide a great amount of exports.
Bullshit.
Yet more propaganda from the evil overlords of Monsanto and their pathetic attempt to control the worlds food supply.
Current crops could feed the world three times over. The only reason people starve in this day and age is because of politics. Every day more perfectly edible food is thrown away than is needed to feed the hungry.
Fuck Monsanto.
The bad argument here is to argue that GMO is just like genetic selection, just pushed a bit further.
Of course it is not. Nobody is against genetic selection, neither in Europe not anywhere else.
GMO and DRM hand in hand into the sunset.
During the last Paris agriculture fair, reporters from the French media Rue89 discovered empty packaging of GMO soy beans used to feed cattle.
So GMOs are already in the food chain in the EU and its grow is inevitable.
What consumer want and need in the EU is a better labeling, a real growth of the organic sector, in two words a real choice in arbitration of quality vs price.
We've been so disguted by recent scandals in food sector that we are quite nervous about what we eat...
Well, the guy is certainly 'pro' GM foods, as you would expect from his background, but 'OMG Europe won't be able to feed itself'?
Hardly. We've been paying farmers a fortune for years to let good farmland stand idle... The problem is not with the crops, it's the crazy CAP which distorts everything, including world trade. For example:
"In the autumn of 2007 the European Commission was reported to be considering a proposal to limit subsidies to individual landowners and factory farms to around £300,000. Some factory farms and large estates would be affected in the UK, as there are over 20 farms/estates which receive £500,000 or more from the EU."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy
Anyway, back on topic, it seems to me that the GM debate is like the nuclear one. On one side, the promise of a bright, science-led future, (limitless clean energy, cheap disease-free crops) with real or potential problems often glossed over or ignored, on the other the NIMBYs and hand-wavers with a "we're all gonna die" reflex. Where's the reasoned debate?
People don't trust the nuclear industry for a good reason, (and I say this as a firm believer in the promise of nuclear power over alternatives). It's not just about Three Mile Island etc, it's about how too many people have systematically covered-up shoddy work over the years, often to save or make more money.
These people should have been severly punished; none were. Seen any TEPCO Execs hanging from a tree recently? Nope.
It's the same with GM food. I'm sure the Scientists are sincere and have done great work, including field tests. But can we trust the agribusiness? Well, recent history (especially in Europe) says no. But it's too late anyway - even food advertsied as 'GM free' is not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_the_release_of_genetic_modified_organisms
Remember, this is also the same industry that brought you horsemeat labelled as beef. Oh yeah, and even when it really is beef, remember BSE ('mad cow' disease?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy
So, do I trust the technology? Yes. Do I trust the agribusiness? Hell no.
So this guy says we need to make more food? Is this so it can just be thrown away like we do currently? http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/half-of-the-worlds-food-is-just-thrown-away-8445261.html
Maybe if we did a better job of using what we make, this would be a total non problem (not that it is anyway, unless your a Monsanto salesman)
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
No need to look very far for the funding, just go to the journal site:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13601385
The ad on the page has consistently Life Technologies GeneArt Strings DNA fragments "Synthetic Genes Ready to Clone—Affordable for Every Lab".
There is a bit of vested interest for that particular Journal to publish papers promoting genetic engineering:
It doesn't hurt that there is going to be a genetic engineering conference this June, so you would also want to prime the pump to fill up the conference hall. Nothing like a good controversy to sell tickets.
And I for one will never let such through my door.
Oh, that's right, that's a positive that you haven't proven.
The human body evolved over thousands of years according to natures way of making protein and amino acids etc. Also, GMO companies are corrupt and put in extra additives people don't want that aren't good for them. Europe is an aristocratic backwater sh1th0le and the people know Europe will try to screw them at every opportunity, it's their nature
Yes, when you pay your workers more money than bare subsistence, they spend less of their wage on subsisting. Well done.
(* it's not actually a real secret master plan, but nobody seems to remember it or take into account the fundamental changes in EU society that it caused. The extreme non-sexyness of this master plan caused it to drop from public view. Read Geert Mak's book "In Europa" (Dutch) for reference: he talks about Jean Monnet.)
Modern farming techniques are washing both down our rivers to the ocean:
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/11/are-we-heading-toward-peak-fertilizer
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2006/03/slow-insidious-soil-erosion-threatens-human-health-and-welfare
At least one country gets it:
http://www.rodale.com/organic-farms
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
The GMO producing companies are the most evil entities in the world.
They keep suing farmers when the wind blows their cr@p on other people's land. The fertilizers that keep their seeds going are a natural disaster for the soil, for the animals and all other crops in the vicinity. They forced a law in the US that doesn't even *allow* people to find out whether the product they buy is GM or not. They bait new customers with low prices, then when those farmers can no longer switch back to natural seeds, they ruin them. They expressly want natural seeds to die out so the whole world has to buy from them: they are sworn enemies of natural seeds because farmers can save those.
I trust natural selection. I don't trust greedy corporations that don't care about anyone or anything else. If you want the truth about them, read the stories of farmers who battled their army of lawyers for years. Percy Schmeiser's moving story at http://www.percyschmeiser.com/ is a good start.
Anything pro-GMO should be subject to extreme scrutiny and is probably Monsanto playing the field. This pro-GMO guy is from a Spanish university and it's obvious that Spain is pretty far up the creek with a gigantic unemployment rate and staggering debt which surely had an impact on his university's funding. So where is the Monsanto link? Did anyone follow the money? Who funded their pro-GMO research? GMO is a bad idea and Monsanto's GMO patents and their litigation are in an evil scale of their own.
Why, MONSANTO scientists, of course!
Paul Christou, is a paid by Monsanto.
http://www.patentmaps.com/inventor/Paul_Christou_1.html
Scientists owned by Monsanto claim Europe must surrender to Monsanto or starve. ,water it, it comes up, flowers, fruits, just like Monsanto.
What we need to hear instead.
Monsanto was banned from business in Europe and their patents stripped.
It's just time to go back to more natural high yield seed with no patents. For everyones good.
Put it in the ground, feed it
We need Monsanto and Cargill for what now?
Regulate the shit out of them. Uncover the bribery and make an example of the scientists backing Monsanto while we're at it.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Most of the links to the original article (on the linked website) seem broken. It took a while to find the original source of this story [1]. If you read it (its paywalled though, except abstract and figs) you will see that most of the comments here are beside the point (or at least not relevant criticism on the publication).
The title of this /. article is also completely out of touch with the message of the original publication.
As a plant biologist I completely agree with them that the regulation of GMOs in the EU is pretty absurd. That does not mean at all that I think GMOs are the solution to any real or perceived food problem (as others pointed out, most of the problems originate from social or economical issues). But revising the regulations would be a good thing (and driving down the cost involved with such regulations would actually allow for others than monsanto, bayer and a few others to be a player on the GMO field, should this be desirable).
[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1360138513000575
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Or that new peer-reviewed study on glyphosphate.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2315057/Is-worlds-popular-weed-killer-causing-Parkinsons-New-study-shows-Roundup-herbicide-linked-cancer-infertility.html
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Is Trends in Plant Science a real journal? or is it produced by the Monsanto Corporation marketing department?
Here is some reading matter regarding GMO foodstuffs, just randomly selected from Google results, which turns up many more.
That's sufficient scientific evidence for me not to touch the stuff with a 500km pole (even considering the sources).
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
No, we don't. As simple as that. We don't need that monopolistic useless shit. We have enough food, and even in some places we have real food, instead of shit that looks like food.
It's like a new form of mindless consumerism meets food technology. Given that, only technology that develops independently from all other technologies and interests to our species and all other species on our dying planet will succeed, if also meeting corporate goals. This being true. GM food makes sense. Population control could make sense, too. Less people less food needed. This is crazy but , what about changing the way that we eat. Global obesity is d/t ??? Eliminate the endless spin of stupid junks and processed non foods. Look I drink Roundup and DDT in my smoothy every morning. I'm OK More Sugar!
Condoms are actually the better way to sustainable agriculture. GMO crops only produce larger yields for a while until the pests evolve and the soil in ever more depleted. But it's typical for a plant scientist to only see the supply side and not the demand side of things especially when the world's churches have been so good at making talk of the demand side so taboo. We as a species will need to deal with our epidemic population growth or starve.
Monsanto is pushing legislation in Europe to allow GMO in the EU now for quite some time. Just recently, they started a new campaign. this resulted in a counter campaign from NGOs, like FoodWatch or via Avaaz.org. It is obvious that this news from a special research facility in Spain is triggered one way or the other from Monsanto and friends.
The research facility as such [http://www.icrea.es] is not easy to find in the net. Also searching for it and collaboration projects does not yield much results. However, on their site they give the impression to be a big research facility, while the website is rather small and uninformative compared to other research facilities. Furthermore, patents seem to be most important for them. Based on their publication, I do not believe that their a very credible source of information. However, some one here on /. may be able to provide more inside into the credibility of icrea
Scientists also say that Earth is billions of years old, that Dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, and that humans can change Earth's climate. This is absurd.
God created Earth about 6000 years ago. Everyone knows that. My 4th grader doesn't get a 100 on her science test by saying that Humans and Dinosaurs did not live together just a few thousand years ago.
Sheesh. What is wrong with these so-called "scientists?"
In three generations. How long till all humans are sterile on a GMO diet?
I, for one, welcome our new Monanto overlords.
who initially read this as "genetically engineered cops"?
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
The main problem is that EU pays farmers to grow specific crops without considering where the farmers live. As a result the "best" crop is the same in southern Spain as it is at the polar circle. If farmers were allowed to grow the crops native to the local climate, then production would increase.
For example cows would prefer to eat sugar beets (natural ones with 1/3 the sugar content of the sugar production ones) and it's really healthy for them. However those beets aren't on EU's list and nearly nobody grows them anymore. Instead they grow corn even though it's worse for cows and it needs more land to feed the same amount of cows.
Farmers can't go "Screw EU. I want the local crops" as the land prices are based on how much they can earn with subsidies. This means they end up paying land taxes, mortgage and stuff like they have the high income and they would lose money, not that they earn a fortune even with the "right" crops. The prices are high, but the money is channeled away from the average farmer.
I am so bad in keeping information in my memory, sorry.
As I remember, Europe had been populated with a few people over the last years, maybe decades, it might have been a little longer.
I can't remember these people were dependent on imports.
Ok, population grew and land mass didn't. But as long as Germany produces meat to export it all over the world I don't see any need for genetically enhanced crop. To the contrary, it might be healthier for all to even reduce production and instead enhance quality. It's not the amount of calories but the quality of the food that make us either ill or feeling great.
If "its goals in agricultural policy" includes practically total male sterility within 3 generations, and an epidemic of early deaths due to extreme allergic reactions of all sorts, and stunted internal organs in future generations (including the brains - think nof all the starving zombies), and exploding medical and social costs from all the stunted imbeciles ambling about covered in rashes, oozing pus and wheezing asmathically. Bad news, you'll be bumming handouts in the streets. They will probably be your managers, burocrats, and ceo's. Well, sure. They also need more holes in their heads.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/05/22/jeffrey-smith-interview-april-24.aspx
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com.br/2012/05/gmo-food-study-shows-total-infertitily.html
http://www.nationofchange.org/gmo-soy-repeatedly-linked-sterility-infant-mortality-birth-defects-1358006915 , etc.
Should Europe try to regulate the hell out of them, US would try every trick to prevent this. "Bringing democracy" included (propably).
...our current world influences for food production and distribution.
If the Matrix style production of chicken does not make you sick, maybe the message at the end of the movie from Nestle's president will.
http://www.we-feed-the-world.at/en/film.htm
Although the movie is documentarily shocking, there are what feel like forced elments to make the point.
Like to get some feedback, not putting on my tinfoil hat yet.
When EU stops paying farms to not produce or imposing limits on productions, food production will go up!
When all this "scientists" must just to eat their own poison (ie: just ead GM food) for years several years, maybe they will change their mind.
When GM companies stop paying "studies", "scientists", politicians, etc and stop sueing everyone, then maybe there is a real analysis of the problems
When all food with GM is CLEARY marked as so, then the consumers can choose and let people vote with their wallet
Nothing to see here, move along, its just another try to pressure the EU to accept GM, when almost everyone clearly don't want then.
Higuita
Last time I looked, there was quota on production in Europe, because we overproduce massively. This GMO nonsense is pure Monsanto BS. There is no underproduction crisis in Europe, and never will be. Capacity is at 60-70% of peak possible production w/o GMO. Population growth in europe is low. This is utter nonsense.
oh, wait, never mind.
if "suing the crops" was a thing in USA.
I have nothing to lose but my bindings.
I would suggest it as well: http://www.patentmaps.com/inventor/Paul_Christou_1.html
A big problem comes when you conflate GMO which agribusiness.
They aren't necessarily the same thing.
The article points out that for a sustainable future in agriculture it looks pretty certain that GMO crops will be needed. We aren't going to have large scale sources of synthetic fertilizers forever, and certainly population pressure is continuing to increase.
Agribusiness is a different issue. There are clear political solutions to problems that people complain about that are independent of the choice of use of GMOs.
Hungary suddenly looks a whole lot awesome.
I have nothing to lose but my bindings.
The idea of turning over to GM foods is insulting. The use of the word "sustainable" in the second paragraph is offensive. How can a plant that requires you to buy seeds and that is unable to reproduce new plants naturally ever be considered sustainable? I did think it was interesting that the scientists made the claim that the EU will ultimately become dependent on outside food sources. That itself might lead one to believe that Europe cannot feed itself, but the science I think they are claiming is the math which pairs a population with its resources. You remember those graphs. The population keeps rising due to a high amount of resources (food perhaps) then when the resources become limited the population starts to drop until it finds a balance. Any statistician would claim that humans are not on a sustainable path if you go out far enough into the future. If there are 2-4 billion people in the EU then I could see food production being a problem. GM foods are not the answer here.
There are reports of natural methods, such as SRI (System of Rice/Root Intensification) yielding far higher amounts of crop than any currently known GMOs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_of_Rice_Intensification
As a European scientist, I would be far happier to stick to such natural methods instead of using GMOs that are reprogrammed to be unable to be used as seeds, with patented modifications that aren't studied enough to rule out potential long-term negative effects to environment, especially from companies with bad rep like Monsanto (DDT is good for you!).
Salesmen say "You need our product".
One wonders what other magnificent prognostication is in our future.
Part of the reasons people starve is because the food isn't where people are starving. It's hard to grow food in some African climates/soil, and most agriculture is low yield and results in failure. Genetic engineering would solve all those problems by enabling more hardy crops that can grow in tougher regions. The technology could very well solve the problem of world hunger.
Each time I see a documentary about mosanto, it looks like the future hell we must all fight to avoid in science fiction movies.
They will be sterile.
And the companies behind said GMO's will have no responsability if farmers commit suicide for having their lives ruined like thousands of cases in India, mostly related to cotton crops.
But hey, its just food crops, no need to panic. And prices will come down, trust them!
I see a lot of derp in this thread from Luddites that have an argument that they don't like GMO foods. What I haven't see is anyone give any science based logic case against GMO. Mindless political views being pushed without any backing is pretty much the very definition of derp, so can anyone give a science based reason?
Europe feeds itself and then some, and can likely do so for the foreseeable future; it doesn't need the increased yields and cheaper food that GMO adoption would produce.
Africa needs GMOs; cheaper food and nutrient-enhanced crops could save many lives there.
Africa can't adopt GMOs as long as they have to sell to Europe, and while Europe has its OMG-NO-GMO policies in effect.
Europe's anti-GMO policies are starving people in Africa. The morality of this is questionable.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
right so what you're saying is we need a crop that grows in desert conditions and matures quickly with a high yield. If only GMO's could help with that, too bad they're abominations of life, huh?
The reasonable debate starts with education. /. (unfortunately regardless of age) have no clue about biology and physics. Hence they shout all the time "citation needed", "give me a peer reviewed journal", "where is unbiased evidence", "who has funded the study" ... however: they lack the basics to understand a citation (TL;DR), same for a peer reviewed journal, or any other evidence. Because Greenpeace says X, one half of you belives it (because they believe in Greenpeace) and the other half does not (because they hate Greenpeace or Al Gore or both)
If americans would learn in secondary school what europeans learn about physics and biology it would be a no brainer. No need for debate (at least not for one where the americans try to convince us that everything is better on the other side of the atlantic).
Most people here on
A debate can not happen if people know nothing ... and that is the plot in the USA since decades, uneducated masses voting for presidents that listen to or are manipulated by big money.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
"The European Union cannot meet its goals in agricultural policy without embracing genetically engineered crops (GMOs). That's the conclusion of scientists who write in Trends in Plant Science, a Cell Press publication, based on case studies showing that the EU is undermining its own competitiveness in the agricultural sector to its own detriment and that of its humanitarian activities in the developing world."
Pure bullshit. GMO crap is not needed, what is needed is more efficient cultivation. These 'scientists' are nothing more than goddamned shills and their tone is alarmist and designed to terrorize people into thinking their way.
I can produce in a 1/8 acre building an entire acre of crops, using far less water and fertilizer than traditional soil horticulture.
These 'scientists' are just fucking salespeople. I do real horticulture.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
who read "Europe needs genetically engineered cops"
for all that fancy lab equipment.. ;->
I'm not yet in the "I'm going to die category", but I'm leaning in that direction.
Monsanto says: "The FDA is responsible for the quality of [x] food"
FDA says: "The producer of the food is responsible for the quality"
How many former FDA folks work at Monsanto, or former Monsanto company drones work at the FDA now??? Yep, you guessed it, LOTS, and in high power, high paying jobs.
The question today isn't whether you are going to choose to eat GM foods in the US, the question today is: "Can I find something that is NOT GM"?
I first read this as "Genetically Engineered Cops"....Judge Dredd, anyone?
CS can't get our 100% man made testable and perfectly running computers to work reliably enough to risk so many lives and ecosystems upon it. Hell, in the abstract we can mathematically prove that we can't detect or prevent some problems in CS. Even if the CS and Software Engineering was perfect we have Microsoft and others producing poor quality software...
DNA hacking on a system we barely even understand in a coding language we know even less with systems larger than the human genome. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DOING. Why don't you start engineering humans before messing with plants which have more DNA? Oh that's right, because of the moral implications... those don't apply to other creatures because we are not part of nature, not animals, not evolved from primates... We still don't even understand human nutrition.
YOU can't prove GMO is safe; the burden is on YOU making the claims it is perfectly safe not on us skeptics. Yes, WE are the skeptics not you. It is not science to be DNA script kiddies and merely say "it's alive!", possibly test it with mice, bribe some officials, and then unleash it on the public saying "prove nobody is being harmed." Trying to claim the scientific high ground after you unscientifically claimed the position is hypocritical.
We are not lab rats developing liver cancer from eating GMO corn... oh, wait... perhaps we are!
FYI, the lab rats did already, but as expected, "we" are skeptical about the lab tests on the rats but we weren't so skeptical before approving the GMO corn!
Aside:
EU agriculture is subsidized. Most of it can't compete with the 3rd world. They prop it up for security and economic reasons and they already depend on outside sources - too many people, too little farm land. duh. Population growth is the real problem not production rate.
If terrorists weren't ignorant Luddites, GMO would be their greatest weapon.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I would think that a forum still full of people pissed at monopolistic abuse in the computer industry would not be a place to get away with a more basically evil abuse of the biosphere and its food supply.
First, while genetically modifying things isn't inherently evil, it's tremendously risky to cross genes between kingdoms and phylums for the purpose of corporate profit.
Second, they're using a tactic we should recognize: "How is Europe going to be *competitive*?! How are you going to feed 7 billion people?" A good answer to those questions doesn't involve Monsanto's profit margins. There are plenty of good answers, and those who know the actual options can easily spot this sham for what it is.
Here's a good answer: for a ton of food production even in urban settings, there's aquaponics, something that gardeners and gadget geeks can both love. Come on, do you want to grow an adult human's entire vegetable produce requirement in 25 square feet? It's possible.
http://www.growingpower.org/aquaponics.htm
Having these close to the kitchen not only systemically eliminates the pesticides (the fish aren't down for that) and slashes overall water consumption, it also kills the built-in transportation costs. Also, if it's fresh and right there, you just pick it. No refrigeration necessary. You can do it for yourself in an apartment or on a large scale for the town.
Monsanto's GMOs are a stupid, wrong answer for everyone except Monsanto itself.
We need GMO - as in vendor lock in for all our foodstuffs - about as much as we need DDT, which was just as important for "retaining a competitive edge in advertising" as a crop engineered to be artificially dormant and excrete its own pesticides. Abuse someone else's intelligence for the bribes you received.
GM crops aren't a problem at all, Mr 'Pandora's Box' is just fear mongering. Corporations (i.e. Monsanto) in control of our food supply is a problem, but one that is easily fixed. Just don't pay them. A genetic code (or a seed containing it) is easily copied, just like a digital file. We just copy it, give it to every farmer, and refuse to pay Monsanto. They can't sue everyone, there are more of us than there are of them, we shall win eventually.
are so transparent.
The President signed into law what last weekend a bill that would hold Monsanto blameless when, not if, their products finally start killing people in an even more obvious manner.
Until I start hearing some of these GM proponents start talking about protecting the genetic diversity of what's alive now, everything from their lips is obvious lies, all lies.
"own competitiveness in the agricultural sector to its own detriment and that of its humanitarian activities in the developing world."
You are just not getting the point are you. It is not about what your fat ass will have to eat, it is about the global foot stocks and prices.
You can grow all the stuff you want nice and naturally and if you want you can get it BIO..because you can afford it. But the problem is not YOU. The problem is with all the other people that actually depends on cheep food, like half of Afrika, India and other development countries.
Yes you can afford your fine German BIO naturbelastetes bread for 17 Euro, you are not the one who will actually feel the pain to pay 20 Euro for a Kg of corn. You not. And in your opinion, everyone who can not should just shut the **** up and die.
Nice from you.
we are 7 bilion people on this planet. Natural agriculture or BIO products can hold alive approximately 1.5 billion of people in long term and aprox up to 3 billion people when you do not mind to waste all resources at some point (aprox 200 years).
So we should now do it, lets get natural and shot all the people in the head who exceed this limit because we are too bio and natural to allow them to live.
And we should start with all those defending this nonsense of natural and biological food being the only right option
We're going to have to learn to feed people better using less energy.
Or we're going to learn how to process people into food.
IF the EU can't make enough bread for itself and still insists on GM free, then let them eat GM free cake.
Has anyone noticed that the accusations leveled at GMO's eerily similar to those leveled at medievel witches? Unexplained Diseases Suicides Crop Failures Livestock deaths Sterility/Impotence Ecological disasters