Slashdot Mirror
EU May Allow Members Home Rule On GMO Foods
think_nix (1467471) writes The EU Parliament is paving the way for EU Nation States to decide on banning or allowing GMO foods within their respective territories. An further article at Der Spiegel (German) (Google translation) quotes the German Health Minister's claim that if countries cannot specifically, scientifically argue for a ban, this would allow GMO companies to initiate legal actions against the banning ruling states. Furthermore it was noted, given EU Parliaments current stance on not reintroducing border and customs controls between member states, this will make checks and controls of GMO foods between member states even more difficult.
This is the first step to get rid of the EU: reintroduce barriers within the common market.
Next, let's kill the Euro, and perhaps we will regain the ability to do in Europe interesting projects that are just impossible right now: if a project like Ariane would start today, the EU commission would kill it because of free market distortions
So I should probably be banned from Slashdot.
It assumed a lot of knowledge about how current EU GMO law works. I think that it was saying that currently the EU in Brussels approves GMOs in European agriculture, and then national governments can choose whether to let the crops into their countries. So the EU approved a strain of corn, and something else (it's mentioned in the article), and France/Germany/etc. have said those two crops aren't allowed within their borders. This just gets rid of the EU step. They'll be banned in Berlin and Paris, not Brussels.
The article also mentions that the nations would need a reason to justify banning a GMO, but given that the MEPs quoted were mostly from countries that enthusiastically enforce the ban and nobody was going "hey, but your government will be forced to let GMOs in," I strongly suspect that the list of reasons a state can give for justifying a ban is really long.
And the scientific consensus on GMO safety is as broad and overwhelming as the consensus that man is behind much of the current global warming.
Anti-GMO hysteria is anti-science, plain and simple. It is no different from insisting that CO2 doesn't drive global warming, and no different from saying that vaccines are dangerous because you heard that some kid got autism a few days after being vaccinated.
The EU, by taking this decidedly anti-science stance, is holding back important scientific advances that will be necessary to feed and supply an ever increasing global population.
We should hold anti-GMO zealots with the same disdain as we hold climate change deniers.
Does it matter that the consensus of scientists and scientific studies is that GMOs are safe? Or is "science" just a rhetorical tool -- a line in a script that the players must speak when they're performing for the crowd, forgotten the next day because there's a new script with new villains?
Personally, I'd say it doesn't matter any more or less for GMOs than for anything else. I support GMOs in general because I support technological progress and individual choice. If individuals or farmers choose GMOs because they think they'll be better off, governments shouldn't stand in the way unless there's a compelling non-FUD, non-bogeyman, non-witch-hunt reason. Same for anything else.
On my mobile, in landscape mode, I only have about 3 inches of height. Not great but not too bad. So what does slashdot do? Slashdot shows a giant ad on the bottom of the screen. For some antivirus crap that I would never buy (haven't used windows in years. Thought you'd know that with all the tracking you've done). But anyway, this ad gives me only about two inches of screen space to navigate, and it makes it a pain to scroll without hitting the damn ad. And there's no waynto make the ad go away either. And don't tell me I'm using my device wrong by holding it in landscape mode. I'm laying in bed and this is more comfortable, so deal with it.
So slashdot, I know you want to make money from ads, but when your ads make me go download AdAway, you should try to fix the problem. Thank you for reading this.
... Of course, it's not Germany's fault they're so much more productive than the rest of Europe. Ever been to Italy, Greece, or Spain? The "work ethic" in those cultures is utterly foreign to an American, never mind a German ...
Really, my born and raised in Italy and emigrated to the US at age 20 grandfather has a work ethic that a very conservative American would consider exemplary. And Italian culture is not gone from his house as my father and us visiting grandchildren can attest. If you are working hard or studying hard he is kind and generous, slack off and you will hear about it. And the expectation level is not fixed, if you were lucky enough to be stronger or smarter than average then expectation are increased. He runs his house and raised his kids pretty much like his father. When visiting Italy I've seen my 90 year old great-grandfather tending his orchard. When my grandfather says to him, hey your 90 years old, take it easy. My great-grandfather replies that he'll take it easy when he's dead, that working keeps him healthy.
One of my friends growing up, his father was born and raised in Greece. He emigrated to the US in his early 20s also. He seemed to share a work ethic and some other traits with my grandfather. Strict house, exemplary work ethic, generous to family and friends who lived up to his expectations.
Don't confuse culture with the politics of the day. Its a welfare state government not the national culture that screws things up.
history mocks you. All of your examples were effectively mercenary armies, and irrelevant to a modern democracy.
Roundup is expensive. That is why you're not getting poisoned with it. It's also fairly low on the toxicity scale, but the matter of fact is that it's expensive, so farmers do their damndest to use as little of it as they can. This is why roundup-resistant beans are important; they can wick the beans, lose nothing to the soil or overspray, and kill everything else that's taller than the beans, which is to say, effectively competing with the beans. Without roundup resistant beans, they used a lot more roundup at a different part of the season to kill off everything, and then plant the beans. This is much, much better.
Source: 840 acres in corn and beans
I have to think that this is someone's idea for an end run around USA agribusiness lobbyists in TAFTA negotiations.
With all the current knowledge we have about GMO foods, is there anything at all wrong with it?
I'm not expert or knowledgeable in that area and I figured perhaps someone who knows this industry would be able to answer this burning question of my. Thank you very much!
The health and environmental effects of GMOs are one thing, but that's not only the thing that concerns me. I've taken an intro to biotechnology class before and I'm aware that just because you give an organism certain attributes that it didn't have before means it'll become a health risk, unless it was say crossed with something poisonous/carcinogenic (*cough BGH) or increased something in a weird way like IGF-1 or anything else. What really concerns me is, and mind that this may seem a little far-fetched at first thought to those who probably haven't been following a lot of emergent research in science and technology over the past few years, but even if the technology isn't there all the way yet, it's not exactly in the realm of fantasy anymore to consider what can be put into foods in terms of nano-scale robotics. The control and use of food by a state to control it's inhabitants is nothing new as was the case with Stalin and the forced famines http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/genocide/ukraine_famine.htm and with the direction of current technologies, such as with the "Lieber Group" and their research into integrated organic and non-organic mechanisms/computers http://cml.harvard.edu/ not to mention also Obama's funding of, what like a billion or more, into neuroscience and the effect that The Human Connectome Project will probably bring about http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/ what is to keep things like whatever new codename MK-ULTRA is under, through the use of say a corporation that has a monopoly on seeds, say like with what Monsanto, to introduce some sort of self-organizing, neuron targeting, hormone/neurotransmitter regulation, wifi enabled nano/micro-machinery into the food supply? Not to sound like a schizophrenic conspiracy theorist, but eventually, it might not be this decade or the next, but I think eventually GMO is going to entail the issue of the sovereignty of consciousness and the of relation of such to the state.
> And the scientific consensus on GMO safety is as broad and overwhelming as the consensus that man is behind much of the current global warming.
Reducing the problem to a "scientific" one is the most disingenuous trick in this toolbox.
I've got no qualms whatsoever with GMO "science" (it's more like "technology", but let's not split hairs here). It's more that I don't want to see this potentially valuable technology in the hands of the likes of Monsanto. My well-being isn't in their shareholder value.
"The human race was eating GMO long before it wasn't cool."
Look I am for GMO for a variety of reason, but please stop using that line of reasoning. It has long been common parlance to use GMO for genetic modification which are not reachable by hybridization. What we have used for thousand of year is hybridization. The two are comparable, but not on the time period counting on 1000 of years. It is nigh impossible by hybridization to get, say , peanut genes in soja, or human hormone growth factor in , say, tobacco, or even fish genes in tomatoes. Yes they use a similar mechanism, but no they are not the same in the public mind, NOR should they be, as going across genus brings other problem which do not happen with hybridization (and even stopped a variety of soja with peanut gene to be commercialized due to allergy problem).
Whether you like it or not, the public recognize hybridization as different to GMO, and frankly I agree. Whereas you can certainly attain the same results as hybridization using GMO, you will be SOL the other way around for time period being like human civilization.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
"Genetic engineering is far less likely to have problematic outcomes"
Hu no. We have even a very well known example of the contrary, of a soja sort stopped because of peanut gene in it generating allergic reaction. Sure it was stopped before commercialization. But this is hardly something you get when splicing. Whereas it is certainly something you have a pay attention for with GMO.
"We have been studying health impacts of GMOs for over 20 years now and so far we can find absolutely none." that's because we are clever enough to test our shit and discard what is dangerous before it is commercialized (see above). That does not mean there is no danger. In fact we have one documented case of problem which is why we test for potential problems.
What you probably meant is "We have been studying health impacts of commercialized GMOs for over 20 years now and so far we can find absolutely none". Which is right. GMO can do a lot of good things for us, but let us not call it "without danger or problem" when there is a documented case of problem, and yes allergic reaction from species from which you do not expect them, IS a problem. (which is why we test for it before commercilization).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Many people think GMO crops are less valuable than "organic" crops, so they won't pay as much for them. Because of this the GMO companies don't want labeling of their foods, so they can pass their foods off as not GMO, and therefore charge the higher rate. Most of the opposition to GMO is because of the lack of labeling, with scare mongering by "environmentalists" coming in a close second.
Just to clarify, this is not anti GMO or science as many comments have speculated. Currently GMO are non regulated. This means there is no consumer security. Second question why does a US GMO Seed Firm have the rights to take individual EU nations to court if they ban their business model ? This is not science, this is regulation being pushed upon the population who has no choice. Certain individual countries are trying to stop this monopoly.
economic: patents owned by non EU companies, out of our control. if we research that stuff and reengineer they get mad.
eco system: first, the foodplants grownicely, but theunwanted bugs, worms, flies are starving. other animals like birds will miss their food now. so either they will die/be extinct or they adopt to the situation and become immune. now yourgmo plants need even more aggressive pesticides.
I can't understand why US people ignore these facts. it was never about gmo = unhealthy, it's just that we don't want to be controlled by us corps that destroy our flora and fauna systems.
> if countries cannot specifically, scientifically argue for a ban, this would allow GMO companies to initiate legal actions against the banning ruling states
Ha-ha. You know what european countries will do? They will write it into their very national contitutions that their land has been, is and will be forever GMO free, period. That way legal action becomes impossible, because it is no longer a law or by-law, but set in stone in the constitution of the various unitary nation states, thus above the law.
For example, Hungary will do this 100% sure and the governing coalition has 2/3rd majority, so they can write anything into the constitution, but the majority of opposition also supports a comprehensive GMO ban. Any little GMO crop founds growing in the country so far got promptly plowed out and burned, with police escort and shown on national TV for deterrent effect. Whenever a Monsanto exec comes near the country, newpapers cover the story as if he were the reptilian chief rabbi of Trilateral Bilderberg NWO lodge or whatnot.
That's because europeans think high-added-value agricultural production (i.e. wines, fruits, bio crops, etc. that command a handsome sales price in the market) are only possible with GMO free and antibiotics free methods. The american GMO and antibiotics laden produce should be should to the russians for a few cents per ton. Nobody wants to become a slave of Monsanto and the french are first to pick up the pitchfork for that good fight. (Strangely the french and hungarians hate each other's nation very much, but they are united on anti-GMO. If you have good, fertile lands, it is insane to let GMO in.)
it's called "divide and conquer". monsanto has deep pockets