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.
... 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.
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
Duh, just hit the down arrown, page down or the space bar, or use the scroll wheel.
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?
The biggest problem IMO is that it lets megacorporations turn what people eat into their own intellectual property.
"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.
Then what is that Blackwater company (or whatever it calls itself now) doing?
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.
I'm not against the idea of responsible GMO, but I'm against monsanto feudalism. I admit research is expensive, but I think that the money should come from taxes instead.