Majority of EU Nations Seek Opt-Out From Growing GM Crops

schwit1 writes: Nineteen EU member states have requested opt-outs for all or part of their territory from cultivation of a Monsanto genetically-modified crop, which is authorized to be grown in the European Union, the European Commission said on Sunday. Under a law signed in March, individual countries can seek exclusion from any approval request for genetically modified cultivation across the 28-nation EU. The law was introduced to end years of stalemate as genetically modified crops divide opinion in Europe. The requests are for opt-outs from the approval of Monsanto's GM maize MON 810, the only crop commercially cultivated in the European Union, or for pending applications, of which there are eight so far, the Commission said.

Comments

And you call the Americans anti-science

[Anonymous Coward]

At least our anti-science hystericals aren't succeeding that wildly at anti-science legislation. Our successes are much more "pork for me, not for you" style victories.

Re:And you call the Americans anti-science

[DarkOx]

I am more concerned one day they screw up and their transgenic crops do pollinate / seed in the wild. They displace natural varieties without anyone noticing until its to late. Finally the genes to make them sterile or only grow in the presence of certain chemicals etc do get flipped back on and we have massive crop losses in a staple food product like maize.

Re:Anti-science is a PR plague

[jriding]

It has less to do with the Science of GMO and potential issue that my come with the new combo of genes. It has more to do with the Patent on a core food and even more to do with pesticides.
GMOs are designed to resist the negative effects from pesticides so more pesticides can be applied. That is great that more bugs are dying and more plants are living. But you can't tell me that spraying our food with not just a little bit of poison but a TON of poison is not absorbed by the food. Then we eat the food that now has absorbed the poison. That must be real healthy.

Re:How do they define GM?

[KGIII]

Do you mean DDT? Instead of using your memory you might want to look into that. The science used to ban it was based on fraudulent data and the WHO has since allowed its use again because it turns out to not be all that bad when used properly. What they do mind is that it shouldn't be used as a treatment for crops but they've since realized that the whole egg shell thing was crap and the health issues were also (mostly) crap. It does, indeed, turn out that using it to soak down children daily is in fact not healthy but used properly it works to control mosquito populations and is quite safe to be used in conjunction with other preventative methods.

No, you don't have to worry about waking up to zombie corn stalks.

Nothing, not ever, is proven safe. Science does not work that way. Everything is potentially harmful. Instead, we've found these reasonably safe to date and I suggest more studies be done while not crippling ourselves with fear because you think you've an obligation to tell others what to do based on your feelings.

Finally, stop with the strawman shit. Nobody is arguing that we should deregulate anything. This isn't a corporate thing - it's an anti-science and fear mongering thing and you're partaking in it. That's fine but please, for all that is good, do it quietly and stop trying to prevent progress because you're scared. If they were, in fact, bad we'd have a huge outcry based on the science and not FUD.

"Get out of the way if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a-changing." Bob Dylan