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

Re:Anti-science is a PR plague

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about science. It's also about the stupid IP stuff that comes with it.

Re:And you call the Americans anti-science

[someone1234]

I call myself anti-monsanto. Them monopolizing agriculture is the most evil and reckless act i've ever seen. And that includes the oil companies killing all living in the oceans.
Monsanto play with all our lives. I'm not fearing of a sentient corn, i'm fearing of famine due to their corn one day becomes scarce because they are unable or unwilling to sell seeds.

This is not about science. It's about dependency.

[mrthoughtful]

The problem isn't to do with GM, it's to do with the way in which profits are derived from GM. The difficulties of GM are that the producer is able to develop a dependancy on the product. This dependency should be illegal. It's why pimps get their girls (and boys) hooked on crack or heroin. It's why big tobacco is evil.

What compounds the issue is that the US patent system is known to be desparately broken. Intellectual property and copyright law are bracketed into the same brokenness. What that means is that not only do consumers of GM products become dependant on the product, but the producer is able to sustain an indefinite monopoly of it.

This isn't about science. Never was. It's about becoming Monsanto's bitch and not being able to do anything about it.

Anti-GMO does not equal anti-science.

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll see all the usual "you're anti-science!" strawman arguments flung around here, I'm sure. A lot of us (my self included) happen to think the science is sound.

My beef is I don't like how Monsanto behaves, and I don't want to (knowingly) spend my money purchasing a product they might profit from.

And GMO is really a euphemism for Monsanto. They're the *only* meaningful player in this industry right now.

Re:And you call the Americans anti-science

[gstoddart]

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.

Two things: there's been mounting evidence Monsanto has been outright lying about the evidence they have on the toxicity of their crap, which means trusting them is idiotic. The evidence we have that their crap is safe is them saying so ... which means it's self-serving stuff which as like as not hides any information they had to the contrary.

And, hey, if the 'market' speaks and says it doesn't want this shit, Monsanto doesn't have the "right" to sell product to countries which don't want it. Monsanto has the right to piss off an go away.

So, boo fucking hoo ... countries tell Monsanto to piss off. That's Monsanto's problem. Nobody is under any obligation to allow Monsanto to sell their product, as much as the assholes who run that corporation think otherwise.

So if "the market" is sending a big fuck you to Monsanto ... too damned bad for Monsanto. They may have hoodwinked Americans into believing their crap, but that doesn't mean that countries shouldn't be able to say "we don't want your shit".

Because when all of agriculture is beholden to Monsanto, we'll all be pretty much fucked.

This isn't "anti science", this is anti Monsanto, and people simply not buying the notion that GMO is safe until proven otherwise. Sorry, but how about we put the burden of proof on Monsanto, instead of just taking them at their word?

Re:How do they define GM?

[bjwest]

It's only a thin line if you want to be a facetious ass and make it one. Genetically modified crops are just that, They're crops that have had their DNA altered with DNA from other species. Cross pollinating a grapefruit with a tangerine to make a tangelo is not GM. Adding the DNA from a jellyfish to a potato pant, just to make it glow when thirsty, is.

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.