Too much resistance against Monsanto in Europ

[Render]

Monsanto doesn't plan to apply for the approval of new genetically modified seeds in Europe due to low demand from farmers and stiff opposition from the general public, the U.S. agricultural company's German spokeswoman said Sunday.

"As long as there's not enough demand from farmers for these products and the public at large doesn't accept the technology, it makes no sense to fight against windmills," Ursula Luettmer-Ouazane said Sunday, confirming a report in Berlin-based German daily TAZ newspaper.

Ms. Luettmer-Ouazane said, however, this is nothing new, as Monsanto hasn't applied for growing modified plant varieties in Europe for the past two or three years.

"It's obvious that Europe needs more time, while other regions have embraced our concepts more readily", she said.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/monsanto-not-to-apply-for-new-gm-seeds-in-europe-2013-06-03

[Guest]

Fantastic.

Br Cornelius

[keithisco]

[Dark_Grey]

WAY TO GO!

Proof that no voice is too small! This is a huge wake-up call for Monsanto!

[bmk1245]

Good thing there wasn't internet with all scare mongering back few ages ago, cause potatoes/tomatoes/eggplants/etc would have been banned in Europe (sceawy, vewy sceawy solanine plus potato tubers "causing leprosy"), and all ungodly plant breeding fields would have been demolished by mob of "concerned" about long term impacts on both sides of Atlantic..

[Guest]

Good thing there wasn't internet with all scare mongering back few ages ago, cause potatoes/tomatoes/eggplants/etc would have been banned in Europe (sceawy, vewy sceawy solanine plus potato tubers "causing leprosy"), and all ungodly plant breeding fields would have been demolished by mob of "concerned" about long term impacts on both sides of Atlantic..

There you go again confusing selective breeding with genetic engineering, will you never learn the difference ?

Br Cornelius

[bmk1245]

There you go again confusing selective breeding with genetic engineering, will you never learn the difference ?

Br Cornelius

Sorry, to disappoint you, but I know difference.

Thing is, selective breeding was seen by some individuals as ungodly and evil act. Nowadays, such individuals would be (and actually are on various subjects) very, very vocal about "dangers" it poses, based solely on fiction, lies, misinterpretations, cherry-picking, etc (e.g. nowadays anti-vaccination furor, "genetically modified vitamin C", "small amount of GMO will make you sick" etc, etc, Heh, I wonder, if I extract water from GMO, will it be "genetically modified H₂O"?).

[Almagest]

I'm not opposed to the idea of GM crops, like any technology I think it has potentially good and bad applications. However Monsanto has shown it cares not for the good applications of the technology, and it concerned primarily with profit. It could be a non-issue, or it could be catastrophic. In either case the Monsanto stockholders are going to laugh all the way to the bank.

[Guest]

Sorry, to disappoint you, but I know difference.

Thing is, selective breeding was seen by some individuals as ungodly and evil act. Nowadays, such individuals would be (and actually are on various subjects) very, very vocal about "dangers" it poses, based solely on fiction, lies, misinterpretations, cherry-picking, etc (e.g. nowadays anti-vaccination furor, "genetically modified vitamin C", "small amount of GMO will make you sick" etc, etc, Heh, I wonder, if I extract water from GMO, will it be "genetically modified H₂O"?).

If you know you don't seem to understands why the difference matters fundamentally.

Hardly hysteria, there are well respected geneticist who are sounding the alarm bells for exactly the reasons I have outlined previously;

http://occupymonsant...ngineered-food/

“Genetic engineering is 40 years old. It is based on the naive understanding of the genome based on the One Gene – one protein hypothesis of 70 years ago, that each gene codes for a single protein. The Human Genome project completed in 2002 showed that this hypothesis is wrong.

The whole paradigm of the genetic engineering technology is based on a misunderstanding. Every scientist now learns that any gene can give more than one protein and that inserting a gene anywhere in a plant eventually creates rogue proteins. Some of these proteins are obviously allergenic or toxic.”

Thierry Vrain

Ex advocate for GMO's declares he was very wrong.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2mBF1OOPdTo[/media]

Br Cornelius

Edited June 4, 2013 by Guest

[Orcseeker]

"Europe needs more time" haha. Europe needs no Monsanto. The entire company should be wiped off the face of the planet.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Anyone else think that Monsanto will follow SOP and just buy some politicians?

[rashore]

I don't have any problem with GMO tec in itself. I do have a problem with how some GMO seems to be rushed, without proper studies, with a lot of sketchy studies and biased information.. A ton of general public mis-information made easier by the fact that a majority of people now don't have a clue about growing things or where their food comes from.

I have a problem with Monsanto specifically. They have a long history of, erm, not wise products and a habit of pushing products anyway. They have bad practices. Every time someone tells them no, I cheer. Hooray that they are so poorly received that they decide not to try lobbying. I hope every nation on the non-Monsanto bandwagon for crops.. If they also currently purchase wheat from the U.S., stop.

There are other GMO plant companies out there. They have had their fingers rapped too. But Monsanto is the one that time and again is the one that stands out for doing bad and being frowned upon. I'm not thrilled with the other companies, but I rabidly loathe Monsanto.

[questionmark]

Sorry, to disappoint you, but I know difference.

Thing is, selective breeding was seen by some individuals as ungodly and evil act. Nowadays, such individuals would be (and actually are on various subjects) very, very vocal about "dangers" it poses, based solely on fiction, lies, misinterpretations, cherry-picking, etc (e.g. nowadays anti-vaccination furor, "genetically modified vitamin C", "small amount of GMO will make you sick" etc, etc, Heh, I wonder, if I extract water from GMO, will it be "genetically modified H₂O"?).

If yoiu do you go through great lengths to hide it.

[questionmark]

I maybe would be a little more open to GMO plants if they would bring an actual benefit, the reality of the story is that so far we are risking our health, and certainly the health of most soils where GMO is planted, for the benefit of one less task for the farmer (the weeding)... sorry, but that is way too little for running all the risks we run.

Edited June 5, 2013 by questionmark

[Dark_Grey]

Bullying farmers into using their seeds to grow crops that won't produce any useable seeds. The farmer is then forced to go back to get more seeds and thus is caught in the vicious web. If the crops really were producing huge yields of nutritious crops, I wouldn't have as much of an issue with it. But that's far from the truth...

Why doesn't Monsanto concentrate on "designing" tomatoes loaded with vitamins? Or corn loaded with nutrients? C'mon Monsanto if you're so proud of your products why won't you put your name on it?

That whole company should be labeled one giant human rights violation.

[Wickian]

I demand mario-style chomper plants from Mosanto for pest control. I guarantee their approval rating will go through the roof.

[bmk1245]

If you know you don't seem to understands why the difference matters fundamentally.

Hardly hysteria, there are well respected geneticist who are sounding the alarm bells for exactly the reasons I have outlined previously;

http://occupymonsant...ngineered-food/

[...]

Right, and non-GM are 100% predictable and 100% safe...

The same (what you already said, and linked) applies to non-GM breeding. Lets see, potato hybrids produced by somatic hybridization (non-GM technique, as far as I know), started producing toxin demissidine not observed in the parent plants (Solanum tuberosum and Solanum brevidens; J.Laurila et al, Plant Sci., 118 (1996) 145-155), but no one gives a rats munch about it.

[...]

Ex advocate for GMO's declares he was very wrong.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2mBF1OOPdTo[/media]

Br Cornelius

Had he seen Teosinte, and compared it with non-GMO corn, and then compared non-GMO vs GM corn before he come up with "mutants"? And horizontal gene transfer, apparently, became another scare argument. Lets see, again:

The importance of HGT was first recognized in pathogenic bacteria, but it plays an equal role in the evolution of non-pathogenic Bacteria and Archaea. Studies have also revealed the transfer of parasitic, selfish genes between the mitochondria of different plant and fungal species; genetic material was found to be exchanged between parasitic plants and their hosts; and many studies have identified genes that were transferred between pro- and eukaryotes, including transfers from symbionts to multicellular animals.

(emphasis mine; Horizontal Gene Transfer: Genomes in Flux, ed. M.B.Gogarten et al, Humana Press, 2009).

BTW, I don't find D.Suzuki unbiased: his scientific carrier ended-up in the end of '70s, and there are some pretty grey stains on him (some

, some not).

PS Yeah, and another "very safe" delusion - "I want to save seeds"... Nothing can go wrong with this... Well, is vomiting and pooping farther than you can see, so to speak, beneficial, safe?

[bmk1245]

If yoiu do you go through great lengths to hide it.

Hide what? 10kg of unobtanium?

I maybe would be a little more open to GMO plants if they would bring an actual benefit, the reality of the story is that so far we are risking our health, and certainly the health of most soils where GMO is planted, for the benefit of one less task for the farmer (the weeding)... sorry, but that is way too little for running all the risks we run.

How do you know your non-GM food brought from, say, organic farmer is safer? You do realize, that natural poisons are as much effective as synthetic, don't you?

[Guest]

No-one but yourself bmk has claimed that selective breeding is entirely safe - what has been claimed, and supported, is that is more safe and less likely to produce dangerous mutations with unpredictable outcomes.

Try not to load others with your straw men arguments.

What has been repeatedly said is that these products have been introduced through a cosy arrangement of self regulation by companies who have;

- sought exemption from any adverse consequences of their products

- stated that it is none of their business to ensure the safety of their products, that is the role of the FSA - who have delegated that responsibility back to the companies through self certification.

That smack of desperation and deep levels of corruption between the FSA and GMO producers.

Meanwhile more bad news for GMO companies;

(Reuters) - Pigs fed a diet of only genetically modified grain showed markedly higher stomach inflammation than pigs who dined on conventional feed, according to a new study by a team of Australian scientists and U.S. researchers.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/11/gmo-pigs-study-idUSL2N0EN0UR20130611

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Br Cornelius

Edited June 12, 2013 by Guest

[questionmark]

Hide what? 10kg of unobtanium?

How do you know your non-GM food brought from, say, organic farmer is safer? You do realize, that natural poisons are as much effective as synthetic, don't you?

Depends on what you call effective... if by that you mean that they kill the target organism first and everything around it through accumulation you are right... most don't bio degrade like natural poisons.

[bmk1245]

No-one but yourself bmk has claimed that selective breeding is entirely safe - what has been claimed, and supported, is that is more safe and less likely to produce dangerous mutations with unpredictable outcomes.[...]

Can you bring link to that post of mine?

[...]

Try not to load others with your straw men arguments.

[...]

Au contraire, anti-GMOist's arguments fall flat out, especially when GM is compared to other regarded as non-GM techiques.

[...]

What has been repeatedly said is that these products have been introduced through a cosy arrangement of self regulation by companies who have;

- sought exemption from any adverse consequences of their products

- stated that it is none of their business to ensure the safety of their products, that is the role of the FSA - who have delegated that responsibility back to the companies through self certification.

[...]

Ok, I'll bite: you have day job (I presume). Any business can be attacked with any possible accusations. Lets say some folks decide your business is "evil" (based on fantasies). You'd be angry, your boss would be furious. Day after day, and your boss would come up (with your help?) with some irrational move, which would make anti-"your business folks" even more enthusiastic: "Heh, they deny that. They are guilty"...

All that anti-GMO hysteria just worsens situation.

[bmk1245]

Depends on what you call effective... if by that you mean that they kill the target organism first and everything around it through accumulation you are right... most don't bio degrade like natural poisons.

And some natural poisons degrades in your body while you lie in the casket...

[Guest]

Ok, I'll bite: you have day job (I presume). Any business can be attacked with any possible accusations. Lets say some folks decide your business is "evil" (based on fantasies). You'd be angry, your boss would be furious. Day after day, and your boss would come up (with your help?) with some irrational move, which would make anti-"your business folks" even more enthusiastic: "Heh, they deny that. They are guilty"...

Can you just address the point - why seek protection and why deny responsibility when the responsibility has clearly been delegated to the GMO companies.

Its not hysteria - its genuine concern regarding a very dodgy arrangement between business and regulator.

Its nice to see your concern for the likes of Monsanto - but there big boys and have shown themselves well able to look after themselves through aggressive programs of litigation.

What I would ask, as a first step, is long term feeding studies to be carried out by the FSA to standards which are agreeable to both GMO companies and campaigners. Then we might start to develop a dataset which is none controversial. I would say something around 3-5 years of pig studies before any new product is released onto the market. It would also be advisable to conduct studies on ruminants to settle the controversy regarding deaths through GMO residue feedings in India.

Br Cornelius

Edited June 12, 2013 by Guest

[bmk1245]

Can you just address the point - why seek protection and why deny responsibility when the responsibility has clearly been delegated to the GMO companies.

[...]

The same irrational move your boss/you in hypothetical situation would behave.

[...]

Its not hysteria - its genuine concern regarding a very dodgy arrangement between business and regulator.

[...]

Not hysteria? When "Small amount will make you sick", "Genetically modified vitamin C", etc. Heck, look in the naturalnews crapsite for mind boggling nonsense...

[...]

Its nice to see your concern for the likes of Monsanto - but there big boys and have shown themselves well able to look after themselves through aggressive programs of litigation.

[...]

Yeah, I'm concerned, because its a witch hunt. And I don't give a **** about Monsanto, Dickanto, whatever name in particular, I see it as a blind assault on science.

Heh, quite interesting, you are opposing climate change deniers - their holy grail is "Don't rush things, we need more research, etc" (Ok, you can see it as straw grasping...)

[...]

What I would ask, as a first step, is long term feeding studies to be carried out by the FSA to standards which are agreeable to both GMO companies and campaigners. Then we might start to develop a dataset which is none controversial. I would say something around 3-5 years of pig studies before any new product is released onto the market. It would also be advisable to conduct studies on ruminants to settle the controversy regarding deaths through GMO residue feedings in India.

[...]

"Pig studies"?! Reported to PITA. Your'e toasted...

On the serious note, GM foods go through more rigorous tests than any other non-GM foods. You want more? But how about other non-GM foods? Mutation breeding offsprings?

BTW, tried to look into journal mentioned by Reuters. Its kinda similar to Journal of Scientific Exploration, i.e.

"I saw alien"

"I believe you, your paper accepted"...

[Guest]

The same irrational move your boss/you in hypothetical situation would behave.

Not hysteria? When "Small amount will make you sick", "Genetically modified vitamin C", etc. Heck, look in the naturalnews crapsite for mind boggling nonsense...

Yeah, I'm concerned, because its a witch hunt. And I don't give a **** about Monsanto, Dickanto, whatever name in particular, I see it as a blind assault on science.

Heh, quite interesting, you are opposing climate change deniers - their holy grail is "Don't rush things, we need more research, etc" (Ok, you can see it as straw grasping...)

"Pig studies"?! Reported to PITA. Your'e toasted...

On the serious note, GM foods go through more rigorous tests than any other non-GM foods. You want more? But how about other non-GM foods? Mutation breeding offsprings?

BTW, tried to look into journal mentioned by Reuters. Its kinda similar to Journal of Scientific Exploration, i.e.

"I saw alien"

"I believe you, your paper accepted"...

Nice, but your assault on science bullcrap- ain't impressing anyone. I am a trained scientist and I can smell out the difference between good and bad science. Science bent to the financial will of major corporations has repeatedly shown itself to be the most corruptible science.

Br Cornelius