BASF Moves GM Plant Research From Europe To US 288
ananyo writes "The German chemical giant BASF is moving its transgenic plant operations from Europe to the U.S., it says, because of widespread opposition to the technology. The company on 16 January announced that it would move its plant science headquarters from Limburgerhof, Germany to Raleigh, North Carolina and no longer develop plants solely for cultivation in Europe. The division employs 157 people in Limburgerhof, plus another 63 at facilities elsewhere in Europe. BASF said it would relocate 123 of those jobs to the North Carolina facility. In statement, Stefan Marcinowski, a member of BASF's Board of Executive Directors, cited 'a lack of acceptance for this technology in many parts of Europe – from the majority of consumers, farmers and politicians.' The company instead plans to focus on plant biotechnology markets in the Americas and Asia."
Re:Anti-Science Europeans Chase Business to Americ (Score:5, Interesting)
And that fear is an irrational fear of the science behind it. Many of the crops have been in use for several decades and proven not only safe but in the case of corn, highly effective at reducing pesticide use yet they are still banned in Europe. Not because there is any evidence showing that they are bad, but because the public at large fears them. In fact there has been lots of studies showing a complete lack of harm and not a single study showing harm yet they are still banned.
They were erring on the safe side in the first 5 years this stuff was used, 20 years down the road they aren't on the safe side anymore, they are on irrational side. And yes it is most certainly anti-science (anti crop science), it's just a different variety than the kind in the US.
Re:Great !! 123 more jobs, (Score:5, Interesting)
Where's my frankenfood? (Score:3, Interesting)
I keep waiting for all this "frankenfood" the Luddites promise I'll see, but all we get are more resiliant, disease and pest resistant crops that have the potential to feed the starving, etc etc.
Where are my grapples (grapes the size of apples)? Where is my chocolate flavored bananas that grow in a temperate environment? Where is the wheat I can bake into a pizza crust that has all my RDA vitamins along with a weight-loss ingreiant?
And god dangit, where are my real booberries?
Re:So (Score:5, Interesting)
In 1992, the FDA declared that biotech foods were the same as conventional foods – because the biotech companies said so. The number 8 was then instituted since the produce industry thought consumers would prefer genetically modified food moreso than conventionally grown food. It did not take long for them to find out differently. Although the number 8 designation can still be found, it is rare. The biotech industry is also fighting any sort of labeling for their inventions – now that they know consumers really do not want them. As it stands now, Hawaiian papaya is about the only food you will find that has the number 8 in front of it.
Re:That's RIGHT MOVE ! (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing is no one knows for sure the effects of GM on human bodies, animal bodies, plant bodies and Evolution in general, over a long period of time.
That, by definition, is true for anything. There is always the possibility of an unknown unknown. However, that notion cannot be falsified and as such is a poor point. A better question would be if any of the genes inserted into GE crops pose known any risk. Right now, the few that are (EPSPS protein, various cry proteins, bar enzyme, CMV/PRV coat protein) do not. The moment anyone has evidence supporting the notion that there is any harm from these, or any other inserted protein (since that must be taken on a case by case basis), or the process itself (though strangely not any other plant improvement method) then maybe that notion will have merit.
Also, I notice you're not applying the same logic to any given conventionally bred trait. You could ask the same question about the Cry1Ab gene as you could the sd-1 gene, and it would make about as much sense. The comparison I like to use is lets say you decided to apply that thinking to the smallpox vaccine. Hey, it might have some long term potential but as of yet unsubscribed side effect that could hurt a lot of people, so should it have been used. Yes, because you have to consider KNOWN facts, not what-ifs that may or may not (probably the latter) actually exist.
Re:Great !! 123 more jobs, (Score:4, Interesting)
That is mostly a result of not going for the cheapest supplier though. The organic farmers aren't convincing with the lowest prices, so they have to convince with quality. And they get paid enough that they can afford to do this.