Europe Needs Genetically Engineered Crops, Scientists Say 586
First time accepted submitter Dorianny writes in with a story about the ongoing battle over genetically engineered crops in Europe. "The European Union cannot meet its goals in agricultural policy without embracing genetically engineered crops (GMOs). That's the conclusion of scientists who write in Trends in Plant Science, a Cell Press publication, based on case studies showing that the EU is undermining its own competitiveness in the agricultural sector to its own detriment and that of its humanitarian activities in the developing world. 'Failing such a change, ultimately the EU will become almost entirely dependent on the outside world for food and feed and scientific progress, ironically because the outside world has embraced the technology which is so unpopular in Europe, realizing this is the only way to achieve sustainable agriculture,' said Paul Christou of the University of Lleida-Agrotecnio Center and Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats in Spain."
Pandora's box (Score:4, Interesting)
When the lid is opened there is no way of closing it again.
There are certain technologies mankind is not yet responsible enough to use.
If nuclear power leaves waste for 10000s of years... gene modification does so for the rest of existence.
And no. Cross breeding is not the same as gene modification. There are very few herrings that mate with a tomato IRL.
Re: (Score:3)
> And no. Cross breeding is not the same as gene modification. There are very few herrings that mate with a tomato IRL.
Well, if the music is right, set the mood with dim lights and candles AND you get them drunk enough, of course their genes will splice.
Re: (Score:3)
And no. Cross breeding is not the same as gene modification.
Viruses & cosmic rays naturally cross-contaminate or modify DNA. There is no natural order as to what nature is supposed to be, or what is supposed to cross breed. Plenty of natural foods will kill you or give you cancer. It's unfair to only cite cross-breeding when there are dozens of mechanisms where genetic manipulation naturally occurs. Without the FUD, gene modification could be feeding millions in 3rd world countries.
If this were a Pandora's box, it was opened billions of years ago.
"Needs"? (Score:4, Insightful)
No one *needs* genetically-engineered crops, they simply result in a higher profit (and possibly various unknown health risks).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They may also result in cheaper food.
Re:"Needs"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, moving most of your agricultural sector over to commercially proprietary seed and crop varieties will certainly result in cheaper food.
Re:"Needs"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that farmers in Europe is destroying food to keep the price up it seems like cheaper food is a problem, not a solution.
Re:"Needs"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that farmers in Europe is destroying food to keep the price up it seems like cheaper food is a problem, not a solution.
Considering a similar practice is done in the US, it goes to show what the real purpose of GMO crops are for. To make certain patent holders obscenely rich, along with controlling the global population with a questionable food supply.
Seems like a win-win for certain organizations in control. Not sure when the hell the rest of the world is going to wake up to that shit, but clearly with this kind of propaganda already being spread about how we "need" GMOs, obviously common sense is losing and greed is winning, at the cost of our health (which of course is the most profitable of all). What else is new.
Re:"Needs"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Crops don't have to be Gm to be proprietary.
plant breeders rights have been a thing for almost a hundred years now and farmers already buy such hybrids routinely across most of Europe.
Re: (Score:3)
no. no they're not.
http://www.fera.defra.gov.uk/plants/plantVarieties/plantbreedersRights/ [defra.gov.uk]
Plant Breeders' Rights offers legal protection for the investment plant breeders make in breeding and developing new varieties. This service is open to breeders of any species of plant; agricultural, horticultural and ornamental.
Breeders can choose whether or not to apply for plant breeders' rights, which enable them to charge royalties for protected varieties. Royalties provide a means for breeding companies to fund t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When was last time price food was of any concern in western europe???
Re:"Needs"? (Score:5, Insightful)
We'll keep that in mind once some disease wipes out the entire Monsanto Wheat (tm) monoculture is wiped out by some plant disease or pathogen and causes widespread shortages. Our crops might be less efficient, but we have diversity, and our farmers are free to farm instead of bothering with patents and lawsuits.
Re:"Needs"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Cheaper food for how long, until the company that has the GM patent has 50% of food production, 80%, 100%? It's a one way ticket to economic disaster, let alone the long term health and ecological impact that nobody knows.
Nature wants bio-diversity, not the junk that GM is.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
until the patent expires.
You know patents expire right?
You're free to cross some Flavr Savr tomatoes with whatever collection of hybrid seeds you like to breed whatever hybrid you like with the addition of the GM genes. You can breed whatever diverse collection of plants you like with or without GM.
Re: (Score:3)
No
The offspring of genetically dissimilar parents or stock, especially the offspring produced by breeding plants or animals of different varieties, species, or races.
There's no requirement that it be sterile.
You can create a hybrid of 2 strains of crop which each have traits you like. Killer bees were hybrids of african honey bees and domestic honey bees.
Re:"Needs"? (Score:5, Insightful)
When, in the history of commerce, has cheaper means of production ever meant cheaper end product if there wasn't a pressing need due to competition? It is highly unlikely that the cheaper production will eventually reach the consumer. Even if the original producers have to slave away at dumping prices, the margin will easily be gobbled up by the people in between to ensure nothing remains when you can finally buy something in a store.
Re: (Score:3)
Cheaper production always reaches the consumers unless there is a regulation preventing competition like a patent. That's the nature of a market. Food, cars, housing, computers, energy, cell phones, water, clothes, media all get cheaper in real terms.
Re:"Needs"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No one wants to admit they're a malthusian, but people who are against GE crops generally are.
Re:"Needs"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Soooo if I can grow less crops with less pesticides in the same block of land leaving the rest for nature is a bad thing ?
You are definitely not a farmer. Less pesticides AHAHAHAHA. GMO is all about planting seeds that are super resistant to special proprietary pesticides. After that you spray the fuck out of your fields without worrying about the yield.
You dont have to worry about weeds nor your plants dying from too much crop dusting. You have to worry about re buying seeds every single year and getting addicted to Roundup.
Basically its the same scam as juicing healthy cows with antibiotics.
Re:"Needs"? (Score:5, Interesting)
You have opened your mouth and removed all doubt, you are a fool.
Virtually all crop plants, GMO or not, are highly resistant to pesticides. Pesticides kill bugs, usually insects, not plants. You can't even get the basic terms correct. It is so bad I am wondering if I am feeding a troll...
You are confusing pesticides with herbicides - stuff used to kill weeds - and some GMO crops engineered to be resistant to roundup. Glyphosate (aka 'roundup') is one of the safest and cheapest herbicides available. GMO crops resistant to it let farmers use safer, cheaper, and LESS herbicide than they would otherwise use. Not more, as your ignorant rant claimed. How is that bad? Oh, and the US patent expired years ago. It isn't proprietary anymore - please keep up with the times.
There are actual problems with GMO crops today. They all have to do with patents, lawyers and big greedy corporations. There are potential problems with the safety of GMO crops, but so far they are just potential problems, all known GMO crops in production today have proven to be extremely safe for human consumption, and better - usually much better - for the environment.
Your concern about 'buying seeds every year' is extremely misguided and mostly wrong. Most farmers buy seed each year anyway, GMO or not. It is cheaper to let someone else deal with producing quality seeds and just get yield. There was some talk years ago about 'terminator' genes that would prevent GMO plants from producing viable seeds. DRM for plants if you will. This is one of those potential problems. It has never been used. Worry about it if it shows up, worry about it if Monsanto starts talking about it again. Don't worry about it in the fields today, 'cause it doesn't exist there. Lying and fear-mongering about it makes you no better than Monsanto.
T
Re:"Needs"? (Score:4, Informative)
You have opened your mouth and removed all doubt, you are a fool.
Start your post with an insult, nice way to show your own arrogance.
Virtually all crop plants, GMO or not, are highly resistant to pesticides. Pesticides kill bugs, usually insects, not plants.
Wrong. The main GM plant that people moan about is GM Soya made by Monsanto. They created GM soya as normal soya was killed if you used roundup weed killer on it. So Monsanto create a GM crop to increase their weedkiller sales.
Ok, you could argue that there is a difference between a pesticide and a weed killer but that is just being pedantic. The truth is the parent poster kind of had a point, they just screwed up by saying "Pesticide" when they should have said "WeedKiller". Interestingly wikipedia has the following to say about pesticides:
"A pesticide is generally a chemical or biological agent (such as a virus, bacterium, antimicrobial or disinfectant) that through its effect deters, incapacitates, kills or otherwise discourages pests. Target pests can include insects, plant pathogens, weeds, mollusks, birds, mammals, fish, nematodes (roundworms), and microbes that destroy property, cause nuisance, spread disease or are vectors for disease. Although there are benefits to the use of pesticides, some also have drawbacks, such as potential toxicity to humans and other animals. According to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, 9 of the 12 most dangerous and persistent organic chemicals are pesticides."
So many people seem to consider it fair enough to call something a "pesticide" when the actual pest being killed is a weed. I know the correct term would be herbicide but hey, who am I to argue with wikipedia :)
You might want to read the following, paying particular attention to the section on Glyphosphate resistant crops: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_crops [wikipedia.org]
Your concern about 'buying seeds every year' is extremely misguided and mostly wrong. Most farmers buy seed each year anyway, GMO or not.
That is also arguable. That might be the norm in the intensive farming in the developed world but it is not the case everywhere.
I think he was referring to the spate of farmers suicides in India where using seeds from a previous harvest is more common: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers'_suicides_in_India [wikipedia.org]. This was actually blamed on them not knowing they were buying seeds where the crops would produce sterile seeds so that a year after the bought the crop they planted a load of duds that did not grow.
I am not entirely sure why a bunch of farmers started killing themselves in far away country, but keeping some of your seeds from a previous harvest is still common in the case of third world subsistence farming it seems.
Personally I am not sure I agree with all of the anti GM lobby or not, but you were an insulting twat when it was not warranted as some of what he was saying actually had a basis in fact. You could have more politely corrected him without calling him a fool, especially since your post was very light on factual content and evidence itself. I am being deliberately insulting to let you know how it feels, but have tried to include more references to some of my assertions.
Re:"Needs"? (Score:5, Interesting)
No one *needs* genetically-engineered crops, they simply result in a higher profit (and possibly various unknown health risks).
I'm waiting for the follow-up story that tells us who funds these scientists.
No need to look very far for the funding (Score:4, Insightful)
No need to look very far for the funding, just go to the journal site:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13601385 [sciencedirect.com]
The ad on the page has consistently Life Technologies GeneArt Strings DNA fragments "Synthetic Genes Ready to Clone—Affordable for Every Lab".
There is a bit of vested interest for that particular Journal to publish papers promoting genetic engineering:
It doesn't hurt that there is going to be a genetic engineering conference this June, so you would also want to prime the pump to fill up the conference hall. Nothing like a good controversy to sell tickets.
Re:"Needs"? (Score:5, Interesting)
I was wondering the same. For years the EU had problems with overproduction, and suddenly there's a shortage? So you mean all those subsidies to farmers who can't get rid of their production (which the EU "has to" buy to "ease" their suffering) wasn't necessary because we need more production anyway.
Someone is lying here. It's either the EU or the EU.
Re: (Score:3)
The EU never had overproduction, it simply maintained production at a level where if there was need it could feed itself. While there isn't a need some of that production is destroyed or used for non-food purposes like biofuel, but we need that capacity to guarantee our food supply and not become beholden to the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:3)
Pffft ...
The EU allways had and likely still will for a long time have an overproduction of roughly 100% on everything.
Since 30 years we try to cut it down and balance it. Since 15 years we work harder on cutting it down (e.g no butter storages anymore. 20 years ago the EU had storages for butter holding 2 years of total EU consumption).
During the cold war the EU tried to have a hughe overproduction (and storage capacity) in case a war breaks out and germany and france get overrun by russians.
We still have
Re:"Needs"? (Score:4, Insightful)
That may be true. But what we (I live in Europe) really don't want to deal with is all the consequences, side-effects and bad mojo that comes from genetically-modified, well, anything. We really don't need any of that sh!t, hence no *need* for GMOs
No, no, no, no. DO NOT WANT. Take it away.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, if the EU subsidizes farmers to destroy crops, this is one of the causes of the higher food production. That is the purpose of a subsidy. In this case, if they grow too much, they are paid by the gov't. Thie higher food production is a result of the burning of the subsidized crops, not the other way around.
Eh, what? (Score:5, Informative)
EU pays farmers for not growing stuff because it it produces too much food. There have been surpluses for decades, only recently they have been depleted because of the world market.
Yes, obviously there are imports, but only in winter time or for exotic fruits.
Re:Eh, what? (Score:5, Informative)
Very true. Production is not the bottleneck; it's distribution which often times is hindered due to political reasons. We are not at peak production either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nope they won't. They would increase to the amount of so called organic meat. Yes, this would result in higher meat prices for those who shop at Aldi, Tesco or any other discounter. However, it would also result in lower meat consumption, which is an important goal when considering health issues due to too much meat consumption. In consequence, the meat production farms, for example in the north west of Germany, would have to decrease their production and stop polluting the air and groundwater with their an
Re:Eh, what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep, saying Europe needs GMO crops is ridiculous when it ends up with massive surplus each year that it has literally nothing to use for other than destroy.
If anything we should be working to get those stockpiles to places that really need it like parts of Africa, then they wont need GMO crops either.
Re:Eh, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Eh, what? (Score:4, Insightful)
if they are starving they have a very strong incentive to BUY food from local farmers. That gives farmers the incentive and means to improve their tech level and yield. If people are fed the farmers are shit-outta-luck because nobody needs them, everybody gets food for free. That's a problem in the making, because by making sure people survive and multiply, mismatch between the needs and what the environment and local economy can provide is even bigger, which means even greater dependence on external help. It does nothing to solve the problems, everything to perpetuate them.
Tell me how is it possible that population Ethiopia, country in a pretty much perpetual state of famine, *doubled* in last 30 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ethiopia [wikipedia.org]
I've read article than in Senegal and neighboring countries there are dirt cheap snacks made from chicken legs on every street and everybody buys them. Problem? These chicken legs are dumped on these markets by european companies who get rid of stuff nobody in Europe wants for pennies. Unfortunately local farmers can't compete with dirt cheap throwaway parts of animals that were raised on subsidized grain in rich Europe, so they go out of business.
Re: (Score:3)
For what I have heard, this is kinda mixed bag. There's stuff that gets destroyed due of quotas (like milk), but not in so much big quantities as we like to believe. However, in EU all farming is heavily subsided. In result we don't know actual cost.
Personally I would see Europe clean up subside mess more than allowing GMO. It's much urgent problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course they are subsidised, otherwise you'd have to rely for your food sources on unstable developing countries who can employ farmers for $5 a week. This is a strategic requirement, maintaining food independence. In practical terms Europe has far more food and fresh water than it can use, and could produce a great deal more if needed. The story is bunk.
Re:Eh, what? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm interested in the funding of these reports.
Me too. I live in Denmark, and we export foodstuffs for some 12 billion Euro. Yes, this is a very small and densely populated country. The Netherlands export foodstuffs for $55 billion, also a small and densely populated country.
Who funded this research? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.patentmaps.com/inventor/Paul_Christou_1.html
He does R&D for the big M
GMO "could" perhaps be acceptable if... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
At the very least, unintended cross-fertilization should be "tough shit", so far as IP goes.
There's plenty of food. (Score:5, Informative)
1. The world, and the EU, produce plenty of food. People in certain areas do not have enough food due to problems in the food distribution system.
2. 90%+ of GMO food is either herbicide resistant or produces its own insecticide. It's focus is not producing more or better food. Yes, this could change some day, but that's how it is and has been for a long time.
Re:There's plenty of food. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's focus is not producing more or better food.
It's focus is precisely on growing more food.
Herbicide resistant->dump herbicides on it->kill competing plants->grow more crops
Insectiside producing -> kill insects which kill plant -> grow more crops
Nobody Needs Genetically Engineered Crops (Score:5, Funny)
Except the people that sell them...
I call BS on this (Score:2, Informative)
the EU has a food surplus for decades
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
First, this guy developed the first transgenic soybean, which has then been sold by Monsanto ( http://www.sciforum.hu/programme/speakers/paul-christou-research-professor-university-of-leida-spain.html [sciforum.hu] ). What else is he gonna say?
Then, there's enough food everywhere for everybody provided : it's seasonal, regional and mostly vegetarian.
Sure, if you want huge steaks for every meal, with tomato salads, mango and strawberries for dessert all year round, you'll need a lot of antibiotics, pesticides, GMO's, oil and water.
here is the Monsanto connection (Score:5, Informative)
He received a first class honors degree in Chemistry (University of London) followed by a PhD in plant biochemistry (UCL, London) in 1980. Following postdoctoral research at UCL, he joined one of the very first plant biotechnology companies, Cetus Madison Corp (subsequently Agracetus, Inc.) Madison Wisconsin, USA. He led a research group which achieved the first genetically transformed staple crop (soybean). Subsequently his team developed a variety-independent gene transfer method for rice. These two achievements had a significant impact, as the first transgenic soybean on the US and global markets sold by Monsanto was a direct output of his group’s research efforts.
Re:here is the Monsanto connection (Score:5, Insightful)
I sincerely hope for his sake these conflicts of interest are on every one of his published papers and research applications.
Lack of at least partial objectivity in debate (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem is complex. There's general fear of anything related with "genetic modification", because of this theme exploited so heavily in tabloids, junk and paperback sci-fi, and by conservative politicans betting heavily on science fearing crowd. And then there's huge greedy corporations like Monsanto, which are blinded by gold rush in this field. Then there's politicians, desperate to have at least some kind of investment in countries, relaxing some rules so far that it's really irresponsible.
In overall, GMO debate has almost same semantics as nuclear one. Done right, this field would really do right for humanity. However, there's that very strong question - can we really do right for humanity? It seems that we as society don't trust ourselves - or current capitalistic system we embrace.
So, this is actually discussion "we don't trust multinational corporations to do theoretically dangerous stuff", not "is GMO good or bad", isn't it? However no one discuss corporations, because it's well...just not worth it. Because when money talks, everyone asks how high to jump (including media).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt the number is correct.
Nevertheless if you read what you pasted you would see this happens in countries where children mainly eat rice.
Your solution: give them GMO rice that contains vitamine A.
My solution: give them fish and fruits and vegetables.
What might be the reason that they don't have those? In somalia perhaps because big fishing companies emptied the sea around it. They stopped when the pirates started ...
In China big food corporations grow food for export, perhaps it would be better to have
Natural = Unsustainable? (Score:3, Interesting)
"ironically because the outside world has embraced the technology which is so unpopular in Europe, realizing this is the only way to achieve sustainable agriculture"
What kind of propaganda-soaked, bullshit statement is that? So for the past 4000 years humanity has been performing natural, "unsustainable" agriculture? The whole article reeks so much of bundles of pharmaceutical 100 dollar bills that it stinks.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland) [wikipedia.org]
It is only thanks to the advancement of science and technology that we are not starving anymore. GMOs are just the next logical step in that development.
A Spanish scientist did say that? (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, no surprise here, considering this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-crops
and this: http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/09/leaked-us-to-start-trade-wars-with-nations-opposed-to-monsanto-gmo-crops-2-2464512.html
According to this cables story, Spain and 'Murrica work closely together to get Europe to adapt GM-crops.
F*** them. They all should choke on their GM shit.
Famine has nothing to do with low food production (Score:4, Insightful)
There is already today an excess of food production. People do not starve because there is not enough food, they starve because they are not given the food, usually because they are too poor to afford it, or because their supply lines have been cut by wars or embargoes. There is no need to increase world food production, only to get the food to those needing it.
They are right (Score:2)
Matt Riley of "The Rational Optimist" (http://www.rationaloptimist.com/) also argues for increased use of GM crops. GM crops can produce higher yields, using fewer insecticides and chemicals than even organic foods do.
Of course, the question is: what will we do with this increased yield? If we use it to convert redundant farm land into nature reserves and green spaces, then I'm all for it. If we use it to help ourselves to a nice population burst, then hell no.
Evil Gravity (Score:2)
This works like the cabinet shop on the corner. The owner can not compete if he pays his workers more than what he suspects his competitors
pay their workers. So if Europe does not apply the most modern methods in raising food the food providers will be out of business in short order.
Since food is vital in essence Europe has no real option. Whether it is good, safe, moral or wise are not even part of the decision process.
Értünk Kunság mezején ért (Score:3, Interesting)
Mega bullshit! Europe is easily able to feed its own 450 million people with traditional crops. Hungary alone is able to feed its own 9.9 million and a further 14 million via exports, even though she has less territory than Maryland. Luckily Hungary has recently put into her national constitution that genetically altered crops are banned. Even if Monsanto bribes the European Union politicians, we will not let GMO into our country. Those lands where they were utilized previously have been torched and plowed over on government decree.
Remain GMO-free if you want to live!
Interesting parallels with nuclear industry debate (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the guy is certainly 'pro' GM foods, as you would expect from his background, but 'OMG Europe won't be able to feed itself'?
Hardly. We've been paying farmers a fortune for years to let good farmland stand idle... The problem is not with the crops, it's the crazy CAP which distorts everything, including world trade. For example:
"In the autumn of 2007 the European Commission was reported to be considering a proposal to limit subsidies to individual landowners and factory farms to around £300,000. Some factory farms and large estates would be affected in the UK, as there are over 20 farms/estates which receive £500,000 or more from the EU."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy [wikipedia.org]
Anyway, back on topic, it seems to me that the GM debate is like the nuclear one. On one side, the promise of a bright, science-led future, (limitless clean energy, cheap disease-free crops) with real or potential problems often glossed over or ignored, on the other the NIMBYs and hand-wavers with a "we're all gonna die" reflex. Where's the reasoned debate?
People don't trust the nuclear industry for a good reason, (and I say this as a firm believer in the promise of nuclear power over alternatives). It's not just about Three Mile Island etc, it's about how too many people have systematically covered-up shoddy work over the years, often to save or make more money.
These people should have been severly punished; none were. Seen any TEPCO Execs hanging from a tree recently? Nope.
It's the same with GM food. I'm sure the Scientists are sincere and have done great work, including field tests. But can we trust the agribusiness? Well, recent history (especially in Europe) says no. But it's too late anyway - even food advertsied as 'GM free' is not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_the_release_of_genetic_modified_organisms [wikipedia.org]
Remember, this is also the same industry that brought you horsemeat labelled as beef. Oh yeah, and even when it really is beef, remember BSE ('mad cow' disease?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy [wikipedia.org]
So, do I trust the technology? Yes. Do I trust the agribusiness? Hell no.
Alternatively... (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe if we did a better job of using what we make, this would be a total non problem (not that it is anyway, unless your a Monsanto salesman)
Europe needs GMO? No we don't. (Score:5, Interesting)
The GMO producing companies are the most evil entities in the world.
They keep suing farmers when the wind blows their cr@p on other people's land. The fertilizers that keep their seeds going are a natural disaster for the soil, for the animals and all other crops in the vicinity. They forced a law in the US that doesn't even *allow* people to find out whether the product they buy is GM or not. They bait new customers with low prices, then when those farmers can no longer switch back to natural seeds, they ruin them. They expressly want natural seeds to die out so the whole world has to buy from them: they are sworn enemies of natural seeds because farmers can save those.
I trust natural selection. I don't trust greedy corporations that don't care about anyone or anything else. If you want the truth about them, read the stories of farmers who battled their army of lawyers for years. Percy Schmeiser's moving story at http://www.percyschmeiser.com/ [percyschmeiser.com] is a good start.
And think of that huge new market for Roundup (Score:4, Interesting)
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Or that new peer-reviewed study on glyphosphate.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2315057/Is-worlds-popular-weed-killer-causing-Parkinsons-New-study-shows-Roundup-herbicide-linked-cancer-infertility.html [dailymail.co.uk]
Re:Scientific progress (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the wholesale rejection of an entire body of science and technology on non-scientific bases that will affect both Europe's ability to contribute to scientific progress in those areas and its ability to produce its own food.
In other words you have confused the direction of the cause and effect relationship between scientific progress and food production in this case.
Re:Scientific progress (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the wholesale rejection of an entire body of science and technology on non-scientific bases that will affect both Europe's ability to contribute to scientific progress in those areas and its ability to produce its own food.
Actually that describes the report pretty well. It is blatant scare-mongering by an industry body and the university professor they sponsor.
Re:Scientific progress (Score:5, Insightful)
Ohh boy. Please guys, don't fall to their level. GMO is valid technology if applied right, as was genetic selection in the past (your poor man's GMO).
If you don't trust corporations, fine. But if you want to be taken serious in counterargument, please don't use "that's what they said". If you think their assumptions are wrong, please at least explain why.
Re:Scientific progress (Score:5, Interesting)
Ohh boy. Please guys, don't fall to their level. GMO is valid technology if applied right, as was genetic selection in the past (your poor man's GMO).
If you planted GMO anywhere in Europe you could argue, and win, that the technology was being applied incorrectly. EU farmers are being paid to not use their fields. For a variety of reasons, one of them being price of crops, another being that the soil cannot handle re-sowing of the same crop over and over again.
GMO is not going to fix that, it will make the problem worse. Fertilizer helps, but we'd rather not use that in a high enough degree to make it viable. So the option is to leave fields unused to let the soil recover. This is simple. Farmers in the fucking iron age knew this. This article is a fearmongering attempt because a really big market isn't drinking the kool aid, and Prof. WhatsHisFace is a sad panda.
Re:Scientific progress (Score:4, Informative)
Fertilizer helps, but we'd rather not use that in a high enough degree to make it viable.
What Europe "needs" if it wants to increase production and/or land use is holistic/organic methods, such as intensive managed grazing, [wikipedia.org] pasture cropping, [pasturecropping.com] and permaculture design [wikipedia.org]. This would have multiple beneficial knock-on effects...
1. Increase production.
2. Decrease chemical inputs.
3. Decrease fuel and capital costs.
4. Mitigate flood/drought cycles.
5. Increase carbon sequestration.
6. Increase biomass and biodiversity.
7. Decrease the need for veterinary pharamceuticals.
8. Replenish eroded topsoil.
Google a bit on "Joel Salatin", "Geoff Lawton" and "Allan Savory" for some excellent videos on this subject.
Re:Scientific progress (Score:5, Insightful)
or do proper crop rotation with crops that help replenish.
And what exactly is wrong with using fertilizer? Even the iron age farmers knew about spreading fertilizer although they mostly referred to it as manure or just shit. But continue down the luddite path if it makes you feel better about yourselves.
Over-fertilization pollutes the groundwater. This has already been problematic and a reason for agricultural reform in the Netherlands.
Re:Scientific progress (Score:4, Informative)
I don't think there is anything wrong with using fertilizer. In fact human civilization as we know it would not exist without it. The problem has been that in much of the world over use of inexpensive, easily applied, chemical fertilizers has become a substitute for good farming practices. Things like crop rotation, leaving fields fallow for a season, putting grazing animals onto your fallow fields to naturally enrich the soil etc have fallen out of use. In their place they just put ever more fertilizer on the land to compensate for burning up its natural fertility and polluting the ground water and oceans.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course he can. If he cared about the environment. But, alas, apparently he only cares about receiving the subsidies.
GMO != genetic selection (Score:5, Insightful)
The bad argument here is to argue that GMO is just like genetic selection, just pushed a bit further.
Of course it is not. Nobody is against genetic selection, neither in Europe not anywhere else.
Re: (Score:3)
GMO's have been around since before I was born yet I'm closing on 30.
Yes and No. Scientists first discovered that DNA can transfer between organisms in 1946. The first genetically modified plant was produced in 1983, using an antibiotic-resistant tobacco plant. In 1994, the transgenic Flavr Savr tomato (the first GMO food) was approved by the FDA for marketing in the US - the modification allowed the tomato to delay ripening after picking. In the early 1990s, recombinant chymosin was approved for use in several countries, replacing rennet in cheese-making. In the US in 1995,
Re:Scientific progress (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I don't have a problem with genetically modified food sciences, but you give 'em an inch and they take a mile. If we could trust them to simply improve the size and frequency of fruiting bodies' production then that would be great, but they don't stop there -- Some of these GMO food producers decide that we need to make poisonous plants to prevent bugs from eating them without actual long-term studies to validate their claims of harmlessness -- Scientists don't make conclusions based on lack of evidence. We need proof they're not harmful to us and the environment. We don't have that proof.
It's the unwillingness of people to think clearly that is harming us. We can use SOME types of genetic modifications without using others; However, corporations maximize profits and pundits aren't typically adequately educated, so we end up with people polarized on the issue and no real way forward -- no compromises, no middle ground.
The wholesale rejection is the only option for some if the ones making the modified food say they'll put the poison gene in or you get no GMO at all... The gene splicers are just as much at fault for this, and that's without even delving into BS patent issues and neutered seeds that could lead to even MORE dependence on foreign entities for food.
Be careful when you paint with a wide brush, you may end up with paint in your eyes.
Re:Scientific progress (Score:4, Insightful)
"We need proof they're not harmful to us and the environment. We don't have that proof."
That's why you lobby for solid government agencies who actually do very good job on checking food safety (at least in my country).
You can't ignore food problems with clause "we don't trust corporations". Well, I don't, but what choice we have. It's not like we gonna change capitalism for something workable and better (I believe we can, but that's for another day). We need to lobby and support actually working government institutions to check on corporations. EU has better success in this regard, despite some members being in bed and naked with corps for years (hey UK).
Let's work within system. GMO food can be good, just let's keep pushing stuff we see as necessary for it to work. Just inflicting fear in general public won't work in long term I'm afraid.
Re:Scientific progress (Score:5, Insightful)
GMO food can be good, no doubt about it. The problem is that the goal of producer and user are widely different. For the user, increased production is the goal whereas it is only the necessary evil to sell it for the producer.
Re:Scientific progress (Score:5, Insightful)
One problem "Monsanto"
They produce most of the GMO that people are aware of, are notorious for suppressing any study that they do not like, for not publishing results, for patenting entire plants, for suing poor farmers who never bought their seed, for poisoning the environment .... etc ....
They may not be typical of GMO companies, but they are the poster child and best known, and are the worst possible advert for GMO ....
Re: (Score:3)
Farmers don't have to plant Monsanto crops. Consumers don't have to buy crops they don't want. And if Monsanto can get away with suing farmers whose fields they contaminated, you should blame the legislators for making
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't the scientists open source their research so that many eyes can find the potential bugs?
Re:Scientific progress (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientists don't make conclusions based on lack of evidence. We need proof they're not harmful to us and the environment. We don't have that proof.
You cannot prove a negative. What you can prove (and what already has been proven) is that all of the GMO crops are safer than peanuts, penicillin, and organic bean sprouts and spinach, and cell phones (GMOs 0 deaths with 100s of millions of exposures over nearly 20 years, the others many thousands of deaths between them due to anaphylactic shock, e. coli, driving-while-texting, etc) .
I am not arguing that there is no risk with GMO technology. What I am saying, however, that the rational approach is to formulate scientific hypotheses regarding risks such that those hypotheses can be tested via either examining existing data or conducting experiements that quantify the risk such that it is possible to determine whether those risks are acceptable based on our best current knowledge.
The "poison" genes you're referencing (e.g., Bt11) are currently based on proteins that are produced by soil bacteria, bacteria naturally found in milk, and other things that humans have been consuming for centuries and that are in many cases applied to organic crops as well. They have also been tested according to both USDA and EPA regulatory standards (in the US, pest control GM traits are regulated by both agencies whereas herbicide tolerance traits are only regulated by the USDA). At this point it is not a question of whether or not they have been tested, but whether they have been tested to a sufficient degree. My personal opinion is that given that they have been tested (both scientifically in controlled experiments and by default through market exposure) far more thoroughly than anything else I consume short of pharmaceuticals, I am OK with them. Beyond my personal comfort level I would challenge anyone to come up with a scientifically defendable justification to require greater testing that would not logically require much greater testing of non-GM foods as well.
The problem is not that there is a lack of "clear thinking" regarding GMOs. The problem is that the ratio of rational thought to irrational thought is unfortunately very small, and the ratio of rational communication vs. irrational communication regarding the issue is even worse. These difficulties are also compounded by the unfortunate fact that many people conflate GMOs with IP laws, religious beliefs, personal philosophy, etc.
Re:Scientific progress (Score:4, Insightful)
You cannot prove a negative.
GMOs 0 deaths
Apart from that detail, I personally have no problems with GM crops on the health side (*). I do have serious objections though concerning the misuse of legal ways to enforce mono culture and the elimination of small farmer's biodiversity. That is something GM crop companies should not have a right to do.
(*) Since the invention of antibiotics and vaccination, and widespread adoption of hygiene, the general life expectancy has grown very slowly.
Our bodies are currently part of a long time experience, which involves exposure to pollution from fossil fuels, radioactive particles from accidents and open-air atom bomb test (yes, until this day), processed fats and sugars, artificial electromagnetic waves of many wavelengths, GM food, and more.
Noone knows if one or many of these factors play a role in the ever growing effect of cancer, diabetes, and other deadly desases on our theoretical life expectancy.
Re: (Score:3)
>> Scientists don't make conclusions based on lack of evidence. We need proof they're not harmful to us and the environment. We don't have that proof. .. GMOs 0 deaths with ...
> You cannot prove a negative. What you can prove (and what already has been proven) is that all of the GMO crops are safer
Everyone that has eaten carrots has a 100% fatality rate. Therefore carrots are bad. See, I can abuse stats and provide bullshit arguments based on it too.
This phrase "prove a negative" is incorrect. If
Re: (Score:3)
We may be missing the smoking gun but as the parent said, 20 years of use and no real world problems with health that have been correlated with GMO.
Cheap corn syrup (probably GMO) is the biggest problem, causing the American obesity epidemic. That's not a GMO problem though.
Again we could be in the middle of a GMO related epidemic and not realize the cause but no one has announced it (and I'd expect someone is looking for it).
BPA in plastics is a bigger problem, antibiotics in live stock is a bigger problem
Re: (Score:3)
Re:now we wait (Score:5, Insightful)
"Scientists claim Europe must surrender to Monsanto or starve."
To surrender to a corporate tyrant is just as bad as to surrender to any other sort of tyrant.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
"Scientists claim Europe must surrender to the European Commission or starve."
To surrender to a corporate tyrant is just as bad as to surrender to any other sort of tyrant.
There, fixed it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't birth rate dropping fast in Europe? Fewer people, less need for food.
Re:now we wait (Score:4, Insightful)
The numbers I found in a quick search suggest that EU-wide there is still a small population growth [wikipedia.org], but pretty close to zero. The import/export balance (PDF, see graphs on page 2) [europa.eu] for raw and processed products combined seems to be roughly zero as well, but in terms of raw materials the EU is still net importing agricultural products. To say Europe is going to "become almost entirely dependent on the outside world" doesn't match these figures though.
Re:now we wait (Score:5, Funny)
"The numbers I found in a quick search suggest that EU-wide there is still a small population growth [wikipedia.org], but pretty close to zero."
We grow by acquiring new countries as members, it's much easier that way.
And we don't like the Rolling Stones (they're English), we get what we want, not what we need. :-)
Re:But, but - CLIMATE CHANGE will kill us ALL (Score:4, Interesting)
Not sure if that is true, this winter has been a long one the delay of seasonal weather due to the jet stream having been low longer than usual has caused a few problems. It finally moved northwards about 2 weeks ago.
For cattle and sheep apart from the many sheep dead in the UK frozen to death right in the lambing season there has been problems with grazing, the grass has been fairly dormant leaving farmers in a dire situation without feed or money to buy feed for their herds. In Ireland there has been a help line set up to help farmers who cannot feed their animals. For crops the persisting frosts have put many crops and plants around a month behind. The last couple of years the summer temperature and rainfall has lowered yields too.
It's pretty essential that the jet stream rise northwards for europe to experience its 'normal' climate. Without the warm air keeping back the cold air, you don't get the germination temperatures needed.
Natural selection should favour plants most suited to the climate that they grow in, as they will be the plants that grow to maturity and set seed which can be planted the following year. Wouldn't Monsanto seed policy of not allowing seed collection work against natural selection, so the seed available will be the seed Monsanto has decided has optimal characteristics and if they are wrong well that could be a major problem.
Fairly recently Colmans mustard crops were found to have falling yields and it turned out that they needed diverse seeds to get high yields luckily they do keep seed from past years and were able to reverse the trend but without that they were in big trouble.
I don't think Monsanto has it's GM Seed banned in Europe it just isn't welcomed by Europeans and if a product has GM on it, it is labeled as such and it doesn't sell. Fortunately for Monsanto the FDA refuses to label GM food in the USA, if that changed Monsanto likely would be in trouble as consumers boycotted their products.
why wouldn't it be the same as in Europe?
Re:But, but - CLIMATE CHANGE will kill us ALL (Score:5, Insightful)
Hi, I'm a former computer nerd, now a biologist.
Don't overestimate the role of mutation in short-term evolution. The rate of mutation per site per generation in almost all extant species is very low, and almost all mutations are deleterious. For any de novo allele to persist in a population, it must confer a significant benefit to survival or reproduction. If its selective benefit is only slight, its chance of persistence or fixation in a population is equal to its initial frequency, which is extremely low (except in very small populations, but then you have other problems). Mutation is certainly necessary for evolution, but it works on extremely long time scales.
From a biological standpoint, what Monsanto does is pretty irrelevant. They create populations that, barring mutation, don't reproduce. What they do does not affect the genetic variation of natural populations, except insofar as it restricts the total acreage occupied by non-GMO crops. But it's important to realize that those non-GMO crops are _not_ natural populations, nor are they "natural" plants. Such crops have been as thoroughly modified by man as has any Roundup-Ready plant. That's exactly what selective breeding for greater yield, better taste, etc. are - genetically modifying organisms. Corn, wheat, cabbage, mustard, and a whole host of other plants that are grown "organically" and eaten every day do not occur in nature in the forms we consume. The only difference is that companies like Monsanto target single genes, because they can. There is an argument to be made that, by selectively adding or modifying only beneficial alleles, biochemical engineering is a safer way to shape crop plants to our needs; selective breeding is sloppy, messy, and can't eliminate negative genes that, for example, are in linkage disequilibrium with selectively positive genes. And, if you don't want to grow GM seeds... don't. Agribusiness isn't preventing anyone from growing old crops the old way.
From what I have observed, most people's objections to Monsanto boil down to what one of my non-major humanities professors said: "It just doesn't seem natural." People don't seem to realize that when engineering these plants, what is happening is simply a refinement of a process that's been going on in agriculture since we first figured out planting seeds makes plants grow. It's just a more precise version, and able to avoid a whole host of problems presented by the old way of doing things. But it's happening in a lab, so it's automatically unnatural, and interfering with either God's plan or evolution. Evolution is a tricky subject, and far more complicated than most people realize.
I guess what I'm saying is, don't get a gut feeling about something and just call it good. There is a huge amount of propaganda on both sides of this issue, and the reality of the situation is more nuanced than 99% of people realize. I'm probably going to get attacked for this as a Monsanto shill, but please note that I didn't take a firm position either way. There's a reason for that: despite all the screaming from both sides, there is not enough reliable data available to do real, objective science on the broader effects of widespread GMO agriculture. Unfortunately, this dearth of data just feeds the gut feelings on both sides.
Lecture over. Feel free to flame.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, what?
AC's post wasn't racist, nationalist, or even all that idiotic. A bit too stereotypical IMO, but damn - wishing death (viz euthanasia) on the guy just because he (she, it) pointed out that yeah, it's going to be a problem down the road?
Seriously - there are elements of that post which happen to be correct - unless the muslim communities in Europe ratchet back (and tamp down) the whole demand for (and occasional practice of) Sharia law, parts of the EU may well end up living under it. Given that t
English Translation (Score:3, Insightful)
Scientists owned by Monsanto claim Europe must surrender to Monsanto or starve. ,water it, it comes up, flowers, fruits, just like Monsanto.
What we need to hear instead.
Monsanto was banned from business in Europe and their patents stripped.
It's just time to go back to more natural high yield seed with no patents. For everyones good.
Put it in the ground, feed it
We need Monsanto and Cargill for what now?
Regulate the shit out of them. Uncover the bribery and make an example of the scientists backing Monsanto w
Re:now we wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Both of you are off-topic and not insightful. Nowhere in this article does anyone mention Monsanto. Monsanto sucks, but:
Monsanto != GMOs
GMOs hold incredible promise to feed the world [ideonexus.com], but all anyone can ever talk about is Monsanto and "Frankenfoods." There is not one single shred of scientific evidence of any GMOs causing serious health problems (Note: I said "GMOs" not the pesticides farmers are using on those crops), and there are plenty of publicly funded GMO projects that have produced real-life benefits like saving Papaya crops, bringing crops to parts of Africa where they wouldn't normally survive, and bringing nutrient-rich rice to impoverished parts of China.
But you know what? All of this scientific progress is being stymied because of anti-science people screaming "frankenfoods!" In Africa, some countries refused American food aid because of GMO fears--until their people began to starve to death. The Blood Rice GMO could nourish millions, but China can't get anywhere with it because of GMO fears. GMO farm salmon has spent 15 years trying to get approved in the United States, but politicians have blocked it for fear of GMOs; meanwhile, our natural fish stocks collapse from over-fishing.
If you are anti-GMO, then I put you in the same class of people who don't believe in Evolution, who are anti-vaccine, or don't accept the very basic science of Global Warming. You believe things without evidence or are simply denying the scientific evidence that exists, and your ignorance is making life harder for the rest of us.
Re:now we wait (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:now we wait (Score:4, Insightful)
The only point they have in their favor is the questionable behaviors of certain companies, which are a consequence of some bad laws we have, not anything to do with the technology.
Re:another hit from technology (biotechnology) (Score:4, Informative)
There is also no documentation that organic products are healthier in any way. You can find cancerogenic compounds in many organic products (e.g. aflatoxins) and nobody cares about that because it is "organic".
You should get out of your romantic view of nature, nature is dangerous!
What is interesting is that only people who do not understand anything about biology, plant breeding and GMOs are against GMOs.
Re:Competitiveness? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a huge subsidy, but it also has a crucial strategic value. Without the subsidies, farming in the EU would steadily decline into irrelevance and you become ever more dependent on imports. But food is even more critical than oil. What if there is a drought in the future? Import restrictions? Huge price increases? Shit, suddenly the EU can't feed its own citizens anymore. Other countries can use the EU's dependence on its food imports to exert diplomatic influence, essentially up to the point of blackmail. Take Russia for example. The only reason why it gets away with its subjugation of democracy and freedom of speech is because Europe is hugely dependent on energy imports from Russia. If Europe is not self-sufficient in its food requirements, it opens up another attack vector.