Monsanto lost the war against Europe

[Aroddo]

In a strong democracy where political corruption is the exception rather than the rule (well, at least when compared to the USA, let's get real here) , the will of the people is stronger than corporate interests. At least this time.

http://www.dw.de/monsanto-gives-up-fight-for-gm-plants-in-europe/a-16851701

The world's largest producer of seeds, Monsanto, has apparently given up on attempts to spread its genetically modified plant varieties in Europe. A German media report said the firm would end all lobbying for approval.

The world's largest producer of seeds, Monsanto, has apparently given up on attempts to spread its genetically modified plant varieties in Europe. A German media report said the firm would end all lobbying for approval.

The German newspaper "taz" reported Friday that US agriculture behemoth Monsanto had dropped any plans to have farmers grow its genetically modified (GM) plant varieties in Europe.

Monsanto Europe spokesman Brandon Mitchener was quoted as saying the company would no longer engage in any lobbying fur such plants on the continent, adding that at the moment the firm was unwilling to apply for approval of any GM plants.

Monsanto said its decision was partly based on low demand from European farmers. "We've understood that such plants don't have any broad acceptance in European societies," Monsanto Germany spokeswoman Ursula Lüttmer-Ouazane commented. "We haven't been bale to make any progress over the years, and it's counter-productive to tilt against windmills," she added.

Public resistance

The German Agriculture Ministry said Monsanto's move was a corporate decision and would not comment further. But it added it was no secret the ministry had been highly critical of gene modification technologies.

"The promises of GM industry have not come true for European agriculture, nor have they for the agriculture in developing and emerging economies," the ministry said in a statement.

In Germany, the protest movement against GM plants has been particularly strong for years. Vociferous rallying prompted the government in 2009 to prohibit the growing of Monsanto's MON810 GM maize variety.

Rivals of the US company, such as Bayer CropScience, BASF and Syngenta had largely withdrawn from the German market because of large-scale public opposition, the "taz" report claimed.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

In a strong democracy where political corruption is the exception rather than the rule (well, at least when compared to the USA, let's get real here) , the will of the people is stronger than corporate interests. At least this time.

Seriously dude, pay more attention to Germany and Europe rather than the USA. Political corruption here may not be quite as bad as over there, but that's just damning with faint praise. Shall we also take pride that our governmetns murder fewer journalists than the Russians do ?

On topic: Good to hear/read. While I don't share the irrational fear that many people over here have for genetically modified food, I don't want a coropration as -dare I say it- evil as Monsanto to have a foothold in Europe. I wouldn't ban GMOs in agriculture outright, but I would put them under very high scrutiny. It's one of those technologies that have the potential to be a blessing to humanity but have, thanks to lackluster regulation and unjust intellectual property law, turned out to often do more harm than good .

 

[Aroddo]

hehe, well, at least we still think that corruption is bad and politicians taking bribes is still technically against the law.

And on topic: I am absolutely convinced that genetically modified crops will play a vital role for humanity in the future. But the practice of forbidding farmers to replant their own crops or sueing farmers if Monsanto GMC genes impollinate a neighbouring non-GMC field (aka stealing Monsanto products, according to them) is unacceptable.
And developing crops that kill themselves after one generation to force farmers to rebuy seeds every season is a war against millenia or agricultural tradition ... a war against life.

Bio-corporations should focus on developing plants that expand our possibilities, not diminish them. Algae that clean up pollution, plants producing more oxygen while absorbing more CO2 ... or organisms that can grow on mars, on Europa or the frigging moon.

 

[Kyriakos]

It was a good decision by the EUSSR, but i am not really sure it was taken because the politicians actually are less corrupt than in the US. The EU is a mess too, and not really democratic by now.

Regarding Monsanto, i am of the view that GM foods are potentially very dangerous for human health. It does not appear that the modifications they are making have been tested enough to not warrant alarm over possible dangers to human health from eating GM foods.

 

[Agent327]

i am of the view that GM foods are potentially very dangerous for human health

You are aware that all food since the agrarian revolution is genetically manipulated, aren't you...

 

[Kyriakos]

You are aware that all food since the agrarian revolution is genetically manipulated, aren't you...

Which 'agrarian' revolution are you speaking of? It seems the phrase refers to many different ones, although all of the others are minor next to the Agricultural revolution which took place many millenia ago.

If you were referring to the agricultural revolution of neolithic times, i should note that your argument seems to be a bit on the absurd side of things. First of all to claim that a change in food production made many millenia ago is on par with a change in foods created through GM (as in Monsanto) since a couple of decades, is not a good argument. Obviously humans have been eating food produced agriculturally for millenia, and if that food was particularly risky for their health i suppose it would be known by now. Then the Monsanto/GM changes are only here since a few years, so you cannot really claim that they are equally safe.

 

[classical_hero]

You are aware that all food since the agrarian revolution is genetically manipulated, aren't you...

Not like this. What happened before is that crops were bred for favourable traits and not have genes inserted into the to produce chemicals to stop insects from attacking them. There is a big difference between the two practices. One is that the desirable traits are already out there and we are just doing our best to breed them more often, the other in introducing things to the plant genome that were never there in the first place.

 

[Akka]

You are aware that all food since the agrarian revolution is genetically manipulated, aren't you...

If we go by this ridiculous exageration, we can say that dinosaurs used genetical manipulation because they selected their mates

 

[Smellincoffee]

Don't trust Monstanto's surrender for a moment. They're probably just taking the war underground. They'll try again.

 

[Kyriakos]

If we go by this ridiculous exageration, we can say that dinosaurs used genetical manipulation because they selected their mates

You are aware that any species since the creation of the Earth is genetically manipulated, aren't you?...

One of the greatest mysteries to scientists on Earth has been the sudden disappearance of dinosaurs from the planet. Several hypotheses have been circulated in regard to this issue. The more important questions are where the dinosaurs came from, and why were they distributed around the world. Once their origin is understood, their extinction can be better comprehended.


One of the methods of expelling the earlier alien occupants of the planet was to introduce frightening species. This was accomplished by Anunnaki scientists who genetically engineered various monsters.

note: Obviously i am not paralleling the claim by Jeelen to the claim from the Nara site. The first was just a bit irrelevant, the latter is downright crazy...

 

[Aroddo]

You are aware that any species since the creation of the Earth is genetically manipulated, aren't you?...

Evolution is not genetic manipulation.

Breeding new species is merely exploiting the evolution process by favoring offspring through artificial selection. Sure, that qualifies as genetic manipulation, if you insist.

Genetic engineering however is the direct manipulation of an organisms genome, potentially resulting in a new generation of organisms with unique features what might not have ever developed in nature.

That in itself is not a problem. The problem arises if the effects of the new traits are not completely understood and released into the market regardless, only because the observed new traits perform as intended.
For example, a new strain of genetically engineered potato could grow larger and be more resistant to bugs, thus guaranteeing better harvest. However, as a side effect the potato produces an enzyme toxic to 0,1% of mankind, because humans also have lots of genes whose traits are not entirely understood. Result: Food poisoning for 300000 americans.
This kind of danger can be eliminated or reduced by thoroughly testing the new product and - if detected - redesign it until proven safe.

Monsanto however is not known for it's careful product testing nor for it's patience with governments that insist on a long waiting period for new products due to extensive testing. Rather it's known for bribing officials, falsifying reports, and calling big daddy USA to bully other governments into allowing their products quickly for the sake of profit.

And while US politicians are easily bribed, "independent scientific" US studies easily bought, critics easily silenced, US laws easily changed and the FDA easily castrated, they just realized that it doesn't work quite as easy in Europe as they are used to.

 

[Kyriakos]

@Aroddo, my sentence was being in irony, as was evident by the post from the Nara site directly below it

 

[MrCynical]

Not like this. What happened before is that crops were bred for favourable traits and not have genes inserted into the to produce chemicals to stop insects from attacking them. There is a big difference between the two practices. One is that the desirable traits are already out there and we are just doing our best to breed them more often, the other in introducing things to the plant genome that were never there in the first place.

Of course just because a trait appears "out there" naturally doesn't automatically make it safe for humans to eat either...

Regarding Monsanto, i am of the view that GM foods are potentially very dangerous for human health. It does not appear that the modifications they are making have been tested enough to not warrant alarm over possible dangers to human health from eating GM foods.

The point you and classical hero have missed is the odd contrast between expecting testing to the nth degree for modifications produced by modern genetic manipulation, while regarding testing as completely unnecessary for modifications produced using more old fashioned approaches. This gets especially silly when you consider that modern methods can be used to make a modification that could have been achieved through plain old artificial selection, but in a much more efficient and less luck based manner. Yet two identical plants would therefore be considered "safe until proven otherwise" and "dangerous by default" purely because of the means by which they were produced.

I don't much like Monsanto's methods, so I wouldn't be too sorry to see the back of them in Europe. From a scientific point of view though it's rather ridiculous that most arguments against GMOs amount to "I know nothing about the subject, but it involves genetics, so it must be dangerous". Question for those against GMOs - what testing procedure would, if passed, satisfy you that a given GMO is safe?

Genetic engineering however is the direct manipulation of an organisms genome, potentially resulting in a new generation of organisms with unique features what might not have ever developed in nature.

Same issue as above - if you have a new generation of organisms with unique features, why assume they are more likely to be safe if produced randomly by nature than if they were designed through genetic engineering.

 

[Kyriakos]

Question for those against GMOs - what testing procedure would, if passed, satisfy you that a given GMO is safe?

In regards to issues of health i think the most important principle is always to "first do no harm". It was Hippocrates himself who coined the phrase, the physician to whom still medical students give their oath to upon their graduation from universities. I view it too as still very rellevant, that first one has to make certain he is doing no harm, and only after that to focus on doing good.
So i entirely disagree with your point that being weary of GM foods is ultimately just amounting to poor education on the matter.

 

[Tarquelne]

Don't trust Monstanto's surrender for a moment. They're probably just taking the war underground. They'll try again.

There's already rumors of a sub-pen in Malta and a secret fortress high in the Bavarian Alps.

Re: U.S. corruption: I really don't know about the relative rates, but I am afraid that stupidity is being confused with criminal activity.

GM crops:

It might be useful to distinguish between types of modifications and whether the problems they potentially introduce are directly caused by the modifications themselves, or by resulting farming practices. Then balance the actual disadvantages and potential risks vs. actual benefits.

First, the changes are often fundamentally different than anything previously accomplished through lower-tech methods of "engineering" crops. A potato was developed using genes from another type of potato... that's not so different. Bt crops were developed by inserting genes from a bacteria into our food... I can understand people wanting that looked at more carefully.

Herbicide and pest/disease resistances should be watched, since they might lead to over-use of herbicides, resistance in the targeted pests, and problems from non-targeted pests. And, potentially, they'll be putting weirder things into food.

Better crop hardiness or nutrition should be viewed more generously, IMO, since they can have tremendous and immediate benefits for *everybody* in developing countries, and the proteins expressed will tend to be more "natural." Most natural to some other food-crop, perhaps, but still something from a "real" food. (IIRC farmers in developing countries already get the most benefit from GM crops, economically.)

IMO intellectual property, resistance, and "pharma crop" contamination issues are the only ones really worth paying attention to. I'm more concerned with pesticide over-use or long-term effects from new drugs than I am with long-term effects from GMO foods. It's hard to directly compare the testing between GMO foods and drugs, but I think the GMO foods have been tested enough. Though, sure, more would be better.

(OTOH, future generations of GMO foods might involve a LOT more tinkering and changes to the final product. So "wariness" isn't a bad idea.)

 

[Kozmos]

I'm less concerned with GM as by the ludicrous biological patents they've claimed and try to enforce.

 

[MrCynical]

In regards to issues of health i think the most important principle is always to "first do no harm". It was Hippocrates himself who coined the phrase, the physician to whom still medical students give their oath to upon their graduation from universities. I view it too as still very rellevant, that first one has to make certain he is doing no harm, and only after that to focus on doing good.

I entirely agree, but this is a complete non sequiteur to the question "what testing procedure would satisfy you that they are doing no harm?" That we're bothering to talk about testing is entirely because of acknowledging the possibility of harm, and checking there isn't any.

So i entirely disagree with your point that being weary of GM foods is ultimately just amounting to poor education on the matter.

My point was more that currently people tend to be far more wary of GMOs than they would be of something identical produced by other means. It has more to do with the old natural = good fallacy than an understanding of what genetic modification can or can't do.

So, back to the question. What testing procedure would satisfy you that a given GM food is safe? Note that if your wariness is on safety grounds, and not simply an inherent belief that genetic modification is "wrong" you should be able to give at least a rough idea of this. New chemicals, materials and yes, new varieties of food crops show up quite regularly. Considering existing testing methods (or lack of them) for these, and how correspondingly wary you are of these should give a good place to start.

 

[Praise_Satan]

Them evil genes. I don't want no genes in my food. Amirite?

 

[Kyriakos]

So, back to the question. What testing procedure would satisfy you that a given GM food is safe? Note that if your wariness is on safety grounds, and not simply an inherent belief that genetic modification is "wrong" you should be able to give at least a rough idea of this. New chemicals, materials and yes, new varieties of food crops show up quite regularly. Considering existing testing methods (or lack of them) for these, and how correspondingly wary you are of these should give a good place to start.

My general conclusion is that it is very difficult at the moment (and probably will be so for the near future too) to examine sufficiently the potential of GM products which are the outcome of modification that would not happen in nature (or through traditional modifying procedures of old) causing harm to humans who use them. There simply does not seem to be, not only the available research around for it, but not even the actual technology available for any meaningful test of this kind, which furthermore would need to take into consideration the scope of using such new GM products for years on human consumers.
So while i would be more lenient in regards to actual GM products which are argued to be evidently just GM enhancements of procedures previously also in use (as in traditional modification), i am not at all willing to accept the heavier GM going around, which i do suspect as being not only potentially very harmfull, but at this point likely to be termed as very careless as well.

EDIT: If, however, you insist on me naming a specific duration of research needed to still be done on GM so as to become acceptable, then i guess in my view it would need just a tiny bit less than 31,416 years of new research, so as to atain a circular education* on the subject

*"circular education" is the meaning of the greek original term later on somewhat altered in the latin encyclopaedia. The original was encyclios (circular) paedeia (education)

 

[MrCynical]

My general conclusion is that it is very difficult at the moment (and probably will be so for the near future too) to examine sufficiently the potential of GM products which are the outcome of modification that would not happen in nature (or through traditional modifying procedures of old) causing harm to humans who use them. There simply does not seem to be, not only the available research around for it, but not even the actual technology available for any meaningful test of this kind, which furthermore would need to take into consideration the scope of using such new GM products for years on human consumers.

In a nutshell, there is no test currently available or conceivable that would satisfy you that any particular GM food is safe.

Question 2 - what test would convince you that a new non-GM food is safe? To clarify this could be some new cross breed, some random fluke of nature, or some fruit from the depths of the Amazon that only a few people have ever seen before. The point being that it is a foodstuff that the vast majority of the population has never encountered, but which is natural or could arise through natural means.

Important notes: If your answer to 2 is different from your answer to the first question, how can you logically justify it? If your wariness of GM-foods is on safety grounds, and not merely a knee-jerk reaction based on the natural=good fallacy they should surely be subject to the same testing requirements.

If your answer to 2 is the same as your answer to 1, then foodstuffs can never be considered safe, and no amount of testing can convince you otherwise. In which case all cross breeding and natural variation in food crops should be regarded as being as undisproveably dangerous as GM foods.

So while i would be more lenient in regards to actual GM products which are argued to be evidently just GM enhancements of procedures previously also in use (as in traditional modification), i am not at all willing to accept the heavier GM going around, which i do suspect as being not only potentially very harmfull, but at this point likely to be termed as very careless as well.

Do you have sufficient knowledge of genetic engineering and biochemistry to know what's "heavier" GM and what isn't, let alone whether it is being handled carefully or not?