Why does Europe hate GM food and is it about to change its mind?

Jul 06, 2014 by Eric Randolph
A woman holds a sign during a demonstration against agribusiness giant Monsanto and genetically modified organisms (GMO) in front of the White House in Washington on May 25, 2013

While the United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina and China and many other countries have warmly embraced genetically modified crops, Europe remains the world's big holdout.

Could this be about to change? New European Union rules now seek to clear up years of internal deadlock that could, in theory, lead to widespread cultivation of GM foods. But the fight is far from over.

The EU's great GM debate pits two powerful forces against each other: green campaigners concerned about the effect of the crops on health and the environment, and the agri-business lobby, which argues that Europe, by resisting a technology that boosts yields and rural incomes, is losing its place at the forefront of agricultural innovation.

Only five EU countries grow GM crops at all—Spain, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Romania and Slovakia -– and in such tiny quantities that they accounted for less than 0.1 percent of global GM cultivation last year, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, which monitors the industry.

Europe's fragmented politics, diverse landscapes and smaller scale farming traditions have made it less compatible with the mass-farming techniques in the Americas and China. Only one type of modified crop – a herbicide-resistant maize – is approved for cultivation in the EU, compared to 96 commercial licences granted in the United States since 1990, although Europe does import more than 30 million tonnes of GM grain for animal feed each year.

"Europe has perversely condemned itself to importing crops which its farmers could grow locally and banished thousands of bright scientists to other shores for reasons that are scientifically bogus," claims Brandon Mitchener, a Brussels spokesman for Monsanto, one of the US agribusinesses leading the push for GM crops.

Hoping to find a way out of the deadlock, EU environment ministers last month approved new rules that would permit individual countries to make their own decisions on GM—allowing them to use "ethical" or "public order" rationales to ban crops even when scientific advisors have ruled that these strains are safe.

The compromise was the result of a fraught battle, says Frederic Vincent, health spokesman for the European Commission: "Everyone was blocking the agreement for different reasons. The UK said not enough was left to science, France said too much was left to science, Germany was a mix of both thanks to its complex coalition."

Mad cow impact

Genetic modification technology was not always so controversial in Europe. Even France, now one of its staunchest opponents, grew GM maize well into the 2000s until green protesters pressured the government into a ban.

Demonstrators stage a sit-in to protest an experiemntal trial of genetically modified wheat in Harpenden, Hertfordshire, on May 27, 2012

But Mitchener says the seeds of Europe's aversion to GM were sown in the 1990s, thanks to two factors in particular: the strength of the Green party in Germany at the crucial moment when the technology was first emerging, and then the scare over mad cow disease in Britain.

"Mad cow disease caused a loss of public confidence in science. You had the British government saying beef was safe, while the EU said the opposite," he says.

Unlike the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which commands widespread respect in the United States, equivalent bodies in Europe are often treated as pawns of industry or simply ignored, Mitchener adds.

"The tragedy of biotech in Europe is that no one listens to EFSA," he says, referring to the European Food Safety Authority, a scientific body set up partly in reaction to the confusion. It has consistently stated there is no risk from GM crops.

Pro-GM scientists argue GM is not inherently more dangerous to either the environment or human health than any other method of crop mutation—whether through selective breeding or naturally through evolution.

Or, for that matter, by blasting seeds with radiation, as humans have been doing for decades through the process of "mutagenesis", hoping to create mutant seeds with useful properties. More than 2,500 crops have been created in this way, including a premium barley used in Scotch whisky and disease-resistant cocoa in Guinean chocolate.

"In fact, GM is actually safer than most forms of breeding because we know exactly which properties are being implanted—it's much less random," argues Huw Jones, a GM scientist at Rothamsted Research in the UK.

Science consensus 'myth'

But Greenpeace, one of the most vocal opponents, dismisses the idea of a scientific consensus on GM safety as "a myth".

Anti-genetically modified organism (GMO) activists clash with gendarmes, on April 15, 2013 at the entrance of a plant of the US multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation Monsanto in Trebes, southwestern France

It argues that continued gaps in knowledge about gene manipulation should raise alarm bells, especially as the technology moves beyond single-gene transfers and into more complex experiments.

It also portrays GM technology as a symbol of all that is wrong with modern mass-farming techniques.

"GM crops are presented as a solution, but they are part of the problem. They are a product of a wider agricultural system that is destroying our environment. They lead to more uniformity and even greater economies of scale, when what we need is greater diversity," says Marco Contiero, EU agricultural policy director for Greenpeace.

That ties in with familiar concerns about the way GM crops are commercialised. It costs the big agrochemical firms such as Monsanto or Bayer around $200 million (140 million euros) to develop the simplest GM seed, Greenpeace says, and that gets recouped through aggressive marketing and monopoly ownership of seeds that have made Monsanto in particular the bête noire of the green movement.

All this means that the newly minted EU deal—due to go before the European Parliament and Council by the end of the year—still faces major obstacles.

Environmentalists such as Jose Bove, a French Green MEP who went on hunger strike in 2008 to force France's first GM ban, complain the agreement will give gives biotech firm a direct role in lobbying governments, threatens single market principles and does nothing to protect cross-border contamination from GM seeds planted in neighbouring countries.

With the EU still poring over the results of May Euro-elections, it is unclear how the looming political battle will pan out. Even if the GM directive passes, will national governments court the ire of environmental campaigners by permitting large-scale GM cultivation?

"We're creating organisms that haven't been created in the whole of history," says Contiero. "We are not opposed to GM in principle, but this technology is only 20 years old. For that reason, we need to be absolutely cautious."

Explore further: 'EU reaches compromise deal on GM crops'

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

'EU reaches compromise deal on GM crops'

May 28, 2014

After years of fractious talks, EU states have finally reached a compromise to allow cultivation of genetically modified (GM) food crops by giving their opponents an opt out, official sources said Wednesday.

EU to allow states to decide to grow GM foods

Jun 12, 2014

The European Union will allow member countries to make their own decisions on growing genetically modified (GM) food in a compromise deal on Thursday that followed years of fraught discussions.

France definitively bans GM corn

May 05, 2014

France definitively banned the growing of genetically modified corn on Monday after its highest court and Senate both confirmed an existing ban.

Monsanto drops bid to grow new GM foods in EU

Jul 18, 2013

US agro-chemicals giant Monsanto said Thursday it will drop all requests to be allowed to grow new genetically modified foods in the European Union, which has for years held up approval.

Poland bans cultivation of GM maize, potatoes

Jan 02, 2013

Poland on Wednesday imposed new bans on the cultivation of certain genetically modified strains of maize and potatoes, a day after an EU required green light for GM crops took effect.

Plant scientists call for rethink of GM crop regulation

Mar 20, 2014

In a report to the Council for Science and Technology, which advises the Prime Minister on science policy, the scientists warn that unless GM crops are regulated at national, rather than at EU level, European ...

Recommended for you

The origin of the language of life

Dec 19, 2014

The genetic code is the universal language of life. It describes how information is encoded in the genetic material and is the same for all organisms from simple bacteria to animals to humans. However, the ...

Quest to unravel mysteries of our gene network

Dec 18, 2014

There are roughly 27,000 genes in the human body, all but a relative few of them connected through an intricate and complex network that plays a dominant role in shaping our physiological structure and functions.

EU court clears stem cell patenting

Dec 18, 2014

A human egg used to produce stem cells but unable to develop into a viable embryo can be patented, the European Court of Justice ruled on Thursday.

User comments : 40

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (22) Jul 06, 2014
have warmly embraced genetically modified crops

'warmly embraced'? You mean as in "warmly embraced at the point of an (economic sanctions) gun"?
Yeah. Right.

The reason Europe hasn't started using the GM gunk is because we have eyes (just look at what it is doing to the people who have a large amount of that type of food in their diet. Have you looked at images of city folk in the US and compared them to anywhere else lately? How about the health statistics?)

...and Europe has the economic wherewithal not to be bullied into using the stuff.

So, Monsanto, you can keep your GM foods and put it on the platters of your CEOs. Oh...they don't eat it either? Well f***ing fancy that.
Returners
4 / 5 (12) Jul 06, 2014
"We're creating organisms that haven't been created in the whole of history," says Contiero. "We are not opposed to GM in principle, but this technology is only 20 years old. For that reason, we need to be absolutely cautious."


I agree, in principle.

I wouldn't mind if they limited activity to only using genes that already exist within the corn (or grain) population, but the genes they are using produce neurotoxins.

As a person with a neurological disorder (neuropathy) that PISSES me off.

Botulinum is in EVERYTHING that is processed now. Pre-packaged cornbread mixes, cakes, and other baked goods, processed meats, it's in the animal feed, and God knows what it breaks down into and accumulates as in their bodies.

If you want corn to produce better, try manipulating it's own genes to make it grow an extra Ear per stalk, or something.

Don't put DNA to code for nerve toxins in our food. It's UN-WISE.

Anthrax somehow jumped containment....."safe science" arguments are Bull...
BSD
4.4 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2014
We don't like it here in South Australia either.

Aside from the Frankenstein science, Monsanto and others like them, use GM to price gouge and litigate others, even if their shit escapes to another farmer's crops through cross pollination.

Monsanto et al, stick your GM shit up your corporate arses.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
2.2 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2014
Nice to know about EFSA, has the same excellent role as IPCC (if only regionally)!

But oy! ""We're creating organisms that haven't been created in the whole of history," says Contiero." _Evolution_ creates organisms that haven't been created in the whole of history, all the time. Greenpeace should forbid nature.

"a wider agricultural system that is destroying our environment. They lead to more uniformity". Another problem for Greenpeace activists is that recent, extensive results show all agrarian methods used today result in the same diversity in the margins. I.e. using no pesticides or herbicides makes no difference there. It increases diversity _within the fields_, by allowing pests migrating in from the margins...

Re the safety of massive randomness of genetic sweeps vs directed horisontal gene transfer:

[ctd]
EnricM
3.7 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2014
"Europe has perversely condemned itself to importing crops which its farmers could grow locally and banished thousands of bright scientists to other shores for reasons that are scientifically bogus,"

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp


And the benefits of GM are also statistically, scientifically and economically bogus: It has yet to be proven that after decades of GM agriculture any of the Miracles that were announced have actually taken place: No Greening Deserts, no Feeding the Hungry, just the very same crap as during the Green Revolution but with much more control of a few companies over the seeds and thus the production. The only "benefit" is that crops can now be sprayed on with massive doses of herbicides and as these crops go to livestock feed any benefit is lost,

The massive soy plantations in South America aren't possible because they are GM crops, they would have grown there anyway. GM's Wonders are just moot.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
1.8 / 5 (12) Jul 06, 2014
[ctd]

Sweeps is something that man now does to himself extensively as the population grows (making selection more efficient, so producing more sweeps). The sum of negative effects need only to be less than the positive effect of the sweep producing allele. Maybe that is why humans is the only hominid affected by genetic disease like shizophrenia and autims (recently coupled to genes).

While on average all modern genes have been horisontally transferred once. An excellent example is the retrovirus immune system downregulating genes that human, sheep and other animals later have reactivated to allow closer placental embedding than generic mammals. Maybe that is why we can have so long gestation, preparing for a large adult brain.

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
1.7 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2014
[ctd]

Notably, since we are all GM organisms by way of evolution, viruses with their short generation times are most genetically modified. They are also the most successful, with perhaps 10 viruses for every cell. And as the placental example show, they know more about our bodies than our own genes (as they can fool our immune system) by being more GM.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
2.5 / 5 (16) Jul 06, 2014
I'm amazed if not surprised by the massive rejection of science on a science site. Without even trying to refer to science no less.

This is AGW conspiracy theories all over again, with its sordid correlation with the religious mind type. (Religiosity correlates with conspiracy theory adoption. Easy to google up the science.)

Mostly, rejecting GM food (and pushing "organic" alternatives) is a matter of morality, it is preventing equity. Inefficient agrarian methods (like no GM and especially "organic" food, at perhaps 90 % vs 50 % efficiency) means using land for food instead of pristine nature, and preventing poor people from earning money on food production. Both lower social quality.

[Notably, by adopting Greenpeace's food production alternative, half the world would starve to death.]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
2.5 / 5 (17) Jul 06, 2014
@antialias: Your stated reason for not accepting GM is not supported by the article. Clearly the reason is political, putting (uneducated) policies before accepted science.

We don't need more "green" lies about this, so please don't invent new ones.

@BSD: Your "Frankenstein" science was invented by nature. Every human is on average a 100 random mutations "Frankenstein". These methods add 1 precise change, by adopting retroviral gene insertion. ~ 40 % of our genes are "Frankenstein" retroviral, IIRC.

@Enric: You are perhaps the most deluded. No references means no statistical, scientific or economical relevance in your opinion.

I'm no expert, but I read a few weeks back that indeed the deserts have grown smaller since the 60's. (When the "desertification" scare circulated, even in the textbooks at the time.)

And Gapminder statistics, a clearing house like IPCC and EFSA, shows how starvation has diminished very, very, very much.

Little of that due to GM I think, started earlier..
otero
Jul 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
otero
Jul 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EyeNStein
3.7 / 5 (16) Jul 06, 2014
Who wrote this article, Monsanto?
I've rarely seen a more unbalanced piece of "journalism".
At least in Europe this sort of policy isn't so easily bought out by lobbyists for pesticide/herbicide sales companies, with no regard for resulting toxin contamination of food.
If the GM resulted in nitrogen fixing cereal crops, or needed LESS chemicals, Europe would change the policy in a heartbeat.
otero
Jul 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Shootist
1.4 / 5 (18) Jul 06, 2014
Why? Ignorance akin to the warmists.

Ignorance on display right here is our forums.

Why don't you boys go out and complain about vaccines and fluoridation of the water?
rick_cavaretti
4.1 / 5 (15) Jul 06, 2014
Americans never 'warmly embraced genetically modified crops'. We had them shoved down our throats by big agro. We got no vote on the matter.
Tiro
3.1 / 5 (9) Jul 06, 2014
20 years of experience with gm foods is next to nothing if you really want to find out how it affects humans in the long run. You are what you eat...
yoatmon
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2014
The sole interest that American food giants - e.g. Monsanto - have is to patent all their GM crap and monopolize seeds worldwide to let everyone pay for these mental and physical illnesses. Apparently, the Europeans aren't as dumb and gullible as we Americans appear to be and we can only hope that these dirty b......s never gain a foothold in Europe.
As far as the Chinese are concerned, they care less about American patent rights irregardless if they pertain to hardware, software or GM-crap.
otero
Jul 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
otero
Jul 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tekram
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2014
The reason GMO is successful in the US is because the laws are easily manipulated and passed by the GMO industry.
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) is Monsanto's Man in Washington

"Blunt even told Rogers that he "worked with" GMO seed giant Monsanto to craft the rider"

"a recent Senate bill came with a nice bonus for the genetically modified seed industry: a rider, wholly unrelated to the underlying bill, that compels the USDA to ignore federal court decisions that block the agency's approvals of new GM crops. I explained in this post why such a provision, which the industry has been pushing for over a year, is so important to Monsanto and its few peers in the GMO seed industry."
http://www.mother...shington
KelDude
3.9 / 5 (12) Jul 06, 2014
GM products were NOT warmly embraced in Canada! They were shoved down our throats (literally) with not even a label on the product indicating it contains GM food. Companies own the governments in Canada and the US so they "get what they want" with no input from the people! Stick by your guns Europe, don't let Monsanto get started there. We ask our parliamentarians to at least force labeling and we get completely ignored.
julianpenrod
1.9 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2014
A case history, with obvious examples, of a big money scam that sell outs like "government", "science" and the "news" lie to promote. Note the title, for example, saying Europe "hates" genetically modified food and that it might change. Dislike and suspicion and legitimate criticism are so often equated with "hate" in the lying media. And, as the article states, it's not Europe changing its mind, its the bought-and-paid-for "governments"! If they weren't earning the money that the bureaucrats steal, "government" would define itself as the only thing that exists. They certainly act like only their whims matter. And, with people claimed to be getting fatter and fatter, do we really need more farm production? And no "advancement" was ever designed to make the "rank and file" more money! Any extra money in "rural incomes" will be eaten up by the cost of new mandated crop seed from the factory.
Returners
2.8 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
I'm no expert, but I read a few weeks back that indeed the deserts have grown smaller since the 60's. (When the "desertification" scare circulated, even in the textbooks at the time.)


You are misunderstanding.
The "deserts" which are smaller are man-made dried lake beds, which have been having water sprinkled back into them (in small quantities) from other sources in order to prevent the wind from blowing away the soil.

Other deserts, such as around Las Vegas, have been greened a bit, and Las Vegas reuses all of it's water, but they are running out of water as their population grows. In a few decades the entire system will become unsustainable as their population is growing faster than the ability to replace and recycle water.

So this "green" desert you hear about is an unsustainable illusion. Similar problems exist for some aquifers in Africa, though there are enormous amounts of fresh water aquifers, they will go dry one day...with multi-million population cities relying...
Returners
2.4 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2014
The reason Europe hasn't started using the GM gunk is because we have eyes
I'm with Alphanumeric about it here. The CCD syndrome of bees and the white nose syndrome of bats has started in the USA, the rise of allergies and immune syndromes


Neuropathy and Type 2 Diabetes have been increasing sharply in the U.S. in the past 2 decades, conveniently when GM foods were introduced. Small wonder, they produce a neurotoxin...

Increase in a metabolic and neurological disorder precisely coinciding with the introduction of a neurotoxin producing food.....nah....no correlation at all...

They want to blame decreased physical activity and increase sugar intake. Bull. We drank sugary drinks alll the time in the 80's and early 90's, and didn't gain this kind of weight or have these bad nerve disorders.

Now this crap nerve toxin is in all the processed food, fast food, cornbread mix, etc, since the mid 90's, and its exactly when the spike in diabetes and nerve disorders happened.
Returners
3.1 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2014
I even noticed cornbread mixes are being processed poorly again. They have only 4-6% Niacin in them. You're supposed to eat 6 to 11 servings of bread and cereals per day. To make up for this bad health problem, the food industry artficially fortifies breakfast cereals with Niacin, but they don't make it a point that other bread products do not have enough of this essential nutrient. There is 80% in multivitamins, but I can't take multi-vitamins because High Copper and Calcium, found in the same damn multivitamin, enhance NERVE DISORDERS and KIDNEY DISORDERS.

It's almost like the food and drug industry is intentionally trying to make people sick...

Who wants to eat 4 bowls of cheerios every morning just so they don't get Pelagra or some similar deficiency?

They way they process foods is destroying our nutrition, in addition to the engineering.

My step-father, who raises livestock animals all his life, was just talking about how the feed doesn't grow the animals as fast any more.
Returners
2.2 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
He was talking about this because the basic feed, he said, use to produce years ago, the results that only the most expensive feeds produce now. He said he thinks they put dirt or something useless in the basic feeds now, to intentionally make them worthless, so you have to pay for designer feeds to raise an animal. This conversation just happened about an hour or so ago.

I think it's the nerve toxins, for both humans and animals, plus something they are doing to corn during processing for human food. Cornbread is supposed to have more than 6% Niacin per serving, because nobody can eat 18 servings of bread every day to get Niacin.

Then you wonder why we have Psoriasis and Neuropathy everywhere? It's Pelagra, or pre-pelagra, and Type 2 diabetes, and it's the GM food doing it.
BSD
3.6 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2014
Why? Why don't you boys go out and complain about vaccines and fluoridation of the water?


Fluoridation in water has been going on for 50 plus years in South Australia with no ill effects. Nothing wrong with vaccines either. Our capital, Adelaide is now rated as the hottest city in the world, with record temperatures each year, not an enviable record.

Monsanto and the rest of the corporate arseholes like them, with their patents, exist to make money through price gouging and litigation.

It is nothing to do with benefiting humanity. Of course, the Right agrees with that and the corrupt US patent system.
Returners
1.2 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2014
Vaccines were proven safe out of desperation. Sure things were done differently when they were first discovered, but we know they work, and Small Pox was eliminated, and Polio has nearly been eliminated.

If we could get more people to participate (myself included) in other vaccination regimes, we could probably eliminate a few more major bacteria or viral diseases. Like maybe major Flu strains or Strep strains.

Difference is vaccines contain all-natural ingredients (just dead or weakened viruses), and when you give them to someone they get healthier, or they don't get sick to begin with.

When you feed people GM corn for 20 years, it appears they get fatter, weaker, and have skin and nerve problems.

That's the difference.
btb101
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2014
This has to be one of the most biased articles ever to appear on this site.
i ask everyone to research the known effects of GM on rats and mice and then tell me its safe.
only reason why the FDA have approved it is because most of the GMO board members on its staff in key positions. (use wiki if you dont believe me)_
this stuff is poison, yields are NOT greater, chemical usage is greater over time as pests become immune and china has now banned all imports of it.

EU does not want this, except politicians and money makers..
yep
3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
"I'm amazed if not surprised by the massive rejection of science on a science site. Without even trying to refer to science no less."

Which science are you surprised we are rejecting, Monsanto's which assures us GMO's are good for us?
http://www.respon...terility
http://responsibl...sist.pdf
http://responsibl...elds.pdf
http://responsibl...awed.pdf
Liquid1474
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
Consider how THIS time could be the most dangerous in history for our children to grow up in; constant feeding of genetically modified foods and contact with dangerous plastics and materials.

Ive seen articles on here where STRESS alone can alter your genes, so its asinine to think that nanoparticles and genetic modification will not affect OUR genes in some way.

Please, buy NON-GMO/Organic for your sake and your kids.
mountain_team_guy
not rated yet Jul 07, 2014
Very objective, people. Just what I expected here.
ShotmanMaslo
2 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2014
The fact remains that there are very little scientific reasons to object to GM. It is safe to say that this is mostly an internet hysteria circulating among ignorant hippies and pseudo-greens. It is a fad.

I do admit some laws surrounding GM were problematic (suing people for cross-pollination) but thats not an inherent fault of GM and doesnt warrant any bans, just changing the offending law. And I do think GM food should be labeled as such so consumers can make a choice.
alfie_null
4.8 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2014
Alleged problems with existing GM strains are troubling. More troubling is the potential for future abuse. What if researchers produce a crop that is not attractive to pests and which can be harvested in an insanely short period because it is nutrient free? Or engineer addictive caffeine into some innocuous fruit or vegetable? The future potential for abuse is high as the technology matures. Maintaining high levels of skepticism is wise.
bluehigh
3 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2014
Who wrote this article, Monsanto? I've rarely seen a more unbalanced piece of "journalism".


The authors name is clearly displayed. If you can't read that far then you should refrain from comments. Furthermore, please stop whining, his email address is readily available, if you feel so offended ... Tell him.

Eric Randolph is a freelance journalist based in India and the UK. He has previously worked as an analyst and editor at Jane's Intelligence Group in London specialising in international relations and security. He is an editor at Complex Terrain Lab and has contributed to Jane's Intelligence Weekly and Open Democracy. He blogs about India and South Asia at Kikobor.

Technico
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2014
The fact remains that there are very little scientific reasons to object to GM
Because most of counter evidence had been swept under the carpet. With the same relevance we can say, that the cold fusion is impossible, because no one of research centers dedicated money for its systematical study. At the end we will build the megawatt power plants based on phenomena, which the mainstream physics officially claimed impossible - this is the demonstration of money and occupation powered bias, which is driving the priorities of research of contemporary science.

But I already explained too, that the European continent has many additional reasons for not to allow the destruction of cultural and environmental biodiversity, even if we would ignore all potential risks of GMO. We simply don't need (to pay for it) it here - end of story.
ItsThatGuy
1 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
This has to be one of the most biased articles ever to appear on this site.
i ask everyone to research the known effects of GM on rats and mice and then tell me its safe.
only reason why the FDA have approved it is because most of the GMO board members on its staff in key positions. (use wiki if you dont believe me)_
this stuff is poison, yields are NOT greater, chemical usage is greater over time as pests become immune and china has now banned all imports of it.

EU does not want this, except politicians and money makers..


I've done the research, it's safe. You're just repeating disproven talking points either out of knee-jerk, reactionary ignorance or because you have some agenda to push, I just don't know which.

Frankly I find the amount of anti-science sentiment on this site to be appalling.
otero
Jul 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Origin314
5 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2014
"boosts yields and rural incomes" Increased yields GMO are lower than species we've crossbred over the last few hundred years, as for increasing "rural incomes" this is far from true, farmers using GE seeds aren't allowed to save their seeds forcing them to buy their seeds every year instead of saving a small portion of a crop, if they do decide to keep the seeds anyways companies like Monsanto will sue the farmers and litterally bankrupt the farm and ruin peoples lives because they can't afford to buy GE seeds.
sirchick
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2014
In my view we need an entire generation of people to live on a diet of GM to be 100% sure that there is no substantial side effects.

Until then ill stick to nature's method and have them unmodified - nature tends to know best anyway.

I was told USA often lets food to be sold on the market and only removes when proven to be unsafe....which sounds to me like profit before health and safety. I'm so glad i don't live there =/ I'd probably avoid all the food. I ain't taking any risks.
otero
Jul 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
alfsen
5 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2014
Scientists have already produced a variety of corn that, when eaten, induces sterility in humans - intentionally (of course it is not licensed to be grown). The dangers of GMO are enormous, in part because they are using obsolete scientific assumptions. We now know that changing one gene does not necessarily change just one attribute - it could activate or deactivate several other genes simultaneously.

And the notion that Americans have "warmly embraced" GMO is absurd. If Americans loved GMO so much, why does the industry oppose labelling with all the power it can muster?
Caliban
not rated yet Jul 12, 2014
Ok, well --add this to the mix...does this affect anyone's stance on the matter?

GMOs are simply a marketing tool for BigAG and BigCarbonChem, developed and pushed into the market without regard to consequences, other than their own increased profits.

Just because something can be done is not the same as something being done because it should be.

How many times to we have to be reminded of this essential truth?

kees_hessels
not rated yet Jul 12, 2014
It's a little bit a bogus story with an undertine of "oh... these stupid europeans again..." The facts are these:

We Europeans try to take greater care of the possible negative effects of uncontrolled science experiments on our food-chain. None of these gm changes have proven that it is not harmfully on the long run ( decades \ eons timespans). We simply do not now what effects these changes have on a larger timescale. We would like to safeguard our of-spring to unwanted mutations due to the fact that few companies wish to make more dollars now.
It is as simple as that. It is not for keeping the (mostly american ) companies from their profits, however some things you just don't play with. For example you also do not give C4 explosives including detonators to a child. (although the nra would probably tell you that you should (in order to protect yourself of course :) ) .
kees_hessels
not rated yet Jul 12, 2014
What do you mean with biased...

Some keywords:
warmly embraced, Europe's fragmented politics...

This is an article written by a generic journalist with NO scientific background. he gets payed for writing stories and he publishes this as what prove of something ? WTF, does phys.org allow trash journalism as its source for articles now ?

This has nothing to do with science this is just another bingo parlor bogus story.

This story might as well have been paid for by the companies that promote gm foods, for myself i think this is actually paid for directly or indirectly by those that seek profit in selling gm foods
DoieaS
3 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2014
Here are ten scientific studies that identify GMO foods dangerous for human health. For the record, these articles are normal scientific articles/reports, in renown journals and by accredited researchers.
Caliban
not rated yet Jul 13, 2014
Ok, well --add this to the mix...does this affect anyone's stance on the matter?


http://www.altern...amp;t=12

GMOs are simply a marketing tool for BigAG and BigCarbonChem, developed and pushed into the market without regard to consequences, other than their own increased profits.

Just because something can be done is not the same as something being done because it should be.

How many times to we have to be reminded of this essential truth?


Sorry, Kids --didn't notice that the link didn't copy over the frst time I posted this.

Maybe my comment will make more sense and add a little value to the discussion, now that I've included it.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.