Monsanto's GMO Crops Banned by Two More European Nations

[villager]

<snip>

Lativia and Greece have chosen the “opt-out” clause of a European Union rule passed in March that allows member countries to abstain from growing GM crops, even if they are authorized by the EU. Scotland and Germany also made headlines in recent weeks for seeking a similar ban on GMOs.

According to Reuters, in many European countries, there is widespread criticism against the agribusiness giant’s pest-resistant crops, claiming that GM-cultivation threatens biodiversity.

Monsanto said it would abide by Latvia’s and Greece’s request to not grow the crops. The company, however, accused the two countries of ignoring science and refusing GMOs out of “arbitrary political grounds.”

In a statement, Monsanto said that the move from the two countries “contradicts and undermines the scientific consensus on the safety of MON810.”

Monsanto also told Reuters that since the growth of GM-crops in Europe is so small, the opt-outs will not affect their business.

“Nevertheless,” the company continued, “we regret that some countries are deviating from a science-based approach to innovation in agriculture and have elected to prohibit the cultivation of a successful GM product on arbitrary political grounds.”

According to NewsWire, the EU’s opt-out clause “directly confronts U.S. free trade deal supported by EU, under which the Union should open its doors widely for the US GM industry.”

<snip>

http://www.alternet.org/environment/monsantos-gmo-crops-banned-two-more-european-nations

[GitRDun]

1. HuckleB says GMO products are safe, so don't worry.

[villager]

2. Is HuckleB going to take up the "Drink a cup of Roundup" challenge?

Because it's, you know, so harmless and all?

[GitRDun]

3. Maybe so. He's up and down this other thread spreading the cheer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7141322

[NuclearDem]

4. As soon as the organic shills start their all-cowshit diet.

Because, you know, natural.

[villager]

6. Actually, thanks to you in the "I love industrial food" crowd, we're drowning in cow shit

...because cows are now "industrial products."

We could do with less of that, too.

So hey -- pack up some cow shit with your pesticides on the way out the door! Thanks!

[NuclearDem]

8. What do you think organic producers use to fertilize their fields? Fairy dust?

[villager]

9. You don't read posts very well, do you?

Or know much about industrial food production vs. organic, I guess.

That's okay.

[NuclearDem]

10. I read your post just fine.

That you label the sides as "organic" and "industrial farming", when organic food is a multibillion dollar industrialized business itself, says all I need to know about what you think you know about the subject.

[villager]

12. Your willful misunderstandings of how industrial food production works,

including why we have such an excess of cow shit -- I'm not just referring to the content of some posts here, but the real deal -- are also quite revelatory.

Or, perhaps, confirming.

Thanks.

[NuclearDem]

16. Hey, if you want to keep believing organic food is just produced by lowly Mom'n'Pops

and apparently grows and harvests thanks to elves and the magic of friendship, knock yourself out.

[villager]

19. Agreed that a lot of your industry pals got their government to expand the definition of "organic"

...so it's not exactly what it once was.

Still, you're free to gobble down the extra side of pesticides and antibiotics if you wanna...

Which, apparently, you do.

[HuckleB]

26. Link to government changes of organic from the date the USDA approved the marketing term?

You do realize it's just a random marketing term, right?

[villager]

27. You are also free to take the "Roundup challenge," HuckleB

Few on this board unquestioningly love large agri-corporations and pesticides to the degree you do.

Presumably, you'd have no hesitancy in slurping down a cup of some of your favorite stuff on Earth.

[HuckleB]

28. In other words, you can't support your claims with a consensus of science.

You just post ridiculous attacks that serve no purpose, and have no content. And you can't support your claim! No one is surprised!

Lame.

[villager]

29. Yes, whatever HuckleB.

Though I would think, in the service of your corporate overlords, you'd at least write cleverer stuff than that.

[HuckleB]

30. And now the shill gambit.

[villager]

31. Well, perhaps if you did less shilling....?

[HuckleB]

32. So, to you, standing up for science against baseless fear mongering is shilling?

Interesting.

[villager]

33. "Baseless!" So you *are* ready to slurp down that glass of Roundup!

Enjoy!

[HuckleB]

34. Thanks for proving my point.

[villager]

35. And you, mine!

Sweet dreams, HuckleB!

[HuckleB]

36. What point do you think you're making? (Oh, you're going silent now. LOL!)

[merrily]

37. Jury results

You are also free to take the "Roundup challenge," HuckleB
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7148900

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This poster is doing nothing but making ugly attacks on others, asking them to drink Roundup, since he/she can't discuss the issues constructively. DU has a very big problem with this poster, in particular, as well as others who bully and rant, but never support their claims, or even attempt to engage in constructive discussion.


Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter: You alerted on a pattern of posting behavior but did not prove it. The post on which you alerted does none of the things about which you are complaining. Also, your alert is a bit of rant.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Argue the point, not the person.

[villager]

38. I love the projection in that alert about the bullying and ranting!

It's either quite sad, or quite hilarious, or maybe both.

But it's certainly quite telling.

[merrily]

40. Hi, just posting results for transparency.

I am not looking to get into the "food fight" (pun intended). At least not this morning. This morning, I have bigger fish to fry (no pun intended).

[villager]

41. Yeah, stay the heck away from this cafeteria, with its unlabeled food and all!

Thanks for posting the results!

[merrily]

43. LOL. While I am neither organic all the time nor vegan, I do try to

eat things that are as close to their original state as possible (God, do I miss Cheez Its, though. The stuff you fall in love with as a kid!)

But, whatever I choose to eat, I do believe I have a right to know what I am paying for and what I am putting into my body.

[progressoid]

44. How about drink a cup of "natural" herbicide?

A popular one is concentrated vinegar (20% acidic acid) and salt.

Very hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation. Hazardous in case of skin contact (corrosive, permeator), of eye contact (corrosive). Liquid or spray mist may produce tissue damage particularly on mucous embranes of eyes, mouth and respiratory tract. Skin contact may produce burns. Inhalation of the spray mist may produce severe irritation of respiratory tract, characterized by coughing, choking, or shortness of breath. Inflammation of the eye is characterized by redness, watering, and itching. Skin inflammation is characterized by itching, scaling, reddening, or, occasionally, blistering.

Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation. CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Mutagenic for mammalian somatic cells. Mutagenic for bacteria and/or yeast. TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Not available. The substance may be toxic to kidneys, mucous membranes, skin, teeth. Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage. Repeated or prolonged contact with spray mist may produce chronic eye irritation and severe skin irritation. Repeated or prolonged exposure to spray mist may produce respiratory tract irritation leading to frequent attacks of bronchial infection.

[villager]

45. gosh, good thing they're not engineering crops to require excessive amounts of vinegar ...

...dumped in soils, waterways, etc.!

But of course, they wouldn't -- vinegar isn't proprietary!

[progressoid]

46. So it's OK to use poisons as long as they aren't proprietary?

Actually using vinegar is would be more dangerous since it kills indiscriminately.

[villager]

47. So it's OK to use poisons as long as they're proprietary?

And you're quite free to swap out Roundup for vinegar in your household uses, any time!

[progressoid]

48. So you agree.

It's OK to use the poison as long as Monsanto doesn't make it.

[villager]

49. So you agree.

It's OK to use the poison as long as Monsanto makes it.

[progressoid]

50. Nope.

I don't agree with that.

[villager]

51. Well, good! Welcome to the side of light then...

The ability to grow food should not be proprietary. Nor should food should be "engineered" to be grown with proprietary, toxic, carcinogenic corporate "products," either....

[progressoid]

53. If only it were that simple.

There are non-GMO crops where farmers have to sign proprietary agreements. This includes the non-GMO sunflowers, which Chipotle switched to when they decided to go non-GMO.

[villager]

54. So you linked to a BASF site, which kind of proves the point

GMO is in the service of the greater drive to make "all things growing" as proprietary as possible.

[progressoid]

56. Proprietary seed existed before GMOs.

[villager]

59. And GMOs make the "proprietary" aspects easier to pursue -- i.e., with drifting genetic material,

etc., and the proprietary poisons designed to go along with them.

[LanternWaste]

57. the only way we can feel a presumptive victory is when we tell other people what they believe.

Sometimes, the only way we can feel a presumptive victory is when we tell other people what they believe, what they agree with, or what they feel.

Many televangelists do that often on Sunday mornings. Soon-to-come rationalizations aside, you're in good pretty company...

[progressoid]

58. Thank you.

[closeupready]

18. Haha, I know, right.

[Juicy_Bellows]

5. At this point Monsanto can suck it.

Safe. Ok. I'll concede that point because there's not a lot of evidence to the contrary, at least not yet. However, the patenting of seeds should be forbidden and illegal - it's amoral.

[GreatGazoo]

21. Monsanto's own guidelines say that you should plant non-GMO corn near your MON810

because MON810 creates resistant corn borer worms. In other words their technology quickly destroys its own effectiveness and creates resistant insects and weeds like this palmer amaranth in Iowa.

http://www.merid.org/en/Content/News_Services/Food_Security_and_AgBiotech_News/Articles/2014/Jun/24/Iowa.aspx

GMO crops are a system -- the Roundup Ready GMOs are designed to be used with lots of pesticide and they are. That's one of the safety issues.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/

[cpwm17]

7. We have a lot a geniuses here on DU that think they know more than the overwhelming

majority of the scientific community. Me, I prefer to go with those that have spent their lives studying the subject: actual scientists.

Don't be of the belief that somehow the European public knows more than the scientific community. Remember, homeopaths and anti-vaxxers are more common in Europe than in the US. They tend to fall for that kind of stuff.

[progressoid]

23. ^^^this^^^

[djean111]

11. How, exactly, did we get to that pathetic point at which a corporation feels that entire countries

MUST buy its products? How did we get to a place where a corporation feels it has a right to tell consumers that they are not entitled to a choice about what to eat?

Why do corporations feel they have a right to dictate to consumers? That is ridiculous.

It doesn't matter, the weird authoritarian directives about how me must all be on The Same Page (Page picked out by someone else, ya know) - at the end of the day, why do people feel they have a right to tell me what I have to buy.

[cpwm17]

13. Did you read the headline?: "Monsanto's GMO Crops Banned by Two More European Nations."

Last edited Tue Sep 8, 2015, 01:46 AM - Edit history (1)

Who's the authoritarian here?

Some people think they know more than the scientific community and now they have successfully prevented more farmers from planting perfectly safe crops.

[djean111]

14. Are you saying that the farmers are not planting safe crops if they do not plant GM crops?

That GM crops are the only safe crops? Why not leave it up to the farmers?

Because profit, that's why.

Oh, and yes, i read the headline, and I would not be surprised if the TTIP or other trade agreement does not allow Monsanto to sue countries if they refuse to plant Monsanto's seeds.

[cpwm17]

15. It appears that many European governments are banning GMO's.

That's authoritarianism. Farmers aren't then allowed to grow them. There is no scientific bases to do this.

[DFW]

20. We banned DDT

Our farmers aren't allowed to use it. I guess that's authoritarianism, too.

Monsanto says Roundup, a product in which they have a huge financial interest, is completely safe. Many scientists feel otherwise. The same company says GMO food, a product in which they have a huge financial interest, is completely safe. I don't blame Europe for being cautious. And the fact that Monsanto says no one has the right to know if their food is GMO or not is like saying no one has the right to know what brand of ice cream they're buying. It should be up to the consumer of a product to decide whether or not to purchase it, not the company selling it.

[cpwm17]

22. I was responding to the backwards logic of post 11

Last edited Sat Sep 5, 2015, 12:54 PM - Edit history (1)

which accused the pro-GMO side of engaging in authoritarianism, when it was the anti-GMO side that was banning GMO's.

The use of herbicides is not unique to GMO's so that is not a good reason to label GMO's. There is no logical or scientifically valid reason to label them. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community agree on that, and no, most of the scientists are independent of Monsanto. It isn't some big conspiracy as many around here claim.

The professional pro-labeling proponents often do have a financial interests in promoting their more expensive "organic" products.

[progressoid]

24. So if one product was bad, the others must be too?

Also, the Consensus on GMO Safety Firmer Than For Human-Induced Climate Change

In sharp contrast to public views about GMOs, 89% of scientists believe genetically modified foods are safe.

That's the most eye-opening finding in a Pew Research Center study on science literacy, undertaken in cooperation with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and released on January 29.

The overwhelming scientific consensus exceeds the percentage of scientists, 88%, who think humans are mostly responsible for climate change. However, the public appears far more suspicious of scientific claims about GMO safety than they do about the consensus on global warming.

[katsy]

52. Science doesn't stop evolving.

Once they thought smoking was ok

It's not

Lead in paint... There's thousands of examples where what was once good science got BETTER and/or corrected itself.

[Lee-Lee]

55. So your saying ignore science now and do the opposite of what it says

Hoping it "evolves" to fit your views that currently go against the scientific consensus?

That's climate change denial type logic...

[katsy]

60. BS

I stated what facts show.

Science evolves.

End of my statement.

U want to read shit into that... Ur prerogative but u don't define me by that.

Humans can make their own judgements about scientific data especially when it involves ingesting food into their bodies.

I'm not anti vaxxer both my children have all vaccines. I'm not a climate denier all evidence is there for me to understand.

But I'll be damned if I knowingly feed my family gmos bcuz that goes against ALL my common sense that insecticides/herbicides are freaking just dandy. Pfuck that noise. I have the right to know understand and want to buy what I want for my family.

No.

I don't trust Monsanto. I will never trust anything they peddle. Never.

And people can live just fine without their crap so NO HARM DONE to society. The anti vaxxer bs is just that. Bs. No one is harmed by ME rejecting gmos where possible. That is such a shit analogy.

Same with climate denying. One or two corporations have nothing to gain by cleaning the environment. So YES I believe climate change is caused by humans.

Monsanto/bayer have no value to me nor does their approach to scientific studies.

[NuclearDem]

62. ...

But I'll be damned if I knowingly feed my family gmos bcuz that goes against ALL my common sense that insecticides/herbicides are freaking just dandy. Pfuck that noise. I have the right to know understand and want to buy what I want for my family.

And organic food manufacturers just use fairy dust and the magic of friendship on their crops.

[DFW]

61. Like any foreign policy initiative supported by Dick Cheney

The source is immediately grounds for intense skepticism. Same goes for the manufacturer and promoter of Roundup.

A product that is blatantly unsafe (Roundup) is promoted by an unscrupulous manufacturer (Monsanto). Is the GMO food made and promoted by this same manufacturer safe? They say so. A minority of scientists say no, and others say the jury is still out. A majority says they're safe? Fine. I still defend my right to know what I'm buying. I sure as hell wouldn't buy a generic pesticide without knowing if it's Roundup (or worse). Why should it not be my right to know if food is GMO? Monsanto certainly has financial means equal or greater to the producers of "organic" foods to promote their own products, if they're so wonderful.

[arikara]

17. Science and monsanto

kind of reminds me of Bush and his faith based crap.

[orange you glad]

25. Socialism!

And I love it!

[HuckleB]

39. Can anyone answer this question?

Can you name a safety risk associated with genetic engineering that could not also be applied to other plant breeding methods?

PS: https://www.uq.edu.au/news/node/117763

[Marrah_G]

42. Monsanto is a predatory company

[Dont call me Shirley]

63. Yes! Time for USA to ban gmos and Monsanto while they're at it.