Monsanto gives up fight for GM plants in Europe

[Tiberius]

nope. only studies which make assertions and predictions and conclude that longterm studies are needed.

Right, glad you admit that. So, come back when you have some actual studies that back up your points, then you can argue tham properly.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

This was unnecessary. Stop wasting pixels on my screen.

First you should show where I claim that what the farmer grows has an impact on cities.

Right here:

Not when it can have negative effects on the surrounding fields, woods, natural habitats, cities and the customers of the food he produces.

Bolding mine. It's no wonder you're so terrible at debating when you can't even remember half the stuff you've said.

Rich kids who never had to work for their life throughout a day of their life - by in large usualy are.

That you think I'm a rich kid is hilarious. As for never working; I have a job that I work hard at. In another thread, didn't you say you were unemployed?

not my native language - doesnt make a case for disqualification.

I've covered this before. Go learn the fucking language if you want to participate in a forum which uses it. It does make a case for disqualification, because if you can't present your ideas in a manner which is understandable, you have no place here.

I mentioned that it is in a german paper. You dont speak german, and even if I gave a link - you would bitch arround.

There is such a thing as translation software. If the paper is important enough, someone will have written it up elsewhere as well. It should also be referenced in other papers (you can check this on Google Scholar).

If small buisnesses go down - bigger ones can be less concerned with consumer rights and produce shit to sell.

The idea is, if farmers use crops which grow faster and produce bigger yields, they can make the same amount of profit by doing less work. They could also grow other types of crops and expand their business.

it isnt prominent, I dont know. You dont know. No one knows.

So stop arguing it like you do know, or that it is fact!

Other than that, I am certain it will have an effect and I am even more certain that it will not happen within years but through a long process - and therefor may show up after 30 or 40 years.

You've repeatedly shown in this post that your "certainty" is based on nothing but faith. You have no studies to back up your certainty. All you have are studies that say more studies should be done.

Yes, because it is an advantage in the survival of the fitest

You still ignore the fact that these are not wild crops; they are controlled by a farmer. Survival of the crops is ultimately up to the farmer. If he detects crops which are from Monsanto seed that he didn't plant, he can remove them. Likewise, the farmer doesn't start the harvest when the first crops are ready; he does it when all the crops are ready.

I am talking about the concern for the ecological surroundings, not the concerns of other farmers.

You still haven't explained what those concerns actually are. You said that genetically superior crops take over the other crops living space, but that isn't true, especially with the Monsanto seeds. So what else are you concerned about?

Did you really think I didnt know that?

YES! Considering you thought that regulation meant "just tell[ing] them" what to do and "trust[ing] them" not to anything else.

I will simply ask for proof for every single one of your statements aswell if you cant resist continuing to do that.

Do so if you want. I'm not making very many claims here. I'm just refuting stuff you are saying, or demanding evidence for your claims. The claims I've made about Monsanto seed can all be verified online.

It is pointless. it is a law concerning germany, you are a british isolationist living in a country with a non important agriculture sector and your enviorment has already been destroyed for 100 years.

If it is pointless, why are you still debating me?

This debate has never been about the law in Germany. It's been about your claims about Monsanto seeds and GM in general. Also, I'm not a British isolationist, and the British agricultural sector is very important; we provide a lot of food for the UK, as well as exporting to the EU.

Got any evidence to support your assertion that we've "destroyed" our environment for 100 years? I was out walking today. The environment seemed fine to me.

then follow the question of "What if the people are wrong" with the subject they are wrong about. Otherwise it is vague and generalising.

You wrote:

"We are more transparent and more concerned over what our citizens actualy want."

THAT is a very vague and generalising statement, but that's ok, because it's supposed to be. I'm fine with that; you're talking about general attitudes. I responded with a scenarios that was specific to that attitude:

" ...and what happens when what citizens want is based entirely on delusions and lies?"

I didn't want to know "what if the people are wrong". I wanted to know what happens when citizens base their wants on lies. It doesn't matter what the wants actually are; it's a general question to test your general attitude.

dont be so vague about what the people want and is harmfull. to simply state "a bad thing" will not get a reply.

If you can't see that giving people what they want is harmful if what they want is based on lies and delusions, then I'm not sure how else I can put the point across to you. If people demand free daily palm readings because they think it will let them plan their lives better, and the government bows to their demands, it is a colossal waste of money and ultimately has bad outcomes because palm reading is bullshit.

Likewise, if people demand GM-free food based on lies and misinformation peddled by the anti-GM crowd, and the government passes legislation based on the demand rather than the science, it will also ultimately have a bad outcome, because GM-food is not something people should be frightened of, and it is very beneficial. This isn't just what I'm saying; this is what science is saying.

[Minimalist]

Interesting more as an example of what happens when corporate criminals cannot buy a legislature.

I can only assume that Europe has more effective - or at least some existing - laws against the practice!

[Tiberius]

Interesting more as an example of what happens when corporate criminals cannot buy a legislature.

I can only assume that Europe has more effective - or at least some existing - laws against the practice!

Alternatively, as an example of how anti-GM idiots can convince politicians they are right when they have no evidence and a large group of angry people.

[Something completely different]

What risks? Agriculture and biodiversity are anathema to each other in principle in the first place. If you're growing food you're trying to grow food, not food -plus 40 types of weeds and insects. This is true regardless of what type of seed you use. If you're growing food-plus you're wasting space and resources - and that's harmful, is it not?

A farm isnt a bubble which has no impact on the surrounding ecosystem. The impact of what a farmer does on his field is not just limited to that field. Why do you think it is forbidden to spray mercury (exaggeration) on a field?

Where are the longterm studies for non-gmo crops? Seems to me that any invocation of how ag reduces biodiversity refers to non-gmos by default.

I never proposed an alternative.

[The Grand Nudger]

Wouldn't it be so much more tenable to bar Monsanto itself, as a corporate entity, on grounds of ethics - rather than GMOs?
(consider, btw Min, that the anti GMO crowd are also corporate cocksuckers with monied interests, lobbyists, and paid-for politicians)

[Minimalist]

Interesting more as an example of what happens when corporate criminals cannot buy a legislature.

I can only assume that Europe has more effective - or at least some existing - laws against the practice!

Alternatively, as an example of how anti-GM idiots can convince politicians they are right when they have no evidence and a large group of angry people.

We have protesters too, but they can't defeat the money that the criminals use to bribe congress.

I know that goes against your sensitivities, though.

[LastPoet]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FONN-0uoTHI

[The Grand Nudger]

-and sometimes, one set of criminals manages to out-bribe another. Farmer John doesn't exactly have the funds necessary to defeat or even challenge Monsanto.

[Something completely different]

Right, glad you admit that. So, come back when you have some actual studies that back up your points, then you can argue tham properly.

Alternatively you can come back when you can justify why the risk is worth taking.

Bolding mine. It's no wonder you're so terrible at debating when you can't even remember half the stuff you've said.

You judge my memory capacities and my debating skills on the basis that I forgot that I wrote a sigle word.

I might aswell ask why you soley concentrated on that word whilest ignoring the natural enviorment and the potential impact GMo might have there.

That you think I'm a rich kid is hilarious. As for never working; I have a job that I work hard at. In another thread, didn't you say you were unemployed?

I scrubbed toilets for 1 year, did bar and cleaning jobs for 4 years and worked in a home for mentaly disabled people for one on german wages under german work hours. Go judge someone elses workmoral.

I've covered this before. Go learn the fucking language if you want to participate in a forum which uses it. It does make a case for disqualification, because if you can't present your ideas in a manner which is understandable, you have no place here.

You, craterhorus, Vincent Vinny and ideolog008 are the only ones who see this as valid. Got some nice company there.

There is such a thing as translation software. If the paper is important enough, someone will have written it up elsewhere as well. It should also be referenced in other papers (you can check this on Google Scholar).

I would have to find it, find the phrase, copy it, transelate it and post it here - just for your royal ass. it exists and was part of a list why the EU - US free trade agreement will probably fail.
The chlorin part is what I remember because it was quoted by the german foreign minister.

The idea is, if farmers use crops which grow faster and produce bigger yields, they can make the same amount of profit by doing less work. They could also grow other types of crops and expand their business.

Farmers are then also bound to buy the fertilisers and pesticides provided by monsanto - therby they drop out of the market competition and depend for their existance on the price which monsanto sets.

So stop arguing it like you do know, or that it is fact!

I know for a fact that it hasnt been proven to be riskless - can you prove the opposite?

You've repeatedly shown in this post that your "certainty" is based on nothing but faith. You have no studies to back up your certainty. All you have are studies that say more studies should be done.

Nope, not faith, concern over a gamble with potentialy dangerous outcome.

You still ignore the fact that these are not wild crops; they are controlled by a farmer. Survival of the crops is ultimately up to the farmer. If he detects crops which are from Monsanto seed that he didn't plant, he can remove them. Likewise, the farmer doesn't start the harvest when the first crops are ready; he does it when all the crops are ready.

Crops will spread beyond the farm and pests which addapted to pestecides will aswell, other than that pestecides which are addpted to the addaptationprocess of pests will cause even more harm in the ecological surroundings.

You still haven't explained what those concerns actually are. You said that genetically superior crops take over the other crops living space, but that isn't true, especially with the Monsanto seeds. So what else are you concerned about?

.

I have. Find it yourself in the previous posts.

YES! Considering you thought that regulation meant "just tell[ing] them" what to do and "trust[ing] them" not to anything else.

How do you assert what I think?

Do so if you want. I'm not making very many claims here. I'm just refuting stuff you are saying, or demanding evidence for your claims. The claims I've made about Monsanto seed can all be verified online.

The claims I make can be aswell

If it is pointless, why are you still debating me?

Why are you replying?

This debate has never been about the law in Germany. It's been about your claims about Monsanto seeds and GM in general. Also, I'm not a British isolationist, and the British agricultural sector is very important; we provide a lot of food for the UK, as well as exporting to the EU.

The ban on monsanto was passed in Germany.

lol rhubarb, salmon and lamb.

Got any evidence to support your assertion that we've "destroyed" our environment for 100 years? I was out walking today. The environment seemed fine to me.

Dumping nuclear waste into the channel and a 200 year coal industry.
It might not be as brutal as some eastern european chemical production sights and the districsts they belong to, but it certainly is worse than most of western Europe. Although I have to say that this is merely an assertion of mine.

You wrote:

"We are more transparent and more concerned over what our citizens actualy want."

THAT is a very vague and generalising statement, but that's ok, because it's supposed to be. I'm fine with that; you're talking about general attitudes. I responded with a scenarios that was specific to that attitude:

" ...and what happens when what citizens want is based entirely on delusions and lies?"

I didn't want to know "what if the people are wrong". I wanted to know what happens when citizens base their wants on lies. It doesn't matter what the wants actually are; it's a general question to test your general attitude.

Wont happen within the next years, transparency works against that, adding to that we have the best and most honest press in Europe.

If you can't see that giving people what they want is harmful if what they want is based on lies and delusions, then I'm not sure how else I can put the point across to you. If people demand free daily palm readings because they think it will let them plan their lives better, and the government bows to their demands, it is a colossal waste of money and ultimately has bad outcomes because palm reading is bullshit.

There is a difference between creating a law based on nonsence which can be overturned later and something really stupid like overturning democracy.

Likewise, if people demand GM-free food based on lies and misinformation peddled by the anti-GM crowd, and the government passes legislation based on the demand rather than the science, it will also ultimately have a bad outcome, because GM-food is not something people should be frightened of, and it is very beneficial. This isn't just what I'm saying; this is what science is saying.

science payed by monsanto. pay a physist a hundred million and he will put up a theory disproving relativity.

Most controversial laws are passed here after they have undergone a comissions investigation. the conclusions of that investigation are then presented to the parlaimant which can then decide.
And our goverment is known to make decisions of which the broader public usualy does not approve of and only changes course when proven wrong or when protests brake out.

[The Grand Nudger]

What risks?