Monsanto gives up fight for GM plants in Europe

[Something completely different]

You realise farming in its nature uproots ecosystems right? Fields aren't natural...they are man-made for the purposes of growing a large amount of one crop. At some point, an ecosystem is going to get uprooted. Most fields are left fallow every three years...are you against destroying that practice too?

You do realise that through farming one does not simply seperate oneself from the surrounding ecosystem and create a bubble in which the outside world has no influence in and from which you dont have any influence on the outside.

At the end of the day, it's the farmer who should be making the decision for his fields.

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

Trade doesn't mean you swap food for food. We can always sell excess crops to other countries.

You dont get it do you? Have ever been engaged in a reality outside of your cliche dentist son`s world?

the point of food aid - just like with any aid - is that it is given to the needing for free

If countries / farmers want to give food away for free, that's great. It's still not enough food though, not by a long shot. GMO crops increase the amount of food available, because they are resistant to pests and pesticides.

Food aid is given by goverments who buy food from the farmers who produce it.

And not by the farmers.

Right, but we're talking about farming. It's up to the farmer what crops to plant each year, and they control the ecosystem. As I said before, a farmer often keeps a field fallow every three years or so; destroying any ecosystem that is dependent on crops being there.

A farm is not a bubble which has no influence on the outside ecosystem.

Your words make it seem like Monsanto is going into fields at the dead of night and planting their seeds, which slowly takeover the farm...

That is your interpertation and overly theatrical presentation.

I see geneticaly supirior monsanto seed straying of the fields and pushing away less infirior but natural plants from their natural inhabitat.

IMO, it's a silly fear to have. Just tell Monsanto that they have to produce the seeds inside the EU according to current EU regulations. I'm sure they can skip the whole chlorine process and still sell seeds.

Oh yeah, just tell them...........

What a weard reply. And what then? trust them that they wont produce the products they export to europe according to european laws.

Unfortunately though, the main fear isn't what you said. The main fear is a falsehood perpetuated by the anti-GMO crowd (who are also lobbyists), that GMO crops are dangerous or unhealthy, or whatever lie they decide to tell that day. There is great research into GM crops; they have a great potential for good, but they are blocked for bad reasons.

My main concern is local production and not GMO. I am not anti GMO, but want the local economy to thrive and not to be depending on american low quality food exports.

The debate is irrelevant - German parlament said no and the case is closed.

---

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

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

And what if aliens land and want anal sex?!!!


Stupid what if moaning and sobbing.

The benefit of a european education is that I know what a laconic phrase is.

[Tiberius]

You do realise that through farming one does not simply seperate oneself from the surrounding ecosystem and create a bubble in which the outside world has no influence in and from which you dont have any influence on the outside.

Yes, I do realise that. Do you realise that the farmer owns the fields and can therefore do pretty much whatever he wants with them? He could decide that instead of producing wheat, he now wants a dairy farm, converting all of his fields into pastures. Would that have a knock-on effect for the ecosystem that has so far existed thanks to the wheat fields? Yes. It doesn't matter though; it's not going to somehow destroy all similar ecosystems across the country.

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

What are these negative effects exactly? The Monsanto crop isn't impervious to pests; it's impervious to pesticides. If some of the seed starts to grow in surrounding fields that aren't treated with the Monsanto pesticide, it'll still get eaten by the pests.

Also...most farms aren't near cities.

You dont get it do you? Have ever been engaged in a reality outside of your cliche dentist son`s world?

Dentist son? WTF are you on about?

the point of food aid - just like with any aid - is that it is given to the needing for free

You should really look into aid, because if you think it's all free, you are having a laugh. A lot of government aid is based on loans which need to be repaid.

My point was that we also sell food to other countries that need it.[/quote]

Food aid is given by goverments who buy food from the farmers who produce it.

And not by the farmers.

Food is also sold to other countries who need it, which was my point. Also that more food = more food available to be given / sold to other countries.

A farm is not a bubble which has no influence on the outside ecosystem.

I never said it was.

That is your interpertation and overly theatrical presentation.

I see geneticaly supirior monsanto seed straying of the fields and pushing away less infirior but natural plants from their natural inhabitat.

Again, you don't seem to understand how these plants are genetically "superior". They are resistant not to a pest, but to a pesticide, produced by Monsanto.

If the crop is planted and treated with the Monsanto pesticide, they resist the pesticide and the pesticide kills the pest. If the crop is planted but not treated with the Monsanto pesticide (i.e. it strays to a field that is not using the Monsanto seed), it will be vulnerable to the pest.

There is nothing about the plants themselves which makes them "superior" in the way they grow with other crops. It's purely on the way they resist one pesticide produced by Monsanto. Your ideas are more in line with the ravings of the anti-GMO crowd than they are with reality.

Oh yeah, just tell them...........

What a weard reply. And what then? trust them that they wont produce the products they export to europe according to european laws.

For someone who seems to be such a fan of regulation, you don't seem to understand how it works...

My main concern is local production and not GMO. I am not anti GMO, but want the local economy to thrive and not to be depending on american low quality food exports.

In what way are they "low quality"? They are the same seed, but have just been genetically modified to be resistant to a certain pesticide. If anything, they are better quality...

The debate is irrelevant - German parlament said no and the case is closed.

Right, yes that's how debates work. As soon as a decision is made, nobody can ever talk about it again.

California banned gay marriage. I guess they can never have gay marriage again by your pathetic logic.

Newsflash. We're not in German parliament. We're debating whether the decision was a good one or not.

---

And what if aliens land and want anal sex?!!!

Stupid what if moaning and sobbing.

The benefit of a european education is that I know what a laconic phrase is.

Have you finally lost it?

[Something completely different]

Yes, I do realise that. Do you realise that the farmer owns the fields and can therefore do pretty much whatever he wants with them? He could decide that instead of producing wheat, he now wants a dairy farm, converting all of his fields into pastures. Would that have a knock-on effect for the ecosystem that has so far existed thanks to the wheat fields? Yes. It doesn't matter though; it's not going to somehow destroy all similar ecosystems across the country.

That ignores the fact that geneticaly supirior crops would displace the less supirior crops and therefor have a more damaging effect on the surrounding ecosystem than cowshit.

Like I mentioned before.....

And you ignored before.

[

What are these negative effects exactly? The Monsanto crop isn't impervious to pests; it's impervious to pesticides. If some of the seed starts to grow in surrounding fields that aren't treated with the Monsanto pesticide, it'll still get eaten by the pests.

Do I really need to repeat myself. You could simply state that you chose to ignore that supirior crops decimate the other crops in the surrounding ecosystem.

Also...most farms aren't near cities.

Have you ever been on the countryside?

What was your intention to prove with that statement? Because it doesnt show anything, if at all it underlines my point that farmers will take influence on the surrounding ecosystems.

Dentist son? WTF are you on about?

You simply seem utterly disconected with the world, like in your previous statement.

You should really look into aid, because if you think it's all free, you are having a laugh. A lot of government aid is based on loans which need to be repaid.

alot - does not mean all. And most aid - is free - that`s the very concept of aid.

My point was that we also sell food to other countries that need it.

And do it without monsanto or washing food in chlorine or through destroying local farmers and the ecosystem.

Food is also sold to other countries who need it, which was my point. Also that more food = more food available to be given / sold to other countries.

more food = less value = end of buisness for small farmers

I never said it was.

But you write as if it was.

Again, you don't seem to understand how these plants are genetically "superior". They are resistant not to a pest, but to a pesticide, produced by Monsanto.

They also grow faster.

If the crop is planted and treated with the Monsanto pesticide, they resist the pesticide and the pesticide kills the pest. If the crop is planted but not treated with the Monsanto pesticide (i.e. it strays to a field that is not using the Monsanto seed), it will be vulnerable to the pest.

but still are more supirior to the other crops through faster groath.

There is nothing about the plants themselves which makes them "superior" in the way they grow with other crops. It's purely on the way they resist one pesticide produced by Monsanto. Your ideas are more in line with the ravings of the anti-GMO crowd than they are with reality.

they also grow faster, which is intended to create more harvests.

For someone who seems to be such a fan of regulation, you don't seem to understand how it works...

explain.

In what way are they "low quality"? They are the same seed, but have just been genetically modified to be resistant to a certain pesticide. If anything, they are better quality...

And negatively influence local ecology.

Right, yes that's how debates work. As soon as a decision is made, nobody can ever talk about it again.

California banned gay marriage. I guess they can never have gay marriage again by your pathetic logic.

Newsflash. We're not in German parliament. We're debating whether the decision was a good one or not.

And it was.

Have you finally lost it?

Nope.

"What if" arguments are useless arguments which deserve nothing else but to be flushed down the toilet.

Only facts count in a debate.

And not your dystopic fantasy future, the existance of which depends on a if which is a word whos meaning seems to have been forgotten.

[Big Blue Sky]

like hanging on an atheist forum for instance.

I am unemployed.

So I also drink alot of beer, eat Pizza and watch Zombie movies.


Highly productive, important and intellectual activities.

I think you are my favourite person ever created.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not sure why we would worry about GMO corn displacing other crops - that's what they are designed to do. GMO crops offer the potential to grow more food - of higher quality- with less resources - in a smaller space. That doesn't sound like a very good model for ecological destruction. If I was hellbent on destroying me some ecology - I'd stick with the old, resource hungry, inefficient, low yield, pesticide addicted crops- personally.

[Big Blue Sky]

I'm not sure why we would worry about GMO corn displacing other crops - that's what they are designed to do. GMO crops offer the potential to grow more food - of higher quality- with less resources - in a smaller space. That doesn't sound like a very good model for ecological destruction. If I was hellbent on destroying me some ecology - I'd stick with the old, resource hungry, inefficient, low yield, pesticide addicted crops- personally.

some researches show that this GMO food causes lot's of diseases if i will find that link will post it here

[Tiberius]

some researches show that this GMO food causes lot's of diseases if i will find that link will post it here

I'll bet that most, if not all of them have been discredited by proper scientists.

Also, if you are going to post more links, don't make it to conspiracy websites please.

[Something completely different]

I'm not sure why we would worry about GMO corn displacing other crops - that's what they are designed to do. GMO crops offer the potential to grow more food - of higher quality- with less resources - in a smaller space. That doesn't sound like a very good model for ecological destruction. If I was hellbent on destroying me some ecology - I'd stick with the old, resource hungry, inefficient, low yield, pesticide addicted crops- personally.

Because we are thereby having a negative impact on the enviorment.

I dont have a problem with GMO, I see great gains being made with for example gene manipulated salmon which produces more meat, cows that produce more milk and other.

But they have to be contained and prevented from getting into the enviorment where they could destruct the ecological balance.

[Big Blue Sky]

some researches show that this GMO food causes lot's of diseases if i will find that link will post it here

I'll bet that most, if not all of them have been discredited by proper scientists.

Also, if you are going to post more links, don't make it to conspiracy websites please.

why not? You can't prove that news from so called conspiracy websites aren't true (nor if they are right) but still I trust such sites more than the mainstream media.


P.S: here are the links one "real media" and the other conspiracy one.
http://rt.com/news/monsanto-rats-tumor-france-531/
http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO_st...amage.html

[The Grand Nudger]

Ag has a negative impact on the environment, period. I can't think of any other singular endeavor that has had a greater impact on the environment, in fact. It's pretty serious business. So why not take it seriously, and make the best use of those resources - get the most out of our wholesale (and unfortunately necessary) destruction of the landscape?

GMO crops are the -only- crops that anyone has taken any steps to contain.......and "super-pests", for example, are bred on any farm where broad spectrum pesticide regimens are used (this includes conventionals and organics). If you want to contain the damage, and protect balance(however the hell you're going to measure it), GMO is the tool for that.