Monsanto gives up fight for GM plants in Europe

[Something completely different]

[The Grand Nudger]

I would also like to see the european market strenghtend rather than to be depending on the american market.

That's not gonna happen, if we go full on GMO (which, judging by our history, we will) and your regulations are an obstruction. Quite the opposite. We'll be able to provide larger amounts of higher quality commodities at a lower price point - whilst the EU will get raked over the coals by niche producers (which -will not- be small business..or very well regulated because in the end, food is a commodity which thrives on the captive consumer..and all consumers are captive to that commodity).

"More longterm studies need to be done" is a stalling technique. I agree that more longterm studies need to be done, absolutely, but GMO's have the most data behind them in the first place - so if more studies need to be done..our standard fare is in grave need of the same. Meanwhile, we have to produce food.

[Something completely different]

I would also like to see the european market strenghtend rather than to be depending on the american market.

That's not gonna happen, if we go full on GMO (which, judging by our history, we will) and your regulations are an obstruction. Quite the opposite.

I did never express that I am completly against GMO.

I simply expressed that I am against every method of production which potentialy harms the enviorment.


Jesus fucking CHrist!!!

If this were the 1980s you lot would probably be defending big tobacco.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm from a tobacco state...lol, I'd defend the producers of tobacco, sure. Would I defend the lobbyists or propaganda mill of the industry, no.

-Every- method of production harms the environment Germans......that's the trouble. There is no method that does not. None, nada, zilch, bupkiss. Agriculture is the business of creating a non-natural environment and condensing and processing resources until they become nutritionally available to human beings (whilst simultaneously removing competition from other "living consumers" -other plants and animals- by limiting their access to the production area or downright eradicating them).

[Something completely different]

I'm from a tobacco state...lol, I'd defend the producers of tobacco, sure. Would I defend the lobbyists or propaganda mill of the industry, no.

-Every- method of production harms the environment Germans......that's the trouble. There is no method that does not. None, nada, zilch, bupkiss.

Rephrase: Avoid as much damage to the enviorment as possible.

[The Grand Nudger]

We're absolutely on the same page there. Which is why I stress the leverage of GMOs so heavily.

[Something completely different]

We're absolutely on the same page there. Which is why I stress the leverage of GMOs so heavily.

I agree in meat and milk production. But not in the production of plant products.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's the line you've drawn - I simply can't see why you've drawn it there, that's all.

Perhaps we could tease this out. What is the difference between meat and diary production and other types of ag that makes GMO suitable for the one but not the other?

[Something completely different]

That's the line you've drawn - I simply can't see why you've drawn it there, that's all.

Maybe it`s a cultural thing, taking risks isnt something I do nore something popular here. If long term studies will show that it is viable in plant production without harming biodiversity - then it will be accepted.

Other than that, the European market shouldnt completly open to the American market until it can be competative.

I think I will now ignore this thread.

[The Grand Nudger]

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?

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. It's expected, and it's intentional.