Monsanto gives up fight for GM plants in Europe

[Something completely different]

Have you got any evidence to actually back this up?

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

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/19...2276688781

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/290/5499/2088.short

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10....803.130352

https://www.agronomy.org/publications/je.../33/3/0806

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/dow...1&type=pdf

http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOT...103000.htm

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...0907002319

My intention with the statement was to point out the limitations of a farmer's influence on the local ecosystems. They do not extend to cities. A farmer switching crops does not have any noticeable effect on life in cities, as far as I am aware. If you have any evidence to back up your assertion that it does, present it.

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

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

Well, I'm not. You seem utterly disconnected with facts if you think I'm a dentist's son, or that sons of dentists are somehow less connected with the world.

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

Now you are twisting your own words. Let's look at what you said:



You didn't say "a lot". You said "any", which in this context is a synonym for "all".

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

I still don't think you've given any evidence that they do this.

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

That is how business works I'm afraid. More food for less cost is a good deal for consumers. If small businesses can't keep up with the demand, they go under.

If small buisnesses go down - bigger ones can be less concerned with consumer rights and produce shit to sell.
Other than that, if the high quality of the european foodmarket and several hunderds of thousands of jobs can be preserved within a european free market by not deregulating - it is worth it. I would also like to see the european market strenghtend rather than to be depending on the american market.
And when the price goes down too much food producers destroy their crops. a third of the worlds produced food is burned each year to keep a price upright whilest a billion people live without enought food.
Food factories usualy whipe out small farmers by making them dependent from them or by producing cheap but low quality products.

I really don't. I just don't see the knock-on effect on the local ecology as big a deal as you do. I also think your ideas about the knock-on effects are entirely out of proportion. Like I said before, if it really was as prominent as you think it is, then every time a field is left fallow, we would see massive amounts of negative changes in the surrounding ecosystem. We don't.

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

Why.

Because there are no long term studies available, only predictions of potential risks. And if these risks are too high then it isnt worth taking. Especialy in a region which hardly has any natural retreats anymore and therefor is determined to protect those that that it has - Europe.

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.

...and this is a bad thing how?

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

Right, and who performs the harvests? Oh yes, the farmer. A farmer is not going to change his harvesting habits just because some Monsanto seeds get in his crop. A farmer performs a harvest when the crop is ready; not a small subset of the crop. Indeed, if he notices the Monsanto crop early on, he might be able to get rid of them before they are ready.

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

The point of regulation isn't that you create laws saying "you can't do this" and hoping people follow them. The point of regulation is you have government agencies doing checks to make sure the laws are followed.

Did you really think I didnt know that?

You've still yet to prove this, but even if you did, it doesn't make them "low quality".

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

You're still debating me, so clearly you must understand my point about debates despite your assertion that this one is pointless.

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.

I posed a scenario for you. It wasn't supposed to be an argument. I wanted to know what you thought of the situation, and it is a very important situation in regard to this debate.

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 claim that the EU is great because it listens to what people want, rather than lobbyists.

Wrong. The German Republic. Transparicy and importance of public opinion.

Whilest in the UK policies and bills are discussed at private dinners with the primeminister, lobbyists live off taxmoney and the entire political class evolved out of a structure of 19th century nobels and industrialists looking at what they could give to the peasants.

Whilst I agree that some of the time, that is great, other times it is not. When what people want is dictated by lies and delusions, following through with legislation that gives them what they want is actually a bad thing.

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

[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.