Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Blocks France's Ban of Monsanto's GM Maize

Comments Filter:
  • ...that MON 180 ~didn't~ pose a health risk, either; more research is probably needed for both parties. The French are not big eaters of corn, anyways.

    • by mug funky (910186) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @02:48AM (#40084231)

      huh. they couldn't prove God ~doesn't~ exist.

      gonna need a better argument than that, though i'm not Monsanto's biggest fan.

      • by ozmanjusri (601766) <aussie_bob@NospAm.hotmail.com> on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @03:14AM (#40084393) Journal
        With GM food crops, the danger is more from handing of control of your seed stock to a potentially malevolent vendor, than to the health of consumers.
        • by captainpanic (1173915) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @05:39AM (#40084947)

          [...]a potentially malevolent vendor,[...]

          You suggest that Monsanto is only "potentially malevolent"? They make a business of killing small farm businesses. Their legal department is larger than their scientific department. They created life that cannot reproduce, so that farmers have to come to them each year to buy new seeds. What makes you still doubt?

          • by Grayhand (2610049) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @06:43AM (#40085197)
            "They created life that cannot reproduce, so that farmers have to come to them each year to buy new seeds." Actually they didn't the Agriculture department and two private companies did. Monsanto bought the two private companies in 2005 acquiring the rights but they didn't create the genes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology [wikipedia.org]
          • by sFurbo (1361249) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @08:17AM (#40085751)

            They created life that cannot reproduce, so that farmers have to come to them each year to buy new seeds.

            The terminator genes were developed to limit the possibility of spreading traits, e.g. pesticide resistance, to weeds. It really is a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

          • by ChromeAeonium (1026952) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @11:05AM (#40088191)

            They make a business of killing small farm businesses

            Why exactly do they want less customers?

            They created life that cannot reproduce, so that farmers have to come to them each year to buy new seeds.

            No, they sell hybrid seed that produces genetically unstable seed. Welcome to the 1930's. They also have contracts that you must sign before buying seed, but that's contract law.

    • by jklovanc (1603149) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @02:49AM (#40084241)

      The French are not big eaters of corn, anyways.

      Considering France is the 7th [wikipedia.org] largerst producer of maize in the world that may not be true.

      • Probably used for animal feed.
        • by Linzer (753270) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @03:59AM (#40084559)

          That's correct. First, about half of it is exported, and 80% of the rest is animal feed. What remains is used mostly for starch (not all of it for eating). The sweet corn eaten in corn form is a tiny fraction.

          • by jklovanc (1603149)

            The point is that France attempted to spread their ban to the entire EU. Perhaps that is due to France trying to limit the production of corn in other EU countries so that can export theirs.

            Even if the French do not eat much corn directly they eat it indirectly through the meat they eat.

            Is it possible that the French ban is there to protect their own corn industry by suppressing the industry in other countries of the EU? Protectionism is bad for the EU economy.

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by arth1 (260657)

              The point is that France attempted to spread their ban to the entire EU. Perhaps that is due to France trying to limit the production of corn in other EU countries so that can export theirs.

              Or because the Monsanto seeds spread.
              (And then Monsanto sues farmers who have had their crops contaminated, but won't recompensate those who through no fault of their own no longer can sell their crop as GM-free.)

              I'm all for GM crops. As long as it's inside a double low-pressure bubble to prevent it spreading, and the rights holder assumes responsibility for any future contamination of GM-free areas, up to and including their CEOs crawling on their knees weeding.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            As long as they keep their Monsanto crap out of the feed for my poulets de bresse...
    • by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @02:52AM (#40084257)

      The French are not big eaters of corn, anyways.

      They may not enjoy corn on the cob, but they eat corn alright, as does most of the world, in the form of processed food. You find corn derivatives in a bewildering varieties of industrial foods.

      France also produces a lot of corn, amazingly, considering the problems they have with water table depletion every other summer.

      • by Saunalainen (627977) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @06:47AM (#40085219)

        they eat corn alright, as does most of the world, in the form of processed food. You find corn derivatives in a bewildering varieties of industrial foods.

        You imply that the French, and indeed the rest of the world, eat significant amount of processed food. It's difficult to get hard data on this, but my impression (from having lived there) is that processed food is a much smaller part of their diet than in the US. This article [grist.org] says that Americans eat rather more processed food than other countries, but it's difficult to compare because "baked goods" and "ready-to-eat" in the US and in France are rather different.

        On the other hand, "most of the world" is certainly not eating significant amounts of industrial food - in China and India it's almost unheard of [nytimes.com].

    • by sFurbo (1361249)
      If that was the bar for every new cultivar, fine. If the bar depends on the origin of the cultivar, there should be a rational reason for this. If anything, the bar should be lower for GMOs, where we have some clue of what has happened, but I don't think the difference is big enough to warrant that.
    • Can't prove a negative like that. Will this corn cause cancer? We have no reason to think so. There's no massive increqse in any known carcinogen. Scientists are the first ones to admit we dont know for sure, and initially we had no reason to think that smoking did either (long, LONG ago anyway), so you do tests. Do you drop dead immediately? No. What about develop cancer a yeqr out? Well, eat it for a year and test. No, that doesnt increase the cancer risks. 5 years? At this point, the corn has
      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @04:28AM (#40084657)

        Do you stop the sale of all new foods for 90 years? Where is the cutoff?

        The cutoff is when you've done enough rigorous and open testing that nobody in the professional scientific community can raise any particular concerns.
        Look, any time you introduce a new element into an ecosystem there WILL be impact of one sort or another. The people producing the GMO's have, for example, claimed there is no risk of their product escaping into other fields, which has been proven false over and over. Each time it happens, these assholes sue the farmers whose crops get contaminated for "illegally" using their patented product. That alone should have been enough to warrant a ban, cancer or not.

        Then we have some very recent evidence that the rash of Colony Collapse Disorder among honey bee populations is being caused by a somewhat new pesticide. This just so happens to be the same pesticide which is integrated into the Monsanto corn, and preliminary tests indicate it DOES affect bee populations. While there isn't enough evidence to prove it yet, it's enough evidence to be very worrying. Especially when viewed in light of the other claims Monsanto has made about their product and have been shown to be false.

        There just hasn't been enough testing of these products. What little testing has been done, is either not transparent enough or has to be done without their cooperation making it even more difficult. The judge should not have blocked this ban, if France doesn't want the product they shouldn't be forced to accept it.

        • Good post.

        • by Znork (31774) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @06:45AM (#40085205)

          Actually, the pesticide that currently seems to be most strongly implicated in colony collapse disorder is imidacloprid, which is not the same as the bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) GMO corn toxin. Unless you have seen something even newer? Still, that of course doesn't preclude BT damaging other parts of the ecosystem.

          Considering Monstantos corporate ethics, if they could create a corn variety that causes cancer in anyone eating it, I would bet they would. The company has such a history that trusting it with food is grossly negligent.

        • They bought out the research firm which said they were responsible for the bee population Disorder. That should fix it, right?

        • by ChromeAeonium (1026952) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @11:41AM (#40088809)

          The cutoff is when you've done enough rigorous and open testing that nobody in the professional scientific community can raise any particular concerns.

          Well, good [biofortified.org] news [blogspot.com]! Fact is, scientific consensus is that GE crops are safe and effective. Don't believe me? Go to your local university's agriculture, plant biology, genetics, or molecular biology/biochemistry department, or contact your local extension office (if you are in the US, you do have one). I have, and have yet to find a single person saying otherwise. Like evolution or vaccines, his is much more a popular controversy than a scientific one (discredited papers like the Pusztai study or the Séralini study notwithstanding).

          The people producing the GMO's have, for example, claimed there is no risk of their product escaping into other fields, which has been proven false over and over.

          Who? When? Plants cross pollinate. Everyone knows that, and problems from cross pollination are nothing new. That's why I put cheesecloth on my flowers when I garden. I grow stable lines and I don't want the to get cross pollinated, and others who grow open pollinated (or heirloom if you will) know the importance of preventing accidental pollenation. Or think of people who grow seedless fruits. What happens if you have a seedless citrus or persimmon orchard and someone decides to plant another variety? Seeds. Or what if you grow sweet corn next to field corn? The endosperm will be affected by what pollinates the corn, so your sweet corn will be ruined. So lets not act as if GE crops are the only thing where cross pollination occurs.

          Each time it happens, these assholes sue the farmers whose crops get contaminated for "illegally" using their patented product.

          No, they sue if you have an unnaturally large number of the transgene present, which is to say, when someone knowingly selects for the transgene (the morality of which is somewhat debatable, but lets not act as if it simply happens by accident). Can you show me a single case where they sued someone for simple cross pollination?

          Then we have some very recent evidence that the rash of Colony Collapse Disorder among honey bee populations is being caused by a somewhat new pesticide. This just so happens to be the same pesticide which is integrated into the Monsanto corn, and preliminary tests indicate it DOES affect bee populations.

          Absolutely false. CCD by the way occurs in areas where GE crops are not grown. The problem may be due to farming practices (like monoculture), or certain other pesticides, but there is no evidence to suggest that Bt crops are responsible in any way.

          Especially when viewed in light of the other claims Monsanto has made about their product and have been shown to be false.

          Which is why farmers keep buying their seed, right? Which is why we are actually seeing problems because farmers aren't planting enough non-GMO refuge area?

          There just hasn't been enough testing of these products.

          Everyone says this, but never says what would be considered sufficient testing. I think it is so the goalpost can keep moving.

    • Monsanto haven't won this one yet. The French people can be a bunch of hippy activists. I wouldn't be surprised if (1) the French government makes companies put a big sticker on such corn products, and then (2) nobody buys it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by erroneus (253617)

      For something which "may or may not pose a threat" it should be the standard for something which grows and spreads itself as LIFE does that it be presumed dangerous until proven otherwise.

      This is the same standard we use for importing living things through customs isn't it?

      For some people, the potential dangers and hazards of GM foods is of concern. It concerns me less. What concerns me is the dangers and hazards of a business developing and planting seed which doesn't limit or contain itself and then goe

    • by phayes (202222)

      While eating corn on the cob is rarer in France than it is in the US, one of the things that surprised me when I moved here is how often you see corn nibbles added to salads. All in all & given how lots of people eat mostly salads during the summer, the french eat a lot of corn -- without going into how much we eat is processed corn products or meat raised on corn.

    • Probably not big eaters of unprocessed corn but corn products are involved in products all over the world. Corn syrup is an example of a corn based sugar substitute that is very widely used. If it's from GM corn then it's banned in France.

      Further, you can look at a lot of things like corn starch, corn meal, etc that also in a lot of things that don't look like corn.

      Maize is one of the few staple crops that supply the vast majority of calories for humans. Rice, wheat, corn, potatoes... and probably taro (big

  • That's .. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @02:27AM (#40084107)

    .. Amaizing

  • by 2phar (137027) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @02:29AM (#40084117)
    What about people not wanting massive use of round-up chemicals, small farmers being sued out of existence, and one corporation monopolising the entire seed supply?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @02:37AM (#40084171)

      And being sued because some seed drifts between fields, and being sued because you produce your own seed instead of buying monsantos? That's what happens in the US. That's what they want everywhere.

      • by sFurbo (1361249) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @02:55AM (#40084279)
        No, they sue people for deliberately selecting the seeds to use by spraying them with glyphosate (at least, in the most marketed case).
        • Who is to say the seed didn't independently get glyphosate resistance? It would be interesting to find out if the genetic difference among all these seeds is due to Monsanto or not.
          • by sFurbo (1361249) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @03:46AM (#40084507)
            As for what I have read from the case, it is pretty clear that it derived from Monsanto, and that the farmer was aware. I am not saying it makes it OK, I am just really tired of people taking documentaries for truth. They have become the weapon of choice for propagandists, and if people aren't critical of them, they are going to end up believing Expelled or some other such nonsense.
            • by mwvdlee (775178) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @04:45AM (#40084711) Homepage

              Isn't it weird that natural processes like plant growth, or indeed evolution of plants, can be legally protected at all?

              • by sFurbo (1361249)
                It isn't the natural process that makes it applicable for protection, it is the human work that is the basis for taking advantage of the natural process. In this case, it is the work done to make and test the GMO.
              • by coofercat (719737)

                The French have a very different legal system than the US (or even others in Europe), and have a very different attitude to using the legal system than those in the US (especially). They also have significant issues with "big US company coming over here and telling us what to do".

                Monsanto is big, but France is also big, and it's quite possible it may end up being one big waste of Monsanto's time to operate there. We'll see...

            • As for what I have read from the case, it is pretty clear that it derived from Monsanto, and that the farmer was aware. I am not saying it makes it OK, I am just really tired of people taking documentaries for truth. They have become the weapon of choice for propagandists, and if people aren't critical of them, they are going to end up believing Expelled or some other such nonsense.

              It can be worse. People could believe in Michael Moore.

    • by Pecisk (688001)

      Then on what legal grounds you want to ban them? :)

    • by bdwoolman (561635) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @02:53AM (#40084263) Homepage
      but it could get worse: See The Windup Girl [wikipedia.org]
  • by TopSpin (753)

    If I express sceptisism about the EFSA and its science based conclusions does that make me an antiscience bible thumper?

    • Wouldn't worry about it, the French will most likely tell them to get stuffed regardless. They take their food seriously over there.

      • Re:Oh dear (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Issarlk (1429361) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @02:55AM (#40084287)
        Yes, there is no shortage of french people ready to go burn GM crop fields. And jailing them pushes the issue into the political field. Add to that the new socialist government who's allied with the green party ; I don't see a bright future for Monsanto GM crops in France.
        • In France, Monsanto need not be involved. Publicly funded non-corporate research research gets destroyed too [redgreenandblue.org], which is why I don't buy it when people say this is about the alleged 'evils' of Monsanto, not the science (or economics or politics as the case may be).

    • by sFurbo (1361249)
      Not necessarily bible thumper, tree hugger seems to be a more fitting derogative in this case.

      But, in all seriousness, what problems exist with GMOs that doesn't exist with other cultivars?
      • The "crop yield increases" so frequently touted as the great advantage disappear after a few years. Herbs become roundup-resistant, requiring the use of more roundup, leading to more pollution, and the destruction of bee populations (like there's no tomorrow). Then there's lock-in, aggressive law-suits by Monsanto to force other farmers to start using their products, etc.. Lots of problems that don't exist with other cultivars. (Because no, you cannot separate GMOs from their salesmen.)
        • Re:Oh dear (Score:5, Insightful)

          by sFurbo (1361249) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @03:41AM (#40084489)

          The "crop yield increases" so frequently touted as the great advantage disappear after a few years.

          There is so much disinformation about the drop yield of GMOs (from both sides) that I have given up trying to figure out the truth. Anyway, this might also be the case for other cultivars, and isn't relevant in whether we allow people to use it, only to whether it is a good idea for the individual farmer to use it.

          Herbs become roundup-resistant, requiring the use of more roundup, leading to more pollution

          This would be a problem for any herbicide-resistant cultivar. If we are going to pollute, let's at least pollute with Roundup, which is not harmful for mammals, and is mostly bound to the soil. It is by far the least bad of the pesticides (not that that makes it good, but if spraying with Roundup is a problem, we should ban all pesticides).

          , and the destruction of bee populations (like there's no tomorrow)

          This is not caused by roundup. The best guess we have is a new insecticide (I forget which).

          Then there's lock-in, aggressive law-suits by Monsanto to force other farmers to start using their products, etc.. Lots of problems that don't exist with other cultivars. (Because no, you cannot separate GMOs from their salesmen.)

          That is a problem of contract law or IP law, let's fix it there in stead of banning a potentially useful tool.

          • Bee population die-offs have been causually linked to the systemic pesticides that some GMO crops have been bred to produce. Effectively, the pesticides are a neurotoxin, and traces of the toxin in the nectar bees feed on cause them to slowly "go crazy", breaking down the social structure before abandoning their hives.

            So you are correct that it isn't cause by roundup ready crops, but rather some of Monsanto's other products. The roundup ready controversy stems from the treatment of farmers that dont ise rou
            • by sFurbo (1361249)

              Bee population die-offs have been causually linked to the systemic pesticides that some GMO crops have been bred to produce.

              Do you have any links to neonicotinoid-producing GMO? I can't find anything.

              The roundup ready controversy stems from the treatment of farmers that dont ise roundup ready crops by serving them patent lawsuits when cross pollination occurs naturally.

              They serve patent lawsuits when cross pollination happens, the farmer notices this, kills the non-cross-pollinated plants with Roundup and uses the seeds of the remaining plants next year, at least in the most heavily marketed case. I am not saying this is OK, but it is pretty far from just cross-pollination.

  • by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @02:46AM (#40084219)

    Not because the EU overturned the ban, but because the EU can overrule national decisions in such important matters, and a vast majority of other matters in almost all aspects of life.

    French authorities may or may not be right about not trusting Monsanto's GMOs, I am not qualified to have an opinion on the subject, but what I see here is that, in effect, they only have a consulting role since a another body in Brussels disagreed and decided otherwise. That's what you get when you relinquish your national sovereignty to a half-assed de-facto federal government that doesn't speak its name.

    It's the same for the ability to lower certain taxes, doing protectionism, devaluing the currency they no longer have control of, and a whole slew of important and less important things that define an independent nation. EU member states don't have any real say over these things anymore. That's why I'm amazed to see people in the streets of France celebrate the election of their new prez, hoping for a brighter future with him, when in reality he's just a figurehead with almost no power to do anything meaningful.

    • by iserlohn (49556)

      There is a growing consensus in the EU on increased powers for the EU institutions and towards federalisation to protect the monetary union. In fact, contrary to how it is portrayed in the English language press, the Euro is exteremely popular in the nations that are in the Eurozone, so there is real traction for some type of federal and democratic political structure. This would be a significant development if it comes to fruition, as it is likely the power of the European Parliament would increase at the

    • by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @03:36AM (#40084471)

      Not because the EU overturned the ban, but because the EU can overrule national decisions in such important matters

      You obviously aren't aware of the French response to such interfering in their state affairs. Typically, they ask for the blessings of the EU as a formality; If they don't like the outcome, they don't pay any attention. If they're forced, the populace start setting fire to cars and breaking stuff, French media puts "EU Regulation Causing Riots Across Nation!" across the front pages, and everything goes back to normal.

      The French do love a good riot now and then.

      • When it comes to agriculture, it's less about rioting and more about farmers blocking streets with their tractors and hauling truckloads of manure to the entrance of the offending party's headquarter, though. What can I say, it seems to work...
      • by hairyfish (1653411) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @05:41AM (#40084975)

        If they don't like the outcome, they don't pay any attention. If they're forced, the populace start setting fire to cars and breaking stuff, The French do love a good riot now and then.

        Awesome and this is how a democracy should work. Can anyone just remind me why we don't like the French?

        • Awesome and this is how a democracy should work. Can anyone just remind me why we don't like the French?

          "What are you doing in England, then?"
          "Mind your own business."

      • by coofercat (719737)

        If you go to France, almost every car you see is French. Years go, the Japanese were "car dumping" in Europe, putting thousands of cheap cars on the market and killing off the competition. France said "non" (actually, they said "for every Japanese car on French roads, we want a French car on Japanese roads"), and the EU (as was then) overruled them. France just made it so horrendously bureaucratic to get Japanese cars into France that it slowed down the effect of the dumping, and even now very few foreign m

    • by jklovanc (1603149) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @04:19AM (#40084627)

      The issue is that the ban in France was even overturned by their own courts [agrimoney.com] as not being scientifically based. They then tried again to get it banned throughout the entire EU and failed again.

      Here is a quote;"

      EuropaBio, the European biotech industry group, urged French leaders to decide "whether they want to regain their position as a leader of agricultural innovation or support an anti-science agenda that weakens Europe's competitiveness" after a judgment on Monday from Paris's highest court.

      You might also want to check this [cera-gmc.org] out. Notice how many countries have approved the corn.

      Here is an interesting piece of information from this article [bloomberg.com];

      “The new ban is not justified by scientific evidence,” John Combest, a spokesman for Monsanto, said in a e-mail today. The company does not market MON810 in France because “we seek planting where we have broad farmer and government support,” Combest said.

      Now why would France want to ban something not even marketed in their country? Perhaps it is that they want to protect their own seed industry at the expense of growers in other EU countries.

      Take a look at this article [reuters.com]. The EU has yet to order France to lift the ban and nothing will happen till after the election and any new government has shown its intentions. That has not happened.

      To summarize, the EU reviewed the corn last year and found no issues. France banned the corn, Their own courts overturned that ban. France banned it again. France applied to get the ban applied to all EU countries. The EU declined. That is where we stand today. The French ban is still in effect but there will be no EU ban.

    • by AmiMoJo (196126)

      It makes more sense if you remember that the EU is just the other member states. France signed on to the single market and benefits from it, but in return must agree to certain rules that keep a level playing field for everyone. In this case they can't block Monsanto from using GM crops in France when the EU as a whole has decided to allow it and other countries are obliged to go along with that decision.

      Like any club France is free to quit, but it won't because the benefits of being in are huge. Being in t

  • by dropadrop (1057046) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @02:51AM (#40084247)

    When somebody is trying to sell a herbal medicine or sweetener that has been used naturally for ages they are required to show scientific evidence that it's not harmfull. When monsanto is trying to sell genetically modified seeds a country is required to show scientific evidence that it is harmful.

    Something does not compute?

    • That is not exactly true. Both are required to show evidence that enough research was made and no evidence of its being harmful has been found. I am not a big fan of corporations, but I am a big fan of accuracy in arguments.
      • That is not exactly true. Both are required to show evidence that enough research was made and no evidence of its being harmful has been found. I am not a big fan of corporations, but I am a big fan of accuracy in arguments.

        I've understood a company can still decide which research results to publish, so if they make 20 studies on an issue they can pick the 10 that best suit their agenda.

        The real underlying problem is that the required tests are often so expensive that only a company who will receive a patent for what they are pushing will be able and motivated to do them. On the other hand the authorities who would need to show something is harmful will do so by analyzing the manufacturers tests which might already be cherry

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by witherstaff (713820)

      Simple, money and political ties talks. Aspartame sat sidelined by the FDA because of tests showing it was a carcinogen and neurotoxin. Rumsfeld was put in as CEO and he used all his political ties to get it approved. The company was later bought out by.. Monsanto. We have Monsanto to thank that huge percentages of crops are all genetically modified. Since recent studies show that you are what you eat and food RNA can effect your genes [discovermagazine.com] the entire genetic modification of base food crops is a little worryin

      • by swalve (1980968)
        I eat a lot of chicken, and it hasn't [BOCK BOCK BOCK, scratch, scratch, BU-CAW] affected me. Stupid science.
  • by tanveer1979 (530624) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @02:55AM (#40084285) Homepage Journal

    Somehow, the media is hooked onto the theory that GM modified crops will make us all Zombies.
    That is not the problem. I really doubt that these modifications will create crops which will cause health problems.
    The actual problem is licensing and economics.

    A seed is a thing which cannot be contained. If you neighbor has a crop, seeds will come to you farm.
    If its a resilient crop, it may dominate too.
    And then they lawyers come with their army, and drag you to court. How many small farmers can afford to fight.
    Yes, there will be farmers who will willfully cheat, but right now the licensing model, and the law does not recognize this difference.

    To be frank, GM crops can actually help coping with food shortage, but the licensing model has made something which is a boon, a bane.

    • Straw Man (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "GM modified crops will make us all Zombies"

      No they're concerned that a bug in the design will crash the system.

      Essentially they make major changes to crops that would take evolution centuries to make. They don't tests those changes for centuries, so any faults will come out later. Any major fault can cause a collapse in the food supply which would be deadly to Europe.

      They represent a major risk and really the GM lobby's glibness, and willful ignorance of the risk is the real danger here. As for the EU it d

    • by mbstone (457308) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @03:50AM (#40084521)

      GMO is the biologic equivalent of flipping bits in executable files just for kicks and grins.

      Except there are no disassemblers, and the language was never fully documented by anyone.

      Someday the human race will get shithammered as a result.

      • That's not even the problem. The problem is that the executable then automatically spreads to any nearby computers, and there is no good way to stop it from doing that.

        A single contained executable might crash your machine, but it would only be a problem for YOU. GM foods spread to every nearby field, whether the owners want them to or not.

    • by geekmux (1040042)

      Somehow, the media is hooked onto the theory that GM modified crops will make us all Zombies. That is not the problem. I really doubt that these modifications will create crops which will cause health problems. The actual problem is licensing and economics.

      (Monsanto)You seem to have identified a problem here. Ah, where is it again, because we don't see a problem at all.

      (Government) Yes, we too do not see a problem. Monopoly? No, not at all. (distinct sound of cash pressing against flesh)

    • by Grayhand (2610049) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @07:01AM (#40085275)
      Zombies only in that they could cause a massive famine that drives some people to cannibalism. And no it's not faux science it's the likely outcome of a monoculture system that depends on a severely limited gene pool. I've seen first hand some of the mutated crops. I grew up around corn production and I never in my life saw mutations like they are getting now. The weirdest was several ears of corn growing out of the ground, no stalk or leaves just ears of corn, remember I didn't see photos I was there looking at corn in a field. It's cause both by inbreeding and they have found the spliced genes tend to end up in the wrong place in the sequence at times. The genes aren't natural as in the result of millions of years of evolution so they aren't stable. The engineered breeds don't have the same defenses that native varieties and heirlooms have so they don't have the ability to adapt to new diseases and pests. The odds are it's just a matter of time before there's a failed crop related to GMO. It's happened in the recent past due to poor practices or random chance so it will happen again only this time it could dwarf the other crop failures. Monstano's greed may kill millions and in the near future. Since many third world countries are now depending on the seeds they could end up killing more people than WW II, all in the name of profits.
  • Monsanto vs France (Score:3, Informative)

    by ColdCat (2586245) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @03:40AM (#40084481)
    As I heard in French news a few month ago, It was planned that Monsanto will won at EU. The plan for this year was that. It's almost impossible with a court decision in May to buy and grow seeds for this year in France. Everyone who want to plant corn has already bought real corn seeds for 2012 so France won almost one year.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    it’s the Monsanto assholes. They don’t just walk over dead bodies. They *don’t do business* if it doesn’t involve walking over dead bodies.
    Seriously Eli Lilly, the MAFIAA and Microsoft COMBINED look like fluffy playschool pussies in comparison.

    • by captainpanic (1173915) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @05:24AM (#40084863)

      Even though it's a pure flame against Monsanto, I would mod this up if I had any points.

      You're right. Monsanto make life itself a business, and they do not seem to care at all how they make a profit. Where Google's motto is "Don't be evil", it seems Monsanto has the opposite motto: "Be evil". Kill small business. Own life. Then extort it for profit. If you own the food market, you own the world.

      I cannot understand why anyone with a functioning brain would look for a job at Monsanto.

  • by geekmux (1040042) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @06:30AM (#40085151)

    "could not identify any new science-based evidence indicating that maize MON 810 cultivation in the EU poses a significant and imminent risk to the human and animal health or the environment."

    Boy, if that doesn't sound like a public statement bought and paid for by Monsanto...and with their activities elsewhere, I have little reason to believe otherwise.

Passwords are implemented as a result of insecurity.

Working...