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

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.

This is the actual conclusion;

Basically, the "significant imminent risk" standard is for the use of "emergency measure[s]". That does not mean that after study it will not be banned but that the emergency powers do not fit.

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.

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 worrying. Millions of years of symbiotic evolution is being altered in ways not even fully understood yet. I'm all for scientific advances but rushing to market and forcing this down people's throats is not a good attitude.

Percentage of Genetic Modified Crops [wikipedia.org]

• Soybeans (Herbicide resistant gene taken from bacteria inserted into soybean)- 93% US, 77% world
• Corn/Maize (New genes, some from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, added/transferred into plant genome.) - 86% US, 26% world
• Squash (Contains coat protein genes of viruses.) - 13% US

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.

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;"

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];

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.

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 goes about suing and threatening others over infringement claims.

Monsanto is a threat to the economics of food production and a threat to food production in general.

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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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?

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.

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?

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