GM foods and the EU.

[Odin]

The purpose of industry should be to serve the needs of society, not to fill thier pockets! Monsanto would probably sell the GMOs for an arm and a leg, the people who need then the most can't afford it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The purpose of industry should be to serve the needs of society, not to fill thier pockets!

And industry serves the needs of society the best when they fill their pockets as well . You give them a few ground rules, and let 'em go.

If industry didn't get to fill it's own pockets, then the needs of society end up being served much less. Silly commies .

[Odin]

Ignorant Libertarians.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Moron Communists

[Sikander]

Originally posted by The Templar

In the US, Monsanto is suing a small dairy in Maine. Why? Because the dairy labels its milk free of artificial hormones. Which it is. But Monsanto is losing money on its artificial hormone business because for some odd reason, consumers prefer their milk artificial hormone-free.

Hey think about this. Hormones in your milk equal larger breasts. Everyone wants larger breasts!

[Sikander]

[Emily Latella] Never Mind! [/Emily Latella]

[Sikander]

The main problem I have here is that GM food producers are put in the position of having to prove a negative, ie that their product is not harmful. Most people agree that there should be testing, but the question is how much? Eventually will products that have been consumed by billions of people over decades still have to be labeled as GM just as a brand new GM product with only a minimum trial would? GM or not isn't the important distinction in such a case.

edit: I had to put a their there instead of there, or they're going to have a laugh at my grammar.

[HershOstropoler]

"The main problem I have here is that GM food producers are put in the position of having to prove a negative, ie that there product is not harmful."

They don't have to prove it, they just have to provide the information so that the authority can determine that a "novel food" does not

- present a danger for the consumer,
- mislead the consumer,
- differ from foods or food ingredients which they are intended to replace to such an extent that their normal consumption would be nutritionally disadvantageous for the consumer.

(Art 3 para 1 Reg 258/97/EC)

That's a standard regulatory technique.

"Eventually will products that have been consumed by billions of people over decades still have to be labeled as GM just as a brand new GM product with only a minimum trial would?"

That's a good question. Once established, they would no longer meet the requirements to fall under the Regulation; it applies

to the placing on the market within the Community of foods and food ingredients which have not hitherto been used for human consumption to a significant degree within the Community...

(Art 1 para 2 Reg 258/97/EC)

[Az]

It's a shame the see such paranoia in the European public.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Azazel
It's a shame the see such paranoia in the European public.

The European public have learnt from experience not to believe most of what governments tell them.

Anyway there are millions of people testing out GM food for us. In a decade or two we will know whether it is safe once any effects start showing up in the American population.

[Az]

The European public have learnt from experience not to believe most of what governments tell them.

"-We ask you to evacuate this area immediately, a hurricane is approaching.
- Nah, you're the GOVERNMENT, you must be after something"


The euro stance on GM is nothing but a fearmongering, panicky attitude.

[HershOstropoler]

The better analogy would be:

"We ask you to stay, there is no hurricane approaching. Well maybe a little wind, but no hurricane. There aren't really hurricanes. Well maybe there are. Sometimes. But not now. Not here. Trust us."

[Az]

It was not an analogy, but explanation to why "never trust the government" is bullshit.

your analogy is not correct, as well, because as long as there is a meteorological service, which is working on checking the weather, People that are packing their bags, moving out in hordes, and incourage others to do so, because of a rumor that a hurricane is coming, are hardly logical.

[HershOstropoler]

"as long as there is a meteorological service"

Which barely exists for GM Foods.

[Az]

So, there is no testing done on the edibility and safety of the foods? ( We'll ignore the fact that the vast majority of the claims against GM food are from bizzaro world, for now.)

[CerberusIV]

Look closer Azazel, I said "not to believe" meaning not to take what the government says at face value.

You think it is OK to have fluoride added to your drinking water, fine. You're happy to live under a high voltage power line, great. The UK government says these things are not proven dangerous. I still won't go along with them. It is a question of individual judgement.

As for GM food, I have no problem with GM crossbreeding of varieties of wheat. I do have a problem with maize containing genes from tomatoes. Until they agree a way to distinguish between the two cases, I want all food from GM sources labelled as such so that I can choose to avoid it. Simple, unless you are Monsanto and their friends.

[Sandman]

I'm indifferent to GM foods. But I don't think they are inventions, and thus should not be patented. If they could not be patented, worthless capitalist GM dross like seed X that goes with weedkiller Y would be less likely to exist. We wouldn't have any concerns about bio-piracy or illiberal legal cases on innocent farmers.

Most of the research would be done by governments and charities, that is, useful research aimed at the betterment of the human race, rather than frivolous products aimed at the betterment of profit.

The EU should accept GM foods without condition, so long as we also ignore any and all 'patents' that go along with them.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
Look closer Azazel, I said "not to believe" meaning not to take what the government says at face value.

You think it is OK to have fluoride added to your drinking water, fine. ... I still won't go along with them. It is a question of individual judgement.

If you are afraid of flouride, what do you brush your teeth with?

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Azazel
So, there is no testing done on the edibility and safety of the foods?

There sure is, but it's hardly comparable to meteorology. Most is done by interest groups that have an agenda either way, and it has to make predictions for decades, not days.

Much of the concerns about GM foods are hysteria, but there are some serious issues about it. To put it all down to "fearmongering, panicky attitude" is onesided. We also get the hysteric "save africa" with GM foods, which is similar bollocks as the anti-GM hysteria.

[CerberusIV]

Fluoride free toothpaste.

It's not that I am afraid of it, just that I stopped with fluoride toothpaste several years ago and have since found I don't need to have fillings replaced as often as I used to.

Off topic but what irritates me about that one is that we get all these pictures of children with decayed milk teeth but never anything about the effects of high levels of fluoride in drinking water on adults.

[Az]

get the hysteric "save africa" with GM foods

I never seen that being said in a hysterical matter.

what definition of hysterical do you imply?

[HershOstropoler]

"Hysteric" as "European opposition to GM foods makes little african babies starve".

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Look how France continues to ban British beef years after both the British government and the EU government have certified British beef as being Mad Cow free. In short the safety excuss has been falsely used so often that most sane people no longer believe the politicians when they cry to ban foreign goods for "safety reasons".

There have been, IIRC over 300 cases of mad cow disease reported so far this year in Britain.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Sandman
I'm indifferent to GM foods. But I don't think they are inventions, and thus should not be patented. If they could not be patented, worthless capitalist GM dross like seed X that goes with weedkiller Y would be less likely to exist. We wouldn't have any concerns about bio-piracy or illiberal legal cases on innocent farmers.

Most of the research would be done by governments and charities, that is, useful research aimed at the betterment of the human race, rather than frivolous products aimed at the betterment of profit.

The EU should accept GM foods without condition, so long as we also ignore any and all 'patents' that go along with them.

That is what I was trying to tell Irman.

[Gibsie]

What amuses me is how that bloody Atkins Diet can get a million Brits damaging their bodies in the name ofa slimmer waistline despite it being slated by most nutritionists, but despite constant reassurances that GM foods are not inherently harmful or likely to be harmful to health or environment, the people would never willingly eat GM food.

People = stupid

[Odin]

Originally posted by Gibsie
What amuses me is how that bloody Atkins Diet can get a million Brits damaging their bodies in the name ofa slimmer waistline despite it being slated by most nutritionists, but despite constant reassurances that GM foods are not inherently harmful or likely to be harmful to health or environment, the people would never willingly eat GM food.

People = stupid

nonono, People = Ignorant

[DarthVeda]

I was under the impression the EU was blocking importation under that guise for sake of simple protectionism.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Odin
nonono, People = Ignorant

If they're that ignorant (i.e. actively ignoring the experts) then they're stupid