Both sides claim win in Monsanto vs Italy GMO case

[Suspicious]

BRUSSELS, Sept 9 (Reuters) - Both sides in a row over genetically modified (GMO) foods claimed victory on Tuesday when the European Union's top court ruled that Italy had the right to ban GMO maize (corn) if it can show grounds to suspect it is a health risk.

snip

Italian scientists had found residues of GMO protein in the milled maize which had been approved on behalf of the whole EU by British and French authorities under a simplified procedure used when GMO foods are "substantially equivalent" to conventional ones.

The court said the detection of GMO protein did not undermine the original "simplified" authorisation and was not in itself grounds to ban the maize.

Maybe I'm just a simpleton, but it sounds to me as if the idea of erring on the side of caution (what the hell, it's just the environment, our lives and the lives of future generations we're talking about - why would anyone have a problem with a little experimentation at the hands of robber barons?) is not fashionable in this brave new world of genetically modified food.

Then there's this:

The United States, Canada and Argentina, which are major growers of GMO crops, have taken the EU to the World Trade Organisation for refusing to authorise any new GMO strains since 1998 pending tougher rules on safety testing and labelling.

I wonder how things are going in Cancun, by the way?

On Edit: And of course, I forgot the link: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L09340836.htm

[Maple]

1. Things are going fine in Cancun

and have no connection to GM foods.

Which, btw, you eat every day.

[Suspicious]

2. Well...

Since the WTO is, indeed, holding a 5-day meeting in Cancun - starting tomorrow - and because the U.S. has been embroiled in trade wars with Europe for some time now over the issue of GM foods, I think there is definitely a connection.

Maybe you missed this:

The United States, Canada and Argentina, which are major growers of GMO crops, have taken the EU to the World Trade Organisation for refusing to authorise any new GMO strains...


Which, btw, you eat every day.

Right...and I see that as a problem.

[Maple]

3. Well

actually the talks are about agricultural subsidies...not GM foods.

And since man has eaten GM foods since the cave days and we currently have the healthiest, longest lived generation in history...it's hardly a matter of concern.

Except, of course, to EU countries practicing agricultural protectionism. :D

[Jim Sagle]

4. Globalist rubbish.

[Maple]

6. A comment that reflects more on you

than on me...because globalization is a fact, like it or not

And so are the agricultural subsidies that have to be chucked.

Sorry.

[Suspicious]

5. I realize the current talks are not related to GM foods,

specifically; my comment was not meant to be anything more than a general reference to the organization.

As far as GM foods - where corporate monoliths like Monsanto are involved in the modifying (PCB, anyone?) - not being a matter of concern, I guess it is a matter of perspective and opinion, and I can respect yours.

[Maple]

7. Monsanto

is one company with minor influence.

GM foods have always been with us.

[Suspicious]

9. I have an idea that Monsanto's influence is never minor.

It is tentacled and has various ex-executives who seem to have infiltrated the FDA and other agencies charged with overseeing various aspects of, among other things, our health and safety. That fact is a red flag to me, in and of itself.

Aside from the possible health concerns related to GM foods, such as the possibility of the transfer of antibiotic resistance markers - and I remain skeptical, yet somewhat open to argument on that issue, since I have much more reading to do - GM foods concern me for other reasons, as well:

-No mandatory labeling (in U.S.), which completely removes the consumer's ability to make an informed decision on the products they purchase (without extensive research).

-The possibility of world food domination by a select-few companies (e.g., Monsanto).

-The increased dependence on industrialized nations by less-developed countries.

I am curious as to what you mean when you say GM foods have always been with us? Certainly not in the scope or produced in the manner we are seeing now?

[Maple]

11. Monsanto is only one company

it just got all the publicity for some reason.

Cave men didn't have poodles, horses were 'naturally' the size of dogs, cattle were small with little meat...mostly hair and horns.

Wheat in it's natural state, or oats, any food crop...all quite different that what they are now.

Corn on the cob was about half an inch long...and tasteless.

Original foods had little yield, were often bitter, and were subject to every kind of bug and disease.

And apples....well, they are a long story of grafting one kind of plant to another.

Things were not better back in the 'old days' in their 'natural state'

Worms, blight, crops ruined...famine.

We've improved all of it...with the best motivation in the world. Hunger.

It's gone on for thousands of years....and yet today suddenly people would rather have pesticide and herbicide dumped all over their food than simply making them pest resistant.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

15. You don't know what you are talking about...

Cave men didn't have poodles, horses were 'naturally' the size of dogs, cattle were small with little meat...mostly hair and horns

You have no idea what you are talking about do you? What you are refering to is "selective breeding". Another way to look at it is "accelerated natural selection". What is done is that animals or plants with certain desirable traits bred in a way that supresses undesirable genes and emphasises desirable genes. In all cases the genes already have to be present in the target organism or selective breeding won't work.

For example you can't breed a monkey with a dog, no matter how hard you try.

suddenly people would rather have pesticide and herbicide dumped all over their food than simply making them pest resistant

Thats right, we would rather have pesticides dumped ON our food where we can wash it off, than bred INTO our food where we HAVE TO EAT THEM!

How exactly do you think they make plants "resistant"? They do so by finding a natural source of such pesticides and then gene splicing the ability to manufacture this pesticide into these plants. The pesticide is still there, it is just manufactured in the plant instead of in a factory.

By the way, you ignore the VAST majority of GM done to plants is NOT to make plants resistant to pests or weeds, but to make them resistant to the PESTICIDES and HERBICIDES we use to kill those pests and weeds, encouraging MORE use of these highly toxic chemicals.

Have you never heard of "Round-Up Ready"?

Scientific studies have shown that GM results in the use of MORE herbicides and pesticides, and LOWER yields. Oh, and HIGHER Profits for the GM companies!

[JohnyCanuck]

8. GM foods are different than traditional plant breeding

We haven't been eating Genetically Modified foods since the cave days since the technology available to insert foreign genes into plants has only been around for the last 10 or 20 years or so. Traditional plant breeding is not the same as Genteic Modification (as the term is used today). Back in the "cave days" there was no way to splice a gene from a flounder into a tomato plant, which is precisely the type of things scientists are doing today with genetic modification. Prior to the development of techniques of genetic modification within the last 20 years or so, plant breeders could take a tomato plants and crossbread it with other tomato plants to produce, bigger tomatoes, sweeter tomatoes, different colours of tomatoes etc. but that is not Genetic Modification.

Much of the food consumed in the United States is genetically modified (GM). GM food derives from microorganisms, plants, or animals manipulated at the molecular level to have traits that farmers or consumers desire. These foods often have been produced by techniques in which "foreign" genes are inserted into the microorganisms, plants, or animals. Foreign genes are genes taken from sources other than the organism's natural parents. In other words, GM plants contain genes they would not have contained if researchers had used only traditional plant breeding methods

http://scope.educ.washington.edu/gmfood/commentary/show.php?author=Comstock

[Maple]

10. I'm sorry, but it's been done since the cave days,

the unscientific and generalized 'foreign genes' buzzword-distraction notwithstanding....and often by guessing.

Traditional plant and animal breeding methods are quite different than what you imagine them to be I'm afraid.

Ain't none of it 'natural' and all of it's 'foreign'

Always has been.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

16. Of course!

I should have known we have been breeding fish and tomatoes for centuries! All that gene splicing is TOTALLY UNNECESSARY! All we have to do is get the fish to fuck the tomatoes!

So, lets ban genetic modification by gene splicing - after all we don't need it, so let's just stick to the ways we've been doing it for millenia!

That is how we can breed fish genes into tomatoes - the natural way!

Either that, or you really have no idea what you are talking about.

[NickB79]

13. Gene swapping does exist in nature

It is, admittedly, fairly rare in plants and almost unknown in animals, but it has been shown time and again to occur often between various bacterial strains. A drug-resistant species of bacteria can often pass that resistance to other species of bacteria it may come in contact with via plasmid swapping, greatly increasing the risk of widespread antibiotics resistance. In plants, retroviruses such as Agrobacterium can take up DNA from one plant species when it replicates in its cells and carry that DNA with them when they leave the host cells. If they then infect another plant of a different species, they can introduce that DNA into the new specie's genome. In fact, Agrobacterium-mediated gene transfer is one of the primary ways that current genetic engineering of crops is accomplished in the lab. Like I said, it is fairly rare outside of a lab; however it does happen and has been happening in nature without man's interference for millions of years. We've only taken it one step further by beginning to introduce more genes, larger genes, and genes from non-plant sources into them. Whether or not the products are safe is a totally different subject that deserves intense scrutiny.

[E_Zapata]

12. Exactly, Ag subsidies:

And the US wants to subsidize the world with GMO ag subsidies. That IS the issue.

Since cave days? I won't even ask.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

14. Wow! I didn't know cave men knew about gene splicing!

So how did those fish genes get in the tomatos before gene splicing was invented? Did the fish fuck the tomato plants, or did the tomato plants fuck the fish?

Or are you just full of shit?

Selective breeding is NOT genetic modification.