
Monsanto gives up fight for genetically modified plants in Europe - pdknsk
http://www.dw.de/monsanto-gives-up-fight-for-gm-plants-in-europe/a-16851701
======
ihsw
The problem isn't GMO plants in Europe, it's the IP system surrounding them
that's the problem. The massive upwelling of opposition to GMO's on the part
of national governments isn't opposition to GMO, but instead it's opposition
to _Monsanto_ and the _legal risks_ surrounding Monsanto's plants.

Monsanto is predatory to the point of absurdity, and that is where opposition
to GMO comes from. They throw lawyers at you until you comply with their
demands, and then you pay a tithe to them. It's a modern form of feudalism
that centers around abusing the legislative and justice systems.

~~~
deweller
Actually, the problem IS with GMO plants in Europe.

> ...among those [Europeans] who know what GMOs are, 59 percent of surveyed
> citizens believe they are unhealthy, with only 22 percent believing they are
> not.

> In its history, the European Union has only approved two genetically
> modified organisms for cultivation: Monsanto’s MON810 maize, in 1998 (which
> was renewed in 2009), and BASF’s Amflora potatoes, in 2010.

~~~
_pmf_
> > ...among those [Europeans] who know what GMOs are, 59 percent of surveyed
> citizens believe they are unhealthy, with only 22 percent believing they are
> not.

It would be nice to correlate this with the percentage of people who are
considering dihydrogen monoxide to be unhealthy.

~~~
talmand
You shouldn't joke about that stuff. I know for a fact that every single
creature that has ever consumed it later dies.

~~~
mikeash
That's just plain wrong. Only about 90% of humans who have consumed it have
died.

~~~
freehunter
The rest are in various stages of dying.

------
api
I really think there'd be less opposition to GMOs were it not for the fact
that this one company -- a firm with a history of somewhat scummy and
antagonistic behavior -- didn't control the _entire_ industry.

~~~
pvnick
>didn't control the entire industry

While this is obvious hyperbole, I agree with your general sentiment. In fact,
GMOs, perhaps more-so than any other modern technology, have an unprecedented
potential to save billions of lives. Golden Rice alone could save the lives of
one million children every year.

As a biochem major, GMOs are something I'm passionate about, and it _really_
aggravates me when I see armchair scientists (read: people who watched a
youtube video) decrying them as dangerous and calling for their banning. I
would say these people are partially to blame for the regulatory nightmare
that Golden Rice advocates are facing, meanwhile one million children go blind
and die terrible deaths each year from vitamin A deficiency.

~~~
manmal
>unprecedented potential to save billions of lives

Potential, yes; but not with massive financial interests behind it. In a world
where shiploads of wheat are held back in order to game the wheat market,
things need to change before GMOs can cure 3rd world hunger.

I've read that GMOs have to be bought anew for every season because the
harvested crops can't be used as seeds. Is that actually true?

~~~
jrkelly
Buying new seeds every season began with hybrid crops in the 1920s.

"Today, hybrid seed production is predominant in agriculture and home
gardening, and is one of the main contributing factors to the dramatic rise in
agricultural output during the last half of the 20th century. In the US, the
commercial market was launched in the 1920s, with the first hybrid maize. All
of the hybrid seeds planted by the farmer will be the same hybrid while the
seeds from the hybrids planted will not consistently have the desired
characteristics. This is why hybrid seed is constantly repurchased by growers
for each planting season." <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_seed>

~~~
nitrogen
But at least you still have the option of accepting the mixed results of
replanting hybrid seeds.

------
mtgx
Too bad they are getting a free ride with the patent system in US.

------
smsm42
Good. If EU wants to have inferior crops, let them have it. Actually, I wonder
why won't they go the full scale and sow original, unmodified plants - like
wild emmer - and also eschew use of pesticides and herbicides. Of course,
there's no chance they could feed the Europe population then, but I'm sure US
would be able to sell them all the crops they need, while they enjoy that nice
fuzzy feeling of not being contaminated by the nasty modern science.

------
chm
This is a great "precedent" in both agricultural and patent law. Even if it
wasn't a ruling, it sends a positive message.

No matter how you look at it, the Americas are a huge agricultural laboratory,
and we're the guinea pigs.

Monsanto should disseminate knowledge about the science behind its products.
Their current effort([http://www.monsanto.com/products/Pages/monsanto-science-
and-...](http://www.monsanto.com/products/Pages/monsanto-science-and-
research.aspx)) is too shallow and simple. Give me hard data, not PR stuff.

~~~
smsm42
It would be nice but useless as 99.999% of people protesting against GMO
couldn't care less about science. They don't know the first thing about what
GMO are and where they come from, all the know it's some scary stuff that
"contains genes" and since it comes from the large corporation it would kill
us all unless we march on the streets with slogans. More science helps when
there's no information, when there's no interest in information more science
would not do a thing.

~~~
chm
This does accurately describes the _status quo_ , but I think it is Monsanto's
(and others') duty to change it. The tremendous advances that have been made
in science in the past century haven't percolated down to the populace yet. It
takes time and sustained effort, but the level of scientific literacy could
increase.

Actually, I think we're at the stage where people know a lot of new terms, but
don't really understand the concepts behind them. Like genes.

------
contingencies
Curve-ball: Europe vs. USA.

Greater population density, greater decentralization of agricultural
production, greater variety and cultural attachment to regional culinary
preferences, greater (dare I say it) social concern.

Purely on the basis of these base environmental factors, GM monocultures in
Europe were never a winning proposition.

------
maeon3
Imagine if a nation who had a significantly worse obesity epidemic going on
that was way worse than in the US. And they were pushing to sell seeds to us.

It's kind of like a hobo who is next to death trying to sell you some health
pills while insisting that his poor health is not caused by the health pills
he has been taking all the time.

~~~
vanderZwan
I'm very skeptical of Monsanto and their business practices, but that
reasoning does not hold water.

