Democracy Fails as GM Seeds Allowed to Enter Europe

[nosmokes]

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/newsprint.cgi?file=/news2005/0817-07.htm"> original

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AUGUST 17, 2005

CONTACT: Greenpeace
Christoph Then, Greenpeace International GM campaigner, (m) [phone]
Mhairi Dunlop, Greenpeace International Media Officer (m) [phone]





 

Democracy Fails as Genetically Engineered Seeds Allowed to Enter Europe

 
BRUSSELS - August 17 - Genetically engineered seeds, such as the GE rapeseed developed by the U.S. biotech company Monsanto, are likely to be given the green light to be imported into Europe. The European Commission is planning to publish its decision on the controversial seeds into the European Union for use in food and animal feed today, despite 13 of the 25 EU member states voting against the proposal (1).

“The Commission will be blatantly disregarding the wishes of the majority of its member states and pushing this controversial decision through at a time when representatives are on holiday,” said Greenpeace International Campaigner Christoph Then. “Allowing the import of Monsanto’s GE rapeseed into Europe poses substantial risks to the environment and maybe even to human health.”

GE seeds pose several risks to the environment, specifically the uncontrolled dispersal of the seeds contaminating non-GE crops. The GE rapeseed is to be imported as whole kernels and then milled, a hugely risky process, as the seed cannot be completely contained during the process and transportation.

Once dispersed, the GE rapeseed can grow, pollinate and then spread rapidly across Europe. Pollen from rapeseed is reported to travel for several kilometres. The first cross-contamination of wild rapeseed and its GE counterpart was reported in the UK recently. In addition to this, documentation from authorities investigating GE imports into Japan showed importing rapeseed for processing can cause massive dissemination of GE rapeseed around the harbours and the mills. Of the ten harbours investigated, eight were contaminated. A number of transport routes as far as 30 kilometres from the port were also affected.

There is growing concern amongst experts that GE rapeseed should never be cultivated in Europe precisely because its pollination and dissemination cannot be controlled. Even Bayer, another biotech company, withdrew its EU application to grow GE rapeseed after EU member states raised their concerns.

Another concern is the significant health effects that have been observed in animal feed trials. Recent studies by Monsanto on rats showed potentially adverse effects, especially significant differences in liver weight. However, the company has withheld the original data of these studies from the public (2).

The risks of uncontrolled spillage and unanticipated adverse effects of the GE rapeseed were even acknowledged by the EU Commission in its decision to allow the imports. The Commission demands that additional measurements must be made against spillage and reporting systems for any observed effects. However, Greenpeace believes these measurements are clearly insufficient.

“While it is encouraging that the EU Commission acknowledges the fact that this crop can hardly be prevented from escaping into the environment it should be using that very evidence to reject market approval of GE seeds completely. The alternative of putting effective controls and monitoring systems in place on voluntary agreements is simply unworkable,” said Then. “The decision should be revoked immediately, and the standards of EU risk assessment and procedure of EU authorisation be reorganised completely.”

Greenpeace is an independent, campaigning organisation, which uses non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and to force the solutions, which are essential to a green and peaceful future.

 *Notes to editors*

(1) In the EU Council of Environment Ministers on December 2004, only six member states voted in favour of the GE rapeseed (GT73), but 13 voted against and the rest of 25 abstained.

(2) Greenpeace wrote several letters to national authorities to get hold of the data. After the organisation won a court case allowing it access to Monsanto’s confidential data of feeding trials with GE maize in June 2005, it was also expected that the data on the feeding trials with GT73 would be made public; but so far the documents have not been published. Contrary to EU law German officials explicitly refuse access to the data, and Greenpeace is awaiting a reaction from the Government in The Netherlands, where Monsanto originally filed the data.

This is the fourth time the EU Commission has allowed the import of GE crops after a five years moratorium that ended in 2003. The other crops are herbicide resistant maize (NK603) and sweet maize containing insecticidal toxin (Bt11) and maize meant for animal feed (MON863).

###

[JDPriestly]

1. How can countries relinquish the fundamental rights

of their peoples to self-governance regarding matters of health and safety? Isn't it up to the people in these countries to determine whether these products could place their health and safety at risk and whether they should be allowed or not? This is an obvious instance in of the abuses that will result from ever increasing world-wide corporate dominance. Sometimes I fear that only total economic chaos will change things, and then not for the better.

[Occulus]

8. Three reasons:

1) Corporations are persons under the law, and thus have rights, and not priveleges. Their very existence should be a mere privelege. It should NOT be treated as a right, nor should their profits. This is true for ALL corporations, of any size.

2) Corporations (and businesses themselves) exist first and foremost to meet a market demand, thus generating profit. All other considerations are secondary.

3) Corporations, on the level of "their People" (being workers who actually manfacture product or actually provide services, rather than suits sitting at a table doing the not-so-hard, cushy, undemanding "work" of making decisions), the corporation is undemocratic as hell. Workers are, for example, often denied even the most basic right of urinating when needful, and the astonishing thing is even among dems you'll find defenders of such utterly reprehensible behavior.

Corporations, ALL of them, need to be onerously and very, very strictly regulated to the narrowest possible definition of their charters and not one stitch further. ANY ventures outside their charter ought to be grounds for the termination of that charter and the liquidation of all assets.

Yes, I am angry at corporations in general. Their supposed "rights"- what ought to be priveleges, all- have ruined an entire planet in the name of shockingly irresponsible, arrogant greed. Basically, the corportion as we know it needs to go.

[Daftly]

24. And if you terminate their charters and liquidate their assets...

what hapens for those who once worked within the corporation.

No. You are correct on all three points, but your conclusions are faulty. Like it or not, corporations are what keep the current economy moving. They should be taxed and regulated, but only in extreme circumstances should they be put out of business.

People still have the right to property and a corporation is someone's property.

[newyawker99]

61. Hi Daftly!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[drduffy]

29. corporations are

the bane of man.

[Maple]

2. Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!

but your link is broken

[ret5hd]

3. yay? (just wondering) (nt)

[Maple]

4. Definitely a yaaaaay!

It's about time the EU dropped it's trade barriers and allowed GM food.

[ret5hd]

5. glad to see you siding with the likes of monsanto over the will of...

the affected people.

good on ya'.

[Maple]

6. It's called science

over ignorance.

And free trade over protectionism

[ret5hd]

7. then let monsanto release their science that show...

"significant health effects that have been observed in animal feed trials."

from the op:
Recent studies by Monsanto on rats showed potentially adverse effects, especially significant differences in liver weight. However, the company has withheld the original data of these studies from the public

sounds like the only "ignorance" here is being forced on the public by monsanto.

[Maple]

9. That rat thingy

was debunked long ago.

And Monsanto isn't the only company involved in GM food

You eat it every day. Starting with breakfast.

[Occulus]

11. Do you own stock in GM foods? n/t

[Maple]

13. No

Now enough with the paranoid plots. Try science.

[Eloriel]

14. Uh, no, *I* DON'T eat it every day

period. But it takes some doing. OTOH, it's much healthier to eat in ways that also remove the possibility of any GMO foods in your life.

[Maple]

17. Yeah you do

You're just unaware of it.

Nearly everything in North America is GM and has been for years.

[BeTheChange]

54. Some of us prepare our foods and know what goes in them..

and buy local. My local farm, Tomary's, grows heirloom veggies and has been doing it for generations from the same seed they started with. I also grow a great deal of our produce from the seeds my own family has been using and harvesting for decades.


Montsano is the devil and when I take the time to put nourishment into the bodies of myself and my family I sure as hell dont settle for genetic modification. I also dont eat foods that have been drowned in pesticides, or grown in completely sterile soil. It's an incredibly hard lifestyle, but it makes me happy to know that Im not lining the pockets of fatcats who are putting families out of business... or subjecting us to things that havent even been properly studied.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maple]

Actually it was debunked

Go google it

[meganmonkey]

21. Why do you always say that to people?

Why do you assume that they don't know what they are putting into their bellies?

[Maple]

23. Because it's true

People don't know. Most food in NA has been GM for years and years...it's just not mentioned.

You may be paying top dollar for 'organic'...but it's GM nonetheless. 'Organic' has a lot of meanings...no pesticide for example but it doesn't specifically rule out GM. It can't.

And in any case we've genetically modified our food since cave days.

And yes, I mean precisely that.

[meganmonkey]

26. Give me some evidence, please

Even the half-assed USDA organic standards still require nonGMO seed, although we had to fight our asses off to get that in the rules and who knows how long they'll stay that way, thanks to pressure from Monsanto et al.

If you are defining GMO as hybrid, then just say hybrid. I am not here to get into a discussion of semantics (yes, I know that one of the meanings of 'genetically modified' is the same as hybrid, but you know just as well that is NOT what we are talking about here).

Otherwise, show me that the food grown at the CSA where I get my produce is GMO. I'd really like to know so I can expose them for the frauds that they are :eyes:

[Maple]

31. Corn, soy beans...

all of it GM.

30,000 processed products as well.

Wheat has been for eons.

All you have to do is google on a non propaganda site.

I have no idea what a CSA is...but if it's a grocery store...you're paying big bucks for bunkum

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maple]

41. So go look it up. Google is your friend.

And I live in Canada...so I had no idea what a CSA is supposed to be.

We have farmer's markets...same idea.

Still GM I'm afraid

What's my motive...well, see secretly I make crop circles in my spare time...and GM crops make the best ones.

Stop with the plots already...it's scientifically sound.

And protectionism is the only thing Europe is going on about.

[meganmonkey]

46. First of all

There are CSA's in Canada. I know some people who run one in Quebec (that's still part of Canada, right?)

Second - Please show me a website with some evidence. I am obviously too ignorant to find a 'nonpropaganda' site by myself.

Third - a CSA is nothing like a farmer's market. I don't think you followed my links. Shocking.

Last - the plots? The only plot being hatched here is by the biotech industry. Aside from the studies that they fund, the vast majority of scientists agree that it is far too early to declare GMOs safe, and the potential consequences (both intended and unintended) likely outweigh the supposed benefits.

P.S. Thanks for this exchange. You are giving me a lovely opportunity to educate people who are reading this thread, while demonstrating perfectly that there is no substance in the pro-GMO arguments, aside from maybe profit.

[Occulus]

10. how about a corporation over the public will

This is a terrible thing to happen. Basically it tells Monsanto, "Don't worry about how the people of our nations feel; we'll back you over them."

If you subscribe to the idea of corporate personhood, Monsanto is an INDIVIDUAL. By siding with it, you're saying that the wants of the ONE outweigh the will of the many.

Not democratic AT ALL.

[Eloriel]

12. I also call if fascism.

The hegemony of corporations over governments, nations and people.

And if THIS is what your science wreaks, I want none of it. There's no benefit or collection of benefits that weigh the risk and, in fact, the proven problems.

[Maple]

16. You are both unaware

of the EU's continuing efforts to erect barriers in agriculture.

It has nothing to do with GM food per se...it has to do with trade.

And politics.

Check how big agriculture is in France, Germany etc...politicians don't want to upset the farmers.

GM is just a handy nail to hang an objection on.

[Kellanved]

60. actually it is not.

The EU produces way too much food as it is - without GM. Further raising the production will just cause more food to be thrown away (and don't even start with the proposal of ruining other countries by dumping the overproduction on them).

GM does mean one thing fore and foremost: more and stronger pesticides and herbicides. Therein lies the problem: the GM itself isn't the issue.
Also, it pretty much destroys smaller and mid-sized farms, as those can't benefit in the same way big latifundiae can. It creates a new market: the GM seed market. At what price? The small regional producers.

[marcus_b]

63. Science gives no answer.

This is not science. It's politics and corporate greed.

Science does not even begin to answer any of the important questions related to GMOs. We are talking about unleashing changes onto the world at a massive scale which intrude into areas of molecular biology of which we have almost no understanding at all. You can marvel at the great achievements of science in the 20th century, but the fact is that we know very little, and understand even less.

If you set modified organisms into the nature, you can not contain them. They will invariably contaminate other plants and spread around the globe, and nobody knows what happens next, in 20 years, in 100 years, in 1000 years. Nobody will give you any guarantees, nobody will commit to cover the risks. The companies involved in this business will reap the profits now, and socialize the costs later.

We are not talking about contained, isolated experiments in laboratories, but about radically modifying nature itself at a deep level. Chances are that _you_ will not need to suffer from the consequences, if you die within the next 50 years, you probably will be able to live off the nature that evolved in the last millions of years. The problem lies down the road, and you are hyping a technology that we do not understand, and which we can not contain after releasing it. It's simply irresponsible, and the people won't have any of it, and thus it must be pushed down their throats for the narrow self-interests of some corporate owners.

[TheFarseer]

18. I guess American farmers should just accept

that Monsanto totally screwed them and be OK with not being allowed to export grain anywhere?

[Maple]

19. American farmers have been happily

growing GM crops for years.

And your export markets are fine

[TheFarseer]

20. The first part is true

No reason to be unhappy except that the seed costs more. GM's are not dangerous at all.

I'm not sure our export markets are fine. There's always some stupid crap pushing prices lower and alot of the time it's some GM scare.

[Maple]

22. Yes, an EU trade barrier

and exports to Africa are difficult because they grow for Europe. Most places don't object though

GM rice just came online in the farm belt too.

[KittyWampus]

25. And DU'ers Laugh At Me When I Talk About The Scientific Industrial Complex

But here we get to see the beast.

A multinational corporation forcing their 'Scientifically' engineered plant seeds onto Humanity.

And those farmers who supposedly are "happily planting GM seed" don't have much of a choice at this point.

Growing an entire crop of plants who are EXACTLY the same genetically is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

[ret5hd]

27. hey now, you don't GET it...it's SCIENCE!...

not corporate greed, SCIENCE! You can't SEE the science, but, well, that's the nature of science, isn't it? Faith. Thats what science is. That's it...it's faith-based SCIENCE!

[Maple]

30. Same science you believe

about global warming and the hole in the ozone I'm afraid.

I do wish you guys would get over your 'everything's a plot' stuff.

We've had GM foods since the cave...and here we are living longer healthier lives than we ever have throughout history.

It's funny...but all these same predictions were made when 'frozen food' first came on the market.

Unnatural ya know, to eat strawberries in December.

[ret5hd]

33. yeah, you're right...except for the fact that i can peruse the data...

and results of that other stuff in professional peer reviewed journals if i choose...and so can other unbiased scientists that would know how to interpret that data and results.

doesn't seem to be the case with this.

where's a tobacco scientist when you need one?

[Maple]

34. Or Royal Society data

and not Greenpeace junk

[ret5hd]

35. i am speaking of monsanto's data. (nt)

[Maple]

38. And Monsanto is the boogey man, I know

however you eat GM food every day.

We go through this same rigamarole with every new item...from flying to cars to TV sets to frozen food to computer screens to cell phones.

It's all 'gonna kill us'

Except it doesn't.

I don't intend to argue GM food...the science is sound, and far better than in years gone by when we combined foods without any idea of what we were doing...now we can be specific and precise.

I simply cheered the fact that we are overcoming artificial barriers with Europe. Barriers meant to shield their farmers from world trade by keeping North American food out. Protectionism in other words.

[ret5hd]

40. if no one can review the data, how can you claim the science is sound?

[Maple]

42. The data is available online

and has been for years.

Most scientific publications are you know

[ret5hd]

50. but monsanto's data isn't.

[nosmokes]

49. you keep spouting science & google

but i have yet to see you cite a specific article, study or source. but w/o getting into a pissing match, with studies showing organic farming to be just as effecient as conventional methods (and just WTF is conventional about dumping poison all over our food?) and much better for our health and our planet and uses a lot less fossil fuels, why should science be engaged in the process of making crops that areonly going to be putting an added burden on subsistence third world farmers because monsanto now owns the patent?

[Robert Oak]

53. LOL, absolutely

because if one does a google, you come up with hundreds of links,
papers and references stating there are real problems with GM foods!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=harmful+effects+genetic+engineering&btnG=Google+Search

simple google results!

[elehhhhna]

62. lol.

[Robert Oak]

28. background on GM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food


There are many other studies of Monarch butterflies being affected and so forth.

This has a fairly unbiased overview with references.

No, it's not a good thing and no "free trade" this is not, it's Monsanto again pushing their desire to make the plant a "patent" (one cannot patent a plant by intellectual property law) and control the world's seeds.

[Maple]

32. No it didn't kill butterflies either

and no, Monsanto is only one company.

While you're busy worrying about them, you're consuming GM food every day.

[Robert Oak]

36. uh, yes it did

Look, I notice you are busy spamming everyone on this thread.

Like others, may I suggest obtaining studies and credible references
(not corporate press releases) to back up these claims?

Doing this is spreading disinformation, is NOT inaccurate and a waste of my time as well as others to just spam the posts as well as adds nothing to the facts of this particular story.

[Maple]

43. Sorry, but answering people

is not spamming, and the butterfly story was debunked long ago.

Why do you folks expect me to do the work for you?

I simply cheered a trade barrier break-through.

The arguing is all yours.

[Robert Oak]

52. no it's not

people are pointing to articles, scientific studies overviews.

You are just claiming this with no facts.

Why, because you are incorrect.

And that is plain spamming to say something is wrong with a reference
and no counter reference.

[wli]

39. Monsanto made deals with I.G. Farben in 1967

Boycott Monsanto.

[Maple]

44. Yeah, that'll help

Not.

[wli]

48. it's not to help; it's justice. Do you know what I.G. Farben was? n/t

[Maple]

45. I repeat: Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!

Less agricultural protectionism makes for a better world.

GM food is scientifically sound...those of you who aren't scientifically inclined, or prefer ludditeism, can argue it out amongst yourselves.

It's been fun. Thanks for the news btw!

[moondust]

47. And the new superweed?

GM crops created superweed, say scientists

Modified rape crosses with wild plant to create tough pesticide-resistant strain

Paul Brown, environment correspondent
Monday July 25, 2005
The Guardian

Modified genes from crops in a GM crop trial have transferred into local wild plants, creating a form of herbicide-resistant "superweed", the Guardian can reveal.
The cross-fertilisation between GM oilseed rape, a brassica, and a distantly related plant, charlock, had been discounted as virtually impossible by scientists with the environment department. It was found during a follow up to the government's three-year trials of GM crops which ended two years ago.

The new form of charlock was growing among many others in a field which had been used to grow GM rape. When scientists treated it with lethal herbicide it showed no ill-effects.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1535428,00.html

[nosmokes]

51. hey xap, i'm sure maple will be back to debunk the

superweed *plot* started by us nasty misguided organic food eaters and trade protectionists... ;) but i imagine it takes some time to look up refutations in peer reviewed journals when you don't understand the basic difference between hybridization and genetic manipulation.

[moondust]

55. Ya think the cat's got his tongue?

:rofl:

[BeTheChange]

56. Whatcha talking about willis?

That superweed is great stuff, man.

It can be used as fuel when we run out of oil and a nuclear safe weapon.

Didnt you hear that Montsano was working with the US govt to create a "green" weapon? Pretty soon we can devaste entire countries with just a few seeds.

It's the wave of the future, man. You hippie peacenics should love this shit.

:sarcasm:

[LiveWire]

57. I hate to be the barer of bad news...

but as a Cultural Anthropologist, ALL cereals of genetically engineered! Green Peace is spending their valuble time on a topic that will actually HELP thousands of people. Putting the term "rape" into a foodstuff is frivolous. Please concern yourselves with other worldly matters Green Peace.

[nosmokes]

58. a hybrid does not equal GMO

that's what monsanto and ADM and chevron would like you to believe, that what they're doing is no more troubling than making pluots or coming up with a rose, but it's world's apart. and with studies that show organic farming to be as effecient as conventional, not to mention cheaper, thdn why not put science to work making that even more effecient? that's what's gonna save the developing world, not corn that they hafta pay a royalty to monsanto on. and spray with chemicals that will poison their the well sooner or later.

[BeTheChange]

59. Pluots suck

Im not a big fan... maybe Im missing something.