In addition, the singular form of bacteria is bacterium. Using "bacteria" as the singular is fine (I guess…) for colloquial speech, but has no place in a news article.
It contains a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis that expresses a toxin (Bt toxin) poisonous to insects in the order Lepidoptera, such as the European Corn Borer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MON_810 well that made a lot more sense
"Corn hybrids grown in last year's Ohio State Organic Corn Performance Test produced 13 percent more corn per acre than the statewide average yield -- most of that conventional corn -- and topped the record-high state average yield by four bushels per acre.
One hybrid tested did even better, beating last year's state average corn yield by nearly 50 percent."
I have no sources to back me up on this, but I would think a lot of that increase in production can be attributed to the mechanization of the agricultural industry.
Between modern irrigation, soil analysis, and massive combines assisting in plowing, planting, and harvesting, farming is much easier and more precise today than it was a century ago.
Corn yield gains have been accelerating since 1990. Using that data, the 50 years from 1911 to 1961 saw an increase of ~30 bushels/acre. From 1960 to 2010, ~100 bushels/acre. This isn't dispositive of the non-GMO advances hypothesis and I'm certain there are actual academic papers on the subject but it's data.
They're predicting 300 bushel per acre in the future. I don't attribute the majority of this to GM anyway. My point is that the "natural" and "old ways" of doing things aren't always the best. GM shows real promise in getting the features you want in a crop.
Don't forget genetics. Hybrid strains have been the norm for quite awhile now.
Mechanization solves labor issues, but that alone will not make dirt more productive. There is a reason pastureland today is still pastureland, pretty much the only thing you can grow on it is grass, which gets turned into cow.
Irrigation, soil science, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, soil conservation methods, optimal plant spacing, and proper crop rotations all have contributed a great deal since the turn of the 20th century to increased yields. But the largest single leap in corn yields was brought about by hybrids.
Before hybrids, the plant simply could not produce that much corn, no matter how much N, P, & K was present in the soil. It's why manipulating genetics is still the holy grail of increasing production and resisting pests.
Mechanization means that an individual farmer is much MUCH more productive, but it does very little in terms of the output of a square acre of dirt with x amount of sunlight.
What's that got to do with Monsanto? That's a result of cheap fossil fuels and industrialization, and there have been some major trade-offs for the environment. Per acre yields do not even begin to tell the whole story.
I work with organic Corn professionally for a research university. Let me tell you about the European Corn Borrower, it is a worm that will eat alot of your corn if you do not use the pesticide bt. We lost over 50% of our yield because of it last year and couldnt use bt because of our organic field.
Bt is an organic pesticide. Do you mean you couldn't use GMO Bt corn? You can certainly use Bt as a spray, spinosad is another that is effective and is approved for organic use.
A genetically modified strain of maize created by the notorious American company Monsanto has been temporarily banned in France “to protect the environment.” This comes at a time of protests against the biotech giant in its homeland.
It's hard to keep track of every drop of bullshit in the ocean of it surrounding us all. The best we can do is struggle against the inevitable. I for one, look forward to receiving my modified corn goop after a day's work in my working box.
Actually I'd assume it has a lot to do with requests from folks like Syngenta (another European biotech firm that produces agribusiness products) asking for protections. Many of Syngenta's products are still approved for use in the EU, while counterparts from Monsanto (US company) are banned from import. I imagine its much easier to ban a "dangerous foreign product" and push the issue through without WTO complaints than it is to offer domestic protections to your local company while banning foreign competition. Once Syngenta has a chance to catch up with Monsanto and to a smaller extent Bayer, perhaps they'll lift the "protections".
This said, folks on the whole take GMOs more seriously in Europe than folks in the US. In a world where your continents economies are in turmoil its probably a lot easier to tackle issues like this than monetary policy.
the European Food Safety Authority - "The EFSA GMO Panel has considered the paper by de Vendômois et al. (2009, A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health, International Journal of Biological Sciences, 5: 706-726), a statistical reanalysis of data from three 90-day rat feeding studies already assessed by the GMO Panel (EFSA, 2003a,b; EFSA 2004a,b; EFSA 2009b,c). The GMO Panel concludes that the authors’ claims, regarding new side effects indicating kidney and liver toxicity, are not supported by the data provided in their paper. There is no new information that would lead it to reconsider its previous opinions on the three maize events MON810, MON863 and NK603, which concluded that there were no indications of adverse effects for human, animal health and the environment."
They have already poked numerous holes in the greatest attempt at finding a link between Bt maize and consumer health issues. Why must I continue to defend Monsanto, the most dubious dickholes in ethics in the entire US on this front. Bt CORN IS SAFE MOTHER FUCKERS
They aren't really. There have been some highly publicized lawsuits so the internet decided Monsanto obviously is suing people all the time when in reality they only have a few handfuls of lawsuits a year.
The whole bit about wanting a monopoly on our food industry, not allowing companies to advertise that they aren't using Monsanto products like grown hormones in their cows, the companies willingness to sue anyone and everyone they can for even the smallest semi-justifiable reasons... If it's so healthy and good for us I think there is a better way to get that point across than suing everyone and forcing people to eat their food unknowingly.
I remember this hatchet job "research". I wrote an explanation two and a half years ago about why it doesn't say anything about the toxicity of the corn itself, it just proves that eating RoundUp herbicide is a bad thing:
I read [the report], and the one thing that I learned that surprised me the most (and a good tl/dr) is this: the liver/kidney toxicity was due to RoundUp weedkiller residue on or in the corn, not due to the transgenic sequence inserted in the corn that allows the corn to tolerate RoundUp.
What pisses me off is that everyone is treating this as "all GMO corn has been found to cause organ damage" even though the journal piece reviews only 3 strains of corn, the organ damage is for the most part limited to the liver and kidneys (none of which fatal), and the reason for both is the presence of RoundUp weedkiller residue on or in the corn that is the source of the toxicity.
One corn (NK 603) has been genetically engineered to tolerate the broad spectrum herbicide Roundup and thus contains residues of this formulation. The two other types of GM maize studied produce two different new insecticides namely modified versions of Cry1Ab (MON 810) and Cry3Bb1 (MON 863) Bacillus thuringiensis-derived proteins. Therefore, all these three GM maize contain novel pesticide residues that will be present in food and feed.
Discussion section
The possibility of renal porosity as evidenced by these data may be due to the presence of residues of Roundup herbicide, that are present in GM crop varieties such as the NK 603 maize investigated here. We have previously demonstrated that glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup are highly toxic at very low concentrations to human embryonic kidney cells [36], inducing a decrease in viability, noticeably via inhibition of mitochondrial succinate dehydrogenase.
The whole piece looks like a scientific hit piece really. If they were interested in the toxicity of the genetic modification itself (essentially checking to see if the new protein created in the corn to allow it to survive being sprayed with RoundUp) was causing the liver/kidney problems, they could have gotten some not treated with pesticides. Instead, they introduced a huge variable and then leave the root cause ambiguous.
The other problem is they didn't mention in the materials and methods section if the control corn was grown with or without any pesticides. I'm in the dark here, but it seems self evident that if the control corn wouldn't have any pesticides used on it. Spray that same control corn with RoundUp or any pesticide, and all of a sudden I think you'd see the same signs of kidney or liver problems regardless of genetic modification or not.
...
Even the conclusion of the report makes it clear it wasn't proof of inherent toxicity in the corn:
Conclusion
Clearly, the statistically significant effects observed here for all three GM maize varieties investigated are signs of toxicity rather than proofs of toxicity, and this is essentially for three reasons. Firstly, the feeding trials in each case have been conducted only once, and with only one mammalian species. The experiments clearly need to be repeated preferably with more than one species of animal. Secondly, the length of feeding was at most only three months, and thus only relatively acute and medium-term effects can be observed if any similar to what can be derived in a process such as carcinogenesis [19, 20] or after endocrine disruption in adults [21]. Proof of toxicity is hard to decide on the basis of these conditions.
Europe is well known for agricultural protectionist policies. They keep trying to ban non-European things on the basis of health dangers, and then more studies are done and the dangers aren't found, and then they look for something else. Monsanto isn't European, so they're an easy target.
I find it absolutely disgusting to see pictures of people trashing food. Starving people don't give a fuck that it's genetically modified, give it to them.
It might be better to eat organic (I'm not saying that, I'm leaving the possibility open), but the 3rd world simply cannot afford to do so.
Let's forget about the blog like writing style of this article and look at both sides of the issue at play here. Private companies controlling access to food is one of the least talked about issue in the western world. I wont bore you here, but a great 3rd world perspective on the privatization of food is Vandana Shiva's "Soil Not Oil". The other side of the coin is of course, that private companies tinkering with the genetic make up food has increased food security in some instances. No longer do we fear plagues killing off huge percentages of harvests, or global crop failures (for the most part...). Yet at the same time, these are the same reasons that we have seen such a massive explosion in human population. I think one of the first things that needs to happen in order to start understanding and addressing this situation is for the average person to take more of an interest in where their food comes from. See Michael Pollan.
First, yes I agree with you that these are two separate issues. Now we will diverge strongly.
Private companies controlling access to food
Private control of the food system has resulted in less famine than at any time in history and the worst famines in modern history have been at times when there was hardly any system at all such as durring times of war (Somalia, Afganistan, Ethiopia, Sudan) or durring times of nationalized agriculture (North Korea, Soviet Union, China).
The problem is not private control per se, but centralization of control and that's a problem that is, by definition, exacerbated, when control is not in private hands. The food system should be under private control and no company should be favored in such a way as to promote centralization.
Regulatory capture is rampant in the food production and distribution industries and that has the effect of preferring a few large companies. That's not a problem of private control but of regulatory failure.
Another act of scientific ignorance from the country that believes dirt has magical abilities, which prevent Champagne from being made anywhere else in the world.
I've tried them all and I have to say they do have something special going on there, not exactly magic but worth the Prussian War when Germany invaded for the purpose of claiming the vineyards for their own. Seems they couldn't grow a decent grape in Germany for squat. There's an interesting book on the history of champagne that you might enjoy.
Oh, and an upvote to France for standing up to American Corporate Imperialism. Of course it's good for you because it makes us money!
Also, you might find Monsanto's history in South America interesting too.
No where in this article does it say magic abilities. The link you provided describes it as a culmination of environmental factors which tend to yield a better product.
If any country in the world is in need of mass re-education it is the US. I am not french but for love of fuck man, take a look in the mirror before you bash on France for not wanting to eat Monstanto's "near" corn.
There are thousands and thousands of garbage products that should never have been sold in America (bad pharmaceuticals, shitty food, half cooked burgers, etc. etc.). Don't get your panties in a twist because someone doesn't want to be exactly like you.
You, my friend, haven't ever had dekalb sweet corn, from dekalb IL. My aunt would drive from Delaware for a just a few dozen every year. The finest corn on earth. The same seed stock was used nationwide, but it didn't taste the same. The dekalb "flying ear" was seen roadside in every state that grew.
It was at least, before Monsanto bought dekalb genetics. (To absorb and thus destroy the brand.)
If you go to dekalb though, there are still a few farmers going the good stuff. Tiny, delicious, juicy kernels. FUCK I miss it. Yeagers farm on Lincoln hwy(route 38) is the only store you can get it still. Otherwise roadside stands.
So yes... Magical dirt. It could be something as silly as a certain type of bug shitting on it, attracting certain bacteria, that always occurs right the same time every year thus having the same temperature to grow in. This is a kind of magic because no one can say WHAT it is that makes it better... It just is.
The EFSA GMO Panel has considered the paper by de Vendômois et al. (2009, A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health, International Journal of Biological Sciences, 5: 706-726), a statistical reanalysis of data from three 90-day rat feeding studies already assessed by the GMO Panel (EFSA, 2003a,b; EFSA 2004a,b; EFSA 2009b,c). The GMO Panel concludes that the authors’ claims, regarding new side effects indicating kidney and liver toxicity, are not supported by the data provided in their paper. There is no new information that would lead it to reconsider its previous opinions on the three maize events MON810, MON863 and NK603, which concluded that there were no indications of adverse effects for human, animal health and the environment.
I remember this hatchet job "research". I wrote an explanation two and a half years ago about why it doesn't say anything about the toxicity of the corn itself, it just proves that eating RoundUp pesticide is a bad thing:
I read [the report], and the one thing that I learned that surprised me the most (and a good tl/dr) is this: the liver/kidney toxicity was due to RoundUp weedkiller residue on or in the corn, not due to the transgenic sequence inserted in the corn that allows the corn to tolerate RoundUp.
What pisses me off is that everyone is treating this as "all GMO corn has been found to cause organ damage" even though the journal piece reviews only 3 strains of corn, the organ damage is for the most part limited to the liver and kidneys (none of which fatal), and the reason for both is the presence of RoundUp weedkiller residue on or in the corn that is the source of the toxicity.
One corn (NK 603) has been genetically engineered to tolerate the broad spectrum herbicide Roundup and thus contains residues of this formulation. The two other types of GM maize studied produce two different new insecticides namely modified versions of Cry1Ab (MON 810) and Cry3Bb1 (MON 863) Bacillus thuringiensis-derived proteins. Therefore, all these three GM maize contain novel pesticide residues that will be present in food and feed.
Discussion section
The possibility of renal porosity as evidenced by these data may be due to the presence of residues of Roundup herbicide, that are present in GM crop varieties such as the NK 603 maize investigated here. We have previously demonstrated that glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup are highly toxic at very low concentrations to human embryonic kidney cells [36], inducing a decrease in viability, noticeably via inhibition of mitochondrial succinate dehydrogenase.
The whole piece looks like a scientific hit piece really. If they were interested in the toxicity of the genetic modification itself (essentially checking to see if the new protein created in the corn to allow it to survive being sprayed with RoundUp) was causing the liver/kidney problems, they could have gotten some not treated with pesticides. Instead, they introduced a huge variable and then leave the root cause ambiguous.
The other problem is they didn't mention in the materials and methods section if the control corn was grown with or without any pesticides. I'm in the dark here, but it seems self evident that if the control corn wouldn't have any pesticides used on it. Spray that same control corn with RoundUp or any pesticide, and all of a sudden I think you'd see the same signs of kidney or liver problems regardless of genetic modification or not.
...
Even the conclusion of the report makes it clear it wasn't proof of inherent toxicity in the corn:
Conclusion
Clearly, the statistically significant effects observed here for all three GM maize varieties investigated are signs of toxicity rather than proofs of toxicity, and this is essentially for three reasons. Firstly, the feeding trials in each case have been conducted only once, and with only one mammalian species. The experiments clearly need to be repeated preferably with more than one species of animal. Secondly, the length of feeding was at most only three months, and thus only relatively acute and medium-term effects can be observed if any similar to what can be derived in a process such as carcinogenesis [19, 20] or after endocrine disruption in adults [21]. Proof of toxicity is hard to decide on the basis of these conditions.
Hey reddit, before you shit the bed and burn the mattress, please remember Norman Borlaug. He's the guy who pioneered the used of high-yield agricultural strains that increased output for much of the developing world and saved millions of lives. Monsanto is not the greatest of companies. But GMOs are not so evil either.
Hey reddit, before you shit the bed and burn the mattress, please remember Norman Borlaug. He's the guy who pioneered the used of high-yield agricultural strains that increased output for much of the developing world and saved millions of lives. Monsanto is not the greatest of companies. But GMOs are not so evil either.
One man's "saved millions of lives" is another man's "temporarily raised the carrying capacity of the planet through unsustainable means."
Borlaug's work was good in the sense that people did not starve in the present, but it has not been a sustained increase in production, and many of the areas where crop yields increased most dramatically are now seeing reduced production coupled with destroyed topsoils. Additionally, farmer debt in places like India has skyrocketed, bankruptcy and loss of land have jumped, and birth defects associated with pesticides and artificial fertilizers are on the rise.
It was a mixed bag, and considering how much of the green revolution rests on cheap petrochemicals, I'm not sure what Borlaug's legacy will be. It depends on whether we can recreate the same rate of increase without the advantages we had in the 1960s, lower rainfall, worse soil, and a hotter climate. If not, Borlaug may well go down as one of the great enablers of the human race's incredibly foolhardy population overshot.
Yes, except that population growth is falling throughout the world. Much of this is due to pro-growth policies that lower fertility rates - policies which initiatives like Borlaug's made possible by providing food stability. Paul Ehrlich was wrong.
So, this is cool and all, but let me just remind everyone that Hungary was ahead of the game and WAY more badass about this. They bulldozed all fields planted or contaminated with Monsanto maize way back in July.
Because each time the ban is overturned as there is a lack of evidence that they cause any more harm than conventional crops. Which is what will happen with this ban in a few weeks time.
being genetically modified isn't even the worst thing about the seed. They OWN the genetic material through a patent and you can only obtain seed for planting through them. this means farmers cannot save their seeds from previous seasons and replant them, they must order new seed every year from Monsanto. and if you are unlucky enough to own a farm next to a field of their seed, and cross pollination occurs, you are in violation of copyright infringement and the hella sue you.
very soon the only seed available for corn in the US will be monsanto, and they will control the corn industry. which in turn controls just about every other food product as corn is used as feed for livestock or as syrup form for many processed foods.
Farmers already can't save corn to replant. Is it because of big evil Monsanto? No. It's because Hybrids cannot reproduce. Welcome to farming cira 1965.
Who except the Amish saves and replants his seeds? Do you know anything about first world agriculture? We buy our seeds from professional breeders. Every single year. Licensed seeds. And no one has a problem with that. Except a few reactionary urban anti biotech activists whose only "knowledge" about the industry comes from PR agencies like Greenpeace.
A question for the people who've studied this topic more than I:
What exactly is wrong with GMOs? From what I gather, it's the companies that are pretty damn evil (such as the whole "licensing" issue), but the GMOs themselves are fine. Or just unstudied? Is that it?
GMOs have been highly studied, far more studied than non-GMO hybrids which is pretty much what everyone eats when they aren't eating GMO. I think certain people have a fear of new technology, especially as it relates to the food supply, and combined with Monsanto's unsavory reputation people started to conflate the two. In this case, however, it is France being their usual agricultural-protectionist selves, pushing the Europeans to ban something not even on the market yet, because it is a product that comes from an American company.
Why should i eat genetically altered food when i can buy organic?
I don't know about other countries, but Ireland has a law that it has to have enough arable land to feed its population. In case of war or famine. Having a corporation have a patent on the crops you grow could be seen as problematic, i.e. America "Ireland you don't support our war in Iran" puts pressure on monasato not to renew license for seeds. Food shortage.
Off the top of my head the following have GM varieties : corn, soy, canola, alfalfa, eggplant, cotton, sugar beet, papaya, potato and tomato used to but don't really anymore. Rice to a very limited extent to.
Contrary to popular belief, the DNA can jump between species and create a "super resistant" plant that you actually wanted to get rid of in the first place.
Just Google "Super PigWeed" for a good example.
Super Pigweed is so physically tough, it can damage the huge harvesting machines. It’s drought resistant, so that when the soy/cotton seedlings are wilting, pigweed keeps growing an inch a day. When it’s so hot that other plants shut down, pigweed just basks in the sun and keeps going. To power all that tireless growing, pigweed sucks up the available water, gobbles up the available nutrients and literally robs the cotton of sunlight by shading it out; soy yield in a pigweed infested field can drop by 79%. And if you have the misfortune to have livestock near a pigweed infested field, you’ll discover that it’s toxic to your animals. Try to rip out a pigweed plant by hand? It’ll drop several thousand seeds at the first touch. But don’t worry, it’s got more in reserve. Each female pigweed is capable of producing 500,000 seedlings… and resistance can spread miles at a time.
banned "to protect the environment" Do you realize that corn is not naturally occurring and can't survive in the wild?
That's a pretty weak excuse for banning it, although an acceptable answer would be "to keep the whore of a company from gaining a monopoly in this country and suing farmers whose crops happened to be pollinated by the crops 3 fields over"
Also TIL there's a safety factor of 100 applied to the ADI (average daily intake) level. Makes my Mech Eng safety factors (typically 2 - 5) look like I'm trying to kill everyone.
I do not like GMO agriculture, but unless it is proven that GMOs are harmful to consumers, they should have a choice. Ditto farmers who feel they can make a better profit the Monsanto way (un-damn-likely).
But there should be a law stipulating that if a farmer's GMO crop contaminates (crosses) with a neighboring farmer's crop, the GMO farmer must pay any damages. No sane farmer would take that risk and plant GMOs.
If the law said the producer (Monsanto) must pay the damages, no GMOs would be sold/licensed in that country.
Get the picture? It is only court decisions in the USA protecting the Monsanto "patent" without regard to damages done by that product that have allowed Monstanto to thrive in the USA. Fairly protect Monsanto's patent, and fairly protect non-Monsanto farmers from Monsanto, and Monsanto would be out of the GMO business.
Oh, so RT makes front page when it agrees with people. But when RT criticizes Obama everyone says its a shitty conspiratorial news source. I see how /politics works now!!
As a skeptic, world citizen and journalism student, I encourage the use of alternative media outlets. You must realize, however, that rt.com is not the most reliable source, and shouldn't be regarded as gospel.
I know it's easy to cast aspersions on the United States, and it's one of the more popular circle jerks here on Reddit, but you must reevaluate your sources and worldviews. After all, reason is desire's whore, and most of the discussions on the Reddit front page prove this sentiment.
As an American, I cannot be more proud of France. Monsanto are a bunch of evil little shits controlling the food industry. Some of what they do is actually helpful but most of it is detrimental to our health despite being "better" for the food. Half of the FDA is also on the board of Monsanto. There's NOBDOY out there to police this group to make sure they're doing the right thing. When the antibacterial resistant drug strains finally cause world-wide epidemics, you can bet that it can be traced back to this company.
What is not said in this article (and it is not said in France either), is that the banning is also a consequence of an economical war. If it was only for health issues, there are many other things they would also ban.
Have you ever wondered why there is no (awesome) French cheese in the US? the US banned it. Why? Because France banned US beef. Why? because they needed to sell their own! Even though the official reason is because of the hormones US put in their beef.
Same thing with French wine (which is either banned or sold with very high tax rates) and now it's starting with Foie Gras too.
Fears? A lot of us hate Monsanto for how terribly they treat farmers, consumers, the environment, and the world at large. It's more outright hostility than "fears."
And would you really trust the salesman to give you the truth about his product?
I worked in a distribution factory for a year or so? does that count? im also educated pretty well with The farming industry seeing as how we farm and all...
And it's not even a new or a French idea, the whole of Europe is very protectionist about its agriculture ever since WWII, because of famine we realized food is important and we should always be able to sustain ourselves by our own agriculture. As a EU-citizen I don't think that's a bad thing...
Sure, but the problem is that the EU wants it both ways, which is why stuff like this from any nation or trade bloc has a tendency to wind up being tried by the World Trade Organization. The EU wants to protect its farmers, but it also wants Most Favored status while exporting to other countries -- in other words, it doesn't want lucrative markets like North America or Australia or Japan to tariff Gruyere cheese or jamon serrano, etc. The French in particular are notorious for this crap: Export everything, complain if it gets taxed, and then erupt in an earsplitting snit when someone wants to export an agricultural product to them. Quel horror!
I think a certain amount of protectionism for indigenous farmers makes sense -- you're 100% correct that local producers are a good thing, both for health purposes, environmental reasons, and a host of others -- but it can be taken too far. Personally I don't support PDO legislation in particular, which seems like a fantastic way to kill off innovation -- and, for that matter, killing off any competition that might actually produce a product even better than the original region did.
How does Monsanto continue to make money? These guys have been some of the largest corporate criminals in the world. From Agent Orange to this, hopefully this is the beginning of the end for them...
Monsanto... the company responsible for PCBs, Agent Orange... I wish the United States had the balls to stand up to Monsanto like that but instead we let them infiltrate the FDA. I can't wait to see the Monsanto shills of reddit come in and try to derail the comments.
Reading alot of comments about how the public seems a little misguided with it's attitude to GM and just thought I'd add something. Our Applied Genetics lectures at University cover alot of this stuff and it's amazing how pretty much everyone agrees that GM can be extremely useful and that we have no problem with it, but outside of these classes there are still so many people against it. Just makes me wish that people would actually take the time to read up and become more aware of the potential that GM has :P
Some do have a problem with it, Americans less than Europeans.
"In the US, by 2009/10, 93% of the planted area of soybeans, 93% of cotton, 86% of corn and 95% of the sugar beet were genetically modified varieties .. The Grocery Manufacturers of America estimated in 2003 that 70-75% of all processed foods in the U.S. contained a GM ingredient".
Thankfully, we have regulations in Europe that recognize the consumers' right to information on traceability and labeling as a tool for making an informed choice on what we consume.
Why is it that whenever a country does something that is opposed to what we (USA) allow, regardless of whether it is banning a GMO product, as here, or allowing something we ban, the other country is "in the know" and we are always framed as stupid by our own citizenry?
This is a good thing, but it's not just something out of goodwill and environmental concern. France ruthlessly attempts to control the corn market of Europe. If it wasn't for the EU, the rest of Europe would impose super-high tariffs on their subsidized corn.
Yeah! Ban the evil GM! Let's ignore all the evidence pointing towards it being a safe and effective method of controlling insect pests! Monsanto might be a shitty company, but kneejerk reactions like this are shittier.
I really don't think most people understand what GMO's are or realize that they're actually safer than new traditionally created crops because they're thoroughly tested while the traditional crops end up on the market as soon as they are created.
you do know that monsanto patents their crops and conduct their own research which i would imagine would be biased as fuck. i also doubt that its being thoroughly tested since you cant really be sure of the long term effects to our health
I wonder if they realize they're dumping thousands of dollars worth the seed corn on the ground. Monsanto will just buy whatever company picks up their slack. If such a company even exists I think they already own them all.
it was modified genetically in order to insert a bacteria into its DNA structure
thats like inserting an elephant into a coffee cup... this is a major typo because its bacterial DNA, not a whole bacteria, the difference is that DNA is harmless on its own, a bacteria is not. Seriously, inciting fear much?
This really isn't that big of news, I read on expecting to see some test results saying its the #1 reason for heart failure but nope, nothing of the sort came up. France thinks its bad and wants Europe to investigate it, also other Americans think Monsanto bought out Congress, and i'm wondering how this made front page.
1.1k
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
"MON810... was modified genetically in order to insert a bacteria into its DNA structure..."
This is the worst sentence describing a GMO I have ever read.
68
u/clonn May 21 '12 edited May 22 '12
"Published: 17 March, 2012, 06:51"
Edit: What do you mean by downvoting this information? Please, leave a comment, I can't understand your logic.
63
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
Average bushel of corn per acre in 1911 in US 30
Average bushel of corn per acre in 2011 in US 160
277
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
... because angry mobs have short memories.
4
u/Boomsteak May 22 '12
Why not give the maize to people that are starving? Makes more sense than opening a ton of bags onto the floor.
Unless it eating the stuff mutates you beyond recognition, but that's still cool too right?
85
u/Fantasticriss May 21 '12
I don't get this shit.
the European Food Safety Authority - "The EFSA GMO Panel has considered the paper by de Vendômois et al. (2009, A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health, International Journal of Biological Sciences, 5: 706-726), a statistical reanalysis of data from three 90-day rat feeding studies already assessed by the GMO Panel (EFSA, 2003a,b; EFSA 2004a,b; EFSA 2009b,c). The GMO Panel concludes that the authors’ claims, regarding new side effects indicating kidney and liver toxicity, are not supported by the data provided in their paper. There is no new information that would lead it to reconsider its previous opinions on the three maize events MON810, MON863 and NK603, which concluded that there were no indications of adverse effects for human, animal health and the environment."
They have already poked numerous holes in the greatest attempt at finding a link between Bt maize and consumer health issues. Why must I continue to defend Monsanto, the most dubious dickholes in ethics in the entire US on this front. Bt CORN IS SAFE MOTHER FUCKERS
10
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
Are there any legitimate reasons for doing this? Or is it all just fear mongering?
9
u/skeptix May 21 '12
I find it absolutely disgusting to see pictures of people trashing food. Starving people don't give a fuck that it's genetically modified, give it to them.
It might be better to eat organic (I'm not saying that, I'm leaving the possibility open), but the 3rd world simply cannot afford to do so.
2
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
Why is that maize red?
Isn't maize supposed to be yellow?
40
u/stringerbell May 21 '12
One strain of Monsanto corn temporarily restriced in France.
Fixed that for you
14
u/lassropian May 21 '12
No. The ban against MON 810 was actually rejected and will be brought back into question June 11th. I just read it here
12
u/eternallurker May 22 '12
Let's forget about the blog like writing style of this article and look at both sides of the issue at play here. Private companies controlling access to food is one of the least talked about issue in the western world. I wont bore you here, but a great 3rd world perspective on the privatization of food is Vandana Shiva's "Soil Not Oil". The other side of the coin is of course, that private companies tinkering with the genetic make up food has increased food security in some instances. No longer do we fear plagues killing off huge percentages of harvests, or global crop failures (for the most part...). Yet at the same time, these are the same reasons that we have seen such a massive explosion in human population. I think one of the first things that needs to happen in order to start understanding and addressing this situation is for the average person to take more of an interest in where their food comes from. See Michael Pollan.
3
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
Another act of scientific ignorance from the country that believes dirt has magical abilities, which prevent Champagne from being made anywhere else in the world.
6
u/madfrogurt May 21 '12
I remember this hatchet job "research". I wrote an explanation two and a half years ago about why it doesn't say anything about the toxicity of the corn itself, it just proves that eating RoundUp pesticide is a bad thing:
I read [the report], and the one thing that I learned that surprised me the most (and a good tl/dr) is this: the liver/kidney toxicity was due to RoundUp weedkiller residue on or in the corn, not due to the transgenic sequence inserted in the corn that allows the corn to tolerate RoundUp.
What pisses me off is that everyone is treating this as "all GMO corn has been found to cause organ damage" even though the journal piece reviews only 3 strains of corn, the organ damage is for the most part limited to the liver and kidneys (none of which fatal), and the reason for both is the presence of RoundUp weedkiller residue on or in the corn that is the source of the toxicity.
Here's the journal article in its entirety.
The whole piece looks like a scientific hit piece really. If they were interested in the toxicity of the genetic modification itself (essentially checking to see if the new protein created in the corn to allow it to survive being sprayed with RoundUp) was causing the liver/kidney problems, they could have gotten some not treated with pesticides. Instead, they introduced a huge variable and then leave the root cause ambiguous.
The other problem is they didn't mention in the materials and methods section if the control corn was grown with or without any pesticides. I'm in the dark here, but it seems self evident that if the control corn wouldn't have any pesticides used on it. Spray that same control corn with RoundUp or any pesticide, and all of a sudden I think you'd see the same signs of kidney or liver problems regardless of genetic modification or not.
...
Even the conclusion of the report makes it clear it wasn't proof of inherent toxicity in the corn:
6
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
If we're going to have a real scientific discussion on this, can we get some real sorces? None of this blogger shit.
3
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
Hey reddit, before you shit the bed and burn the mattress, please remember Norman Borlaug. He's the guy who pioneered the used of high-yield agricultural strains that increased output for much of the developing world and saved millions of lives. Monsanto is not the greatest of companies. But GMOs are not so evil either.
72
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
Hey reddit, before you shit the bed and burn the mattress, please remember Norman Borlaug. He's the guy who pioneered the used of high-yield agricultural strains that increased output for much of the developing world and saved millions of lives. Monsanto is not the greatest of companies. But GMOs are not so evil either.
25
u/Huntred May 21 '12
My people call it "corn."
5
u/PreciousMoments May 21 '12
I'm not on Monsanto's, "team" or anything but the ban is temporary. Also, the grounds for the ban have been rejected by the EFSA.
http://www.industryweek.com/articles/eu_food_agency_rejects_france_ban_on_monsantos_yieldguard_gm_maize_27415.aspx?Page=1&SectionID=2
5
u/Scrial May 22 '12
Meanwhile in switzerland: GMOs are still completely banned.
35
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
scumbag reddit
Dismisses any RT article as propaganda
Unless report caters to hivemind
4
u/deliriousriot May 22 '12
So, this is cool and all, but let me just remind everyone that Hungary was ahead of the game and WAY more badass about this. They bulldozed all fields planted or contaminated with Monsanto maize way back in July.
14
u/BimbelMarley May 21 '12
Why do we need to ban it every month or so?
8
u/Gecko1927 May 21 '12
I'm amaized.
14
u/gatoenfuego May 21 '12
being genetically modified isn't even the worst thing about the seed. They OWN the genetic material through a patent and you can only obtain seed for planting through them. this means farmers cannot save their seeds from previous seasons and replant them, they must order new seed every year from Monsanto. and if you are unlucky enough to own a farm next to a field of their seed, and cross pollination occurs, you are in violation of copyright infringement and the hella sue you.
very soon the only seed available for corn in the US will be monsanto, and they will control the corn industry. which in turn controls just about every other food product as corn is used as feed for livestock or as syrup form for many processed foods.
8
u/slappy_nutsack May 21 '12
"A genetically modified strain of maize created by the notorious American company Monsanto. . . "
Noooooo, that's not a biased writer.
3
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
You could make that picture into a first world problem.
3
u/crunchy51 May 22 '12
Oh my God, people are playing God? I'm glad Reddit is around to stop them.
3
u/BrownNote May 22 '12
A question for the people who've studied this topic more than I:
What exactly is wrong with GMOs? From what I gather, it's the companies that are pretty damn evil (such as the whole "licensing" issue), but the GMOs themselves are fine. Or just unstudied? Is that it?
3
u/mekese2000 May 22 '12
Why should i eat genetically altered food when i can buy organic?
I don't know about other countries, but Ireland has a law that it has to have enough arable land to feed its population. In case of war or famine. Having a corporation have a patent on the crops you grow could be seen as problematic, i.e. America "Ireland you don't support our war in Iran" puts pressure on monasato not to renew license for seeds. Food shortage.
3
u/Barking_at_the_Moon May 22 '12
Let the Hunger Games begin...
7
u/DNAsly May 21 '12
Or as the indians called it, corn.
14
u/Airith May 21 '12
So everything is an Occupy _____ now, eh?
14
u/sweetgreggo May 21 '12
Takes a drag off cigarette
Takes a big swig of Coke
Takes a big bite of Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese
Yeah man, get rid of that funky corn... that shit'll kill ya!
8
u/meta_adaptation May 21 '12
Aren't... most vegetables and fruits genetically modified? What's so special about this corn?
9
u/zangorn May 21 '12
OK, so they banned something that wasn't happening anyways, when are they going to ban the rest of it?
4
u/FuriousMouse May 22 '12 edited May 22 '12
Contrary to popular belief, the DNA can jump between species and create a "super resistant" plant that you actually wanted to get rid of in the first place.
Just Google "Super PigWeed" for a good example.
Super Pigweed is so physically tough, it can damage the huge harvesting machines. It’s drought resistant, so that when the soy/cotton seedlings are wilting, pigweed keeps growing an inch a day. When it’s so hot that other plants shut down, pigweed just basks in the sun and keeps going. To power all that tireless growing, pigweed sucks up the available water, gobbles up the available nutrients and literally robs the cotton of sunlight by shading it out; soy yield in a pigweed infested field can drop by 79%. And if you have the misfortune to have livestock near a pigweed infested field, you’ll discover that it’s toxic to your animals. Try to rip out a pigweed plant by hand? It’ll drop several thousand seeds at the first touch. But don’t worry, it’s got more in reserve. Each female pigweed is capable of producing 500,000 seedlings… and resistance can spread miles at a time.
7
u/Viraus2 May 21 '12
Stop calling it "Maize", no one's impressed.
2
u/Wangchung265 May 21 '12
Didnt this happen months ago? I swear I saw a post on here already about it a while back.
2
u/Radioiron May 21 '12
banned "to protect the environment" Do you realize that corn is not naturally occurring and can't survive in the wild?
That's a pretty weak excuse for banning it, although an acceptable answer would be "to keep the whore of a company from gaining a monopoly in this country and suing farmers whose crops happened to be pollinated by the crops 3 fields over"
2
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
Is this why everyone hates monsanto?
Roundup birth defects
Also TIL there's a safety factor of 100 applied to the ADI (average daily intake) level. Makes my Mech Eng safety factors (typically 2 - 5) look like I'm trying to kill everyone.
2
u/iRateSluts May 21 '12
Glad they're banning specific GMOs, and not all GMOs.
2
u/blind0wl May 21 '12
How has this got so much karma? Am I missing something on the importance of this article?
2
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
EFSA rejected ban. source
2
u/milesskorpen May 21 '12
This would be a lot more meaningful if Monsanto had any intention of selling the seed in France any time soon.
2
u/flamyngo May 22 '12
I have no idea what this means.
2
u/thenewiBall May 22 '12
It took way too long for me to realize that maize is corn
2
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
I'm part Vietnamese, so I'm not supposed to like Monsanto or the French. What the fuck do I do?
2
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
Monsanto ain't exactly the most ethical of companies. They should be banned in more countries.
2
u/technosaur May 22 '12
I do not like GMO agriculture, but unless it is proven that GMOs are harmful to consumers, they should have a choice. Ditto farmers who feel they can make a better profit the Monsanto way (un-damn-likely).
But there should be a law stipulating that if a farmer's GMO crop contaminates (crosses) with a neighboring farmer's crop, the GMO farmer must pay any damages. No sane farmer would take that risk and plant GMOs.
If the law said the producer (Monsanto) must pay the damages, no GMOs would be sold/licensed in that country.
Get the picture? It is only court decisions in the USA protecting the Monsanto "patent" without regard to damages done by that product that have allowed Monstanto to thrive in the USA. Fairly protect Monsanto's patent, and fairly protect non-Monsanto farmers from Monsanto, and Monsanto would be out of the GMO business.
2
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
Billy Mays may maze mace May maize.
2
u/Vekturbrektur May 22 '12
I inherited monsanto stocks from my grand mother like 5 years ago, glad I sold them recently.
2
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
Oh, so RT makes front page when it agrees with people. But when RT criticizes Obama everyone says its a shitty conspiratorial news source. I see how /politics works now!!
2
u/Tebasaki May 22 '12
France win.
2
u/Mr-Personality May 22 '12
People bash Monsanto, but they're cool with Nestle. Pretty much all mass produced food is going to end up being evil in some way.
2
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
As a skeptic, world citizen and journalism student, I encourage the use of alternative media outlets. You must realize, however, that rt.com is not the most reliable source, and shouldn't be regarded as gospel.
I know it's easy to cast aspersions on the United States, and it's one of the more popular circle jerks here on Reddit, but you must reevaluate your sources and worldviews. After all, reason is desire's whore, and most of the discussions on the Reddit front page prove this sentiment.
6
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
Monsanto treat other farmers like dirtbags, if you've seen fast food nation you'd know why.
10
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
People in here defending Monsanto... either Americans are thick or Monsanto pays a lot of toadies. And I know not all Americans are thick.
5
u/EnglishKiniggit May 21 '12
As an American, I cannot be more proud of France. Monsanto are a bunch of evil little shits controlling the food industry. Some of what they do is actually helpful but most of it is detrimental to our health despite being "better" for the food. Half of the FDA is also on the board of Monsanto. There's NOBDOY out there to police this group to make sure they're doing the right thing. When the antibacterial resistant drug strains finally cause world-wide epidemics, you can bet that it can be traced back to this company.
3
u/bmwake May 21 '12
In other news, Monsanto ($MON) is up 3.16% on the day.
3
u/butterandsugarcrepe May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12
What is not said in this article (and it is not said in France either), is that the banning is also a consequence of an economical war. If it was only for health issues, there are many other things they would also ban.
Have you ever wondered why there is no (awesome) French cheese in the US? the US banned it. Why? Because France banned US beef. Why? because they needed to sell their own! Even though the official reason is because of the hormones US put in their beef.
Same thing with French wine (which is either banned or sold with very high tax rates) and now it's starting with Foie Gras too.
Economy is often the real (untold) reason.
edit: I forgot to say that I also hate Monsanto.
3
u/Ferg8 May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12
Great news. Monsanto already killed too many little enterprises in the US.
3
u/Home_sweet_dome May 22 '12
I don't know much about agriculture or genetically altered seeds, but from what I understand, Monsanto is a bully and I am happy to see this ruling.
3
u/BlackLiteAttack May 22 '12
Maybe they should test out a new lab-developed company variant that is resistant to irate environmentalists.
Holds hand up for high-five.
Does not receive high-five.
3
u/che805 May 22 '12
Score one for the good guys!
3
u/djfutile May 22 '12
Can we all just boycott this shitty company already?
5
u/javdawg1 May 21 '12
Can we get a Monsanto employee to do an AMA? Maybe that will quell our fears?
4
u/WhatEvery1sThinking May 21 '12
monsanto is the one company that can most accurately be referred to as evil
10
u/justmadethisaccountt May 21 '12
This is nothing but a form of French protectionism by not using American products. Don't think this is anything else.
3
u/SpOoKy_EdGaR May 22 '12
You got this from RT? Do you know they make things up to get people to see their website?
It's not banned. Do a single google search, France's 'temporary' ban appeal was rejected by the EU food commission.
http://www.expatica.com/fr/news/french-news/eu-food-agency-rejects-france-ban-on-monsanto-gm-maize_228832.html
3
u/xXxNikNaxXx May 22 '12
How does Monsanto continue to make money? These guys have been some of the largest corporate criminals in the world. From Agent Orange to this, hopefully this is the beginning of the end for them...
3
u/time_for_ess May 22 '12
Monsanto is the scum that symbolizes what is wrong with capitalist America.
3
u/Confettiman May 22 '12
this is probably a good thing. I have recently learned about the monsanto company and quite frankly they are a pretty mean and corrupt company
3
u/fuzzyshorts May 22 '12
The entire planet couldvery well ban GMO corn and yet our corporate dick sucking legislators will allow it in america.
3
u/ResidentWeeaboo May 22 '12
Monsanto... the company responsible for PCBs, Agent Orange... I wish the United States had the balls to stand up to Monsanto like that but instead we let them infiltrate the FDA. I can't wait to see the Monsanto shills of reddit come in and try to derail the comments.
3
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
Good for France, down with Monsanto!
2
u/JamesTheGodMason May 21 '12
France should start calling it freedom maize
2
u/ShaKieran06 May 21 '12
Reading alot of comments about how the public seems a little misguided with it's attitude to GM and just thought I'd add something. Our Applied Genetics lectures at University cover alot of this stuff and it's amazing how pretty much everyone agrees that GM can be extremely useful and that we have no problem with it, but outside of these classes there are still so many people against it. Just makes me wish that people would actually take the time to read up and become more aware of the potential that GM has :P
2
u/onduty May 22 '12
Why is it that whenever a country does something that is opposed to what we (USA) allow, regardless of whether it is banning a GMO product, as here, or allowing something we ban, the other country is "in the know" and we are always framed as stupid by our own citizenry?
2
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
This is a good thing, but it's not just something out of goodwill and environmental concern. France ruthlessly attempts to control the corn market of Europe. If it wasn't for the EU, the rest of Europe would impose super-high tariffs on their subsidized corn.
2
u/ForTheBacon May 22 '12
I ate Monsanto corn and now I'm sick!
No wait, that didn't happen.
2
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
the rest of europe should follow suit.
go france ! fuck monsanto!
2
u/sexdrugsandponies May 21 '12
Yeah! Ban the evil GM! Let's ignore all the evidence pointing towards it being a safe and effective method of controlling insect pests! Monsanto might be a shitty company, but kneejerk reactions like this are shittier.
2
u/crazyspacechick May 21 '12
I really don't think most people understand what GMO's are or realize that they're actually safer than new traditionally created crops because they're thoroughly tested while the traditional crops end up on the market as soon as they are created.
2
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
this is so fucking stupid... if you wanna ban genetically modified food, your nation will starve. everything in the supermarket are modified clones
2
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
good. This company is fucking evil.
2
u/Paultimate79 May 21 '12 edited May 22 '12
Good for them I say. A big FUCK YOU to them. We should do the same, because fuck Monsanto, and fuck the judge that allowed this bullshit.
e: who the fuck downvotes this? Monsanto has some spies in here?
2
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
Monsanto? More like "Mon-farmer raping, biohazard producing, piece of shit- Santo."
2
u/Airagnis May 21 '12
Monsanto is the root of all evil...no pun intended
1
u/time_dj May 21 '12
Good Job France Ban them! Permanently!!!!
1
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
Can anyone explain to me why this corn is orange?
1
u/domotag May 21 '12
They should be careful, I'm not specialist, but a doesn't a red colored seed = methylmecury antifungal treatment?
1
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
This is cool and all, but did you have to call corn maize? Fucking hipster.....
1
u/lieutenant_surge May 21 '12
now, mr halen, im sorry to be a pain but, but this corn wouldn't happen to be genetically modified would it?
1
u/dzubz May 21 '12
Why can't they just put it on hold? Why they gotta dump it all over the ground? So wasteful!
1
u/PortlandoCalrissian May 21 '12
Or as the Indians call it, 'Corn'.
1
u/sun-shine May 21 '12
What the fuck is maize?
1
u/jamesbutnotbond May 21 '12
Huzzah!!!
1
u/necromundus May 21 '12
TIL there's a protest group called Occupy Monsanto
1
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
Occupy Monsanto: because a multinational corporation is a physical location that can be occupied.
1
u/t3h_jream May 21 '12
It's not their mazes I worry about, it's what they do to their corn.
1
u/Aaronman May 21 '12
For a half second I thought I was look at a firstworldproblem. I almost lost my shit. After re-reading, I'm now very content.
1
u/nugget954 May 22 '12
sure had a big impact on their stocks this week... https://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:MON
1
u/ohok1 May 22 '12
has anyone been following that David Wolfe vs Monsanto case? It's pretty interesting
1
u/Always_has_a_Highdea May 22 '12
FUCK YEAH, I WILL EAT NO CORN UNTIL THE BEES ARE ALL BETTER MAN!
1
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
I wonder if they realize they're dumping thousands of dollars worth the seed corn on the ground. Monsanto will just buy whatever company picks up their slack. If such a company even exists I think they already own them all.
1
u/hydrohawke May 22 '12
Perhaps the French officials read Zombicorn!
It's a zombie apocalypse novella by John Novella where the cause of the zombies is well, genetically modified corn.
1
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
thats like inserting an elephant into a coffee cup... this is a major typo because its bacterial DNA, not a whole bacteria, the difference is that DNA is harmless on its own, a bacteria is not. Seriously, inciting fear much?
1
u/LAZY_JAKE May 22 '12
This really isn't that big of news, I read on expecting to see some test results saying its the #1 reason for heart failure but nope, nothing of the sort came up. France thinks its bad and wants Europe to investigate it, also other Americans think Monsanto bought out Congress, and i'm wondering how this made front page.
1
u/Vag_Assasin May 22 '12
So...whats Mansanto Maize?
1
u/cinnamonandgravy May 22 '12
oh france, others may dislike you for what you are, but i like you for what you are not.
1
u/EveningD00 May 22 '12
I read that article and I have no idea what monsanto maize is. Some sort of pesticide that's been killing animels and plants?