Mexican Judge Pulls Monsanto's GMO Soybeans Permit to Protect Honey Production
Mexican beekeepers are celebrating a victory over biotech giant Monsanto after a judge in the state of Yucatán overturned a permit forbidding the company from planting its Roundup-ready GMO soybeans.
In his decision, the judge said he was convinced that there was enough scientific evidence to link GMO soybeans with the threats to bee populations, including the mysterious illness called colony collapse disorder.
According to the Guardian, the permit had originally allowed Monsanto to plant GMO soybeans in seven states on more than 625,000 acres of land even despite "protests from thousands of Mayan farmers and beekeepers, Greenpeace, the Mexican National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity, the National Commission of Natural Protected Areas and the National Institute of Ecology." In the ruling, the judge noted that honey production and GMO soybeans cannot coexist in a sustainable fashion.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 31 2014, @10:38AM
Who knows how safe the GMOs are? Monsanto et al. have a vague idea but they're definitely telling the rest of us anything negative, just like Big Pharma.
And people should realize that the related patents are a big problem for everybody, there's no question about it.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 31 2014, @10:57AM
Fuck this femalefucking site, right in the vagina.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by LookIntoTheFuture on Sunday August 31 2014, @11:02AM
You're not going to try pushing your hosts file crap again are you?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Sunday August 31 2014, @11:36AM
So the good news is fighting monsanto, which is an excellent idea politically and economically and legally and culturally.
The bad news is the judge did it just a step above astrology WRT colony collapse disorder. What research has been done points to GMO crops, despite whatever other evil effects they have, do not affect bees. There is no consensus at all, although early indications are it wouldn't be wise to spray imidacloprid based bug sprays...
The logical fallacy is along the lines of "something bad happened to A, something else bad also happened, therefore they MUST be related".
My suspicion is the judge was paid off to use a ridiculous argument as his sole reason, and on appeal it'll be pointed out that the sole argument was pure psuedoscience of the wifi-cancer, homeopathy, and astrology category, and it'll therefore be overturned on the appeal. BUMMER. So I wouldn't break out the champagne yet, basically Monsanto just won the case, not lost it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 31 2014, @02:47PM
So the only reason for applying the precautionary principle and honoring the will of the people is bribery by desparately poor farmers and the do gooders?
I know conspiracy theories are fun to entertain but come on.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday August 31 2014, @03:04PM
It's mostly the roundup use killing off bee forage (same true for monarch butterflies) but to suggest that the Mayan beekeepers could even come close to the payouts Monsanto offers is ludicrous.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday August 31 2014, @11:49PM
That's not true either.
Colony collapse disorder, is currently believed to be the result of residual insecticides in high-fructose corn syrup, which bee keepers have take to using to over-winter their bees, because its cheaper than cane sugar. GMO corn is designed tolerate Roundup. But GMO crops still get sprayed with insecticides to fight corn earworms etc.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 31 2014, @04:01PM
"The logical fallacy is along the lines of "something bad happened to A, something else bad also happened, therefore they MUST be related"."
A more logical view would be, "We've been doing things our way for thousands of years without problems. Suddenly, those crazy-assed foreigners are doing things differently, and their world is falling apart. We'll reject their new practices, thank you very much!"
Actually, the judge doesn't use the logic you attribute to him. "In his decision, the judge said he was convinced that there was enough scientific evidence to link GMO soybeans with the threats to bee populations, " Enough evidence to link GMO does not mean that there is proof, at all. Merely that there is a link, and he doesn't consider the gains worth the risk.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday August 31 2014, @07:22PM
I think he's confused. IIUC the current belief isn't that it's GMO soybeans, but neonicotinoid pesticide. (Can't quite remember the name.) Still, the current family of GMO soybeans do encourage the use of a certain family of herbicides that may be problematic, and definitely aren't narrow spectrum. (Is is only one?) These tend to kill off nearby flowering plants that the bees live on. So his reasoning isn't clearly wrong.
S.a.: http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2014/05/23/bees-study-points-key-cause-colony-collapse-disorder/ [greenpeaceblogs.org]
Not exactly an unbiased site, but I first read about this in Science News, and that's the first one that came up when I searched.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by subs on Sunday August 31 2014, @02:39PM
At best, certain glyphosate pesticides can be implicated in colony collapse disorder, but not the plants themselves. GMOs in general haven't been linked to colony collapse, as "GMO" is a very broad term encompassing a lot more than just Monsanto's one brand of Roundup-resistant soybean seeds. Honestly, what's with this hatred of a whole division of biotechnology simply because one narrow branch of its applications has potential downsides from co-products (i.e. it's not the soybeans killing the bees, it's the glyphosate that they spray them with)?
In his decision, the judge said he was convinced that there was enough scientific evidence to link GMO soybeans with the threats to bee populations
This is an utterly misleading claim stopping just an inch short of being an outright lie (a favorite among junk science proponents). It's trying to tarnish all of the genetic-modification biotech field with the potential downsides of one application for one particular trait (resistance to glyphosate pesticide).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 31 2014, @03:05PM
Monsanto's gmo system, sold as a package, was shut down here. The judge didn't claim it was the soy plants themselves doing the damage, stop pillaring a straw man.
And is it anti-scientific to claim it possible to prove a negative? Because that's exactly what you are claiming here when you purport to know for sure that the food supply is secure from the latest shiny hybrid brought to you by the world's most despicable company.
Massive hint: the security of the food supply puts the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of those who wish to mess with it in new and untested ways.
(Score: 2) by subs on Sunday August 31 2014, @05:10PM
The judge didn't claim it was the soy plants themselves doing the damage, stop pillaring a straw man.
I didn't claim that the judge said that, I said the article implied this heavily in the quote I gave, which is why I said it's a misleading claim stopping just an inch short of telling a lie. It's a debate tactic that tries to instill an association in the mind of the general public without making obvious false claims, kinda like how the Bush administration kept on mentioning terrorists and Iraq in the same speeches and even sentences leading up to the 2003 war without actually saying that Iraq was involved (which would have been a lie), but it worked anyway and public opinion polls to the effect showed that the association was still created.
So it is in fact you who's strawmanning what I said.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 31 2014, @03:45PM
At best, certain glyphosate pesticides can be implicated in colony collapse disorder, but not the plants themselves. GMOs in general haven't been linked to colony collapse
Except the certain GMO plants that have systemic pesticides built-in. Or is that corn? I know Mexico banned GMO-corn to preserve its corn's genetic variety - they have hundreds of different strains.
The only long term "benefit" of GMO is monopolization of food under Monsanto, where farmers are no longer farmers but Monsanto's peons. Reduction in biodiversity is another problem. We are not out of food. We are no where close out of food. Arguments like "you need GMO to feed the world" are more boloney than any pseudoscience crap about bees and roundup.
(Score: 2) by subs on Sunday August 31 2014, @05:23PM
Except the certain GMO plants that have systemic pesticides built-in.
Yes, certain GM plants can manufacture their own toxins (as can certain bugs and bacteria from which this capability was harvested - GM crops don't create genes de-novo), but as far as I could research, Roundup-Ready soybeans don't. The only trait I could find in relation to pest resistivity enhancement is their ability to survive being sprayed by glyphosate-based pesticides (Monsanto's Roundup, hence the name Roundup-Ready).
Arguments like "you need GMO to feed the world" are more boloney than any pseudoscience crap about bees and roundup.
Arguments like that come with tons of baggage and bundled up assumptions and I'm not a fan of them either, as it typically leads to people talking past each other. Opposition to genetic modification is typically associated with organic farming movements, which is not a negation of it, it's a different thing altogether (i.e. you can be non-GM, but also non-organic at the same time). Moreover, organic farming proponents frequently also subscribe to non-pesticide and non-fertilizer use, which is again another thing altogether (organic farming does in fact use quite a lot of pesticides and fertilizers, it's just that these must be "organic", i.e. not synthetic, which can often mean that they're a lot more environmentally damaging and toxic than their synthetic counterparts - again, depends on the details, which is why it gets all murky during discussion).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 31 2014, @06:24PM
...had I gotten here first.
In addition, GMO soy is linked to sterility, infant mortality, and birth defects. [google.com]
GMO crops are also linked to intestinal irregularities. [google.com]
We've mentioned here before that a multi-vetted study found that Roundup-Ready GMO Maize Causes Serious Health Damage. [soylentnews.org]
There are also indications that GMO corn is a powerful allergen. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [commondreams.org]
As for the "untested" claim made above, the results of real-world testing are in and those are negative:
Mother Nature is selecting for weeds that are glyphosate-resistant. [google.com]
As you said, there is no logic to signing on to Monsanto's monopoly and destroying one of the remaining storehouses of biodiversity.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 01 2014, @05:26AM
Were you looking for Bt GMO crops [wikipedia.org]? Like maize/corn and soybean varieties?
Seems that they aren't actually the cause of the CCD [wikipedia.org] (or at least not the main one).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by edIII on Sunday August 31 2014, @06:14PM
In some ways you are being intellectually disingenuous. You claim that GMO opponents are irrational and lack support for their arguments WRT to science and logic. You are forgetting one thing - I don't need to prove GMO is healthy. GMO HAS TO PROVE THAT GMO IS HEALTHY. The scientists that create some sphere that provides huge amounts of energy need to prove the sphere is safe and will not make my dick fall off. It's not me on the side of the road that needs to scream (while a few thousand incidents of the mysterious and unsolved penis-dropping events happen) that sales of the sphere should stop because it might make a penis fall off. The scientists need to prove that. Especially, when there is even the smallest and tiniest "LINK" that might cause it.
With respect to GMO and that we only have one planet, we need to be a lot smarter about this. Mistakes will have drastic and lasting consequences. We can't just up and move to Mars where a backup environment is there without the GMO problems.
So you are being intellectual disingenuous when you push forward the argument (implied) that scientists have already done this to a reasonable person's satisfaction. They haven't. Not mine.
The seething hatred is related, not to the technology, but to the human behavior around it. Specifically, research, implementation, management, policy, and intellectual property:
Research - Reckless. I absolutely, and vehemently, oppose GMO science being performed in the open. I consider *ANY* genetic modification research to be extremely dangerous by default. Death codes, an abhorrent idea solely to protect money not food, come very close to warranting an a mass execution IMO of the scientists (a decision rendered by the people of course). Remember when I said abhorrent? I think the toxic culture of delusion and hubris that makes us think we can competently manage death is extremely dangerous. To do so out in the open, as scientists, is to engage in behavior so reckless to your fellow men and women, that I draw ZERO distinction between them and Nazi science. Yes, consider the thread Godwin'd. Don't fuck with DNA and when the organism should die. EXTEND lifespans, NOT SHORTEN THEM. The shortening of life spans *IS* Nazi science, and these scientists should be fought as the terrorists they are.
THIS IS SCIENCE. Science has controls, science has safety, and science ASKS the question if it's safe to conduct the experiment and what is needed to be safe.
GMO and Monsanto are not safe. From 90 day food trials with the FDA to full on bribery of officials to make money, the science itself is not just "junk science" as you like to lay that judgement against others, but dangerous and reckless science to our society and culture.
GMO, on its own, is perfectly fine and acceptable to me. I have faith, that done properly, and in due course (10+ years per crop), that we could push out great advancements that lead towards much greater efficiencies in food production to lower costs AND lower environmental impacts of the crop.
Implementation - Dangerous and Belligerent. Not just to people, but nature. Seed diversity is important, but an anathema to business. You can't reliably produce and sell seeds if you care about this, and still meet the goals dictated by intellectual property and the share holders. The correct way to perform GMO is for governments plural (such as the EU) to create state sanctioned long term GMO research farms that are protected and run correctly. They're called greenhouses and it's just money. You don't need open fields. In fact, for small batches, you don't even need a greenhouse. Once the science is attained, it belongs DIRECTLY to the people. You want a strain of Broccoli that is twice as tall for the tasty tasty stems and is resistant to pests? Easy. For a couple of years people have been exchanging seeds slowly and we know enough about it. Took 15 years of research and development inclusive of a minimum 5 year human consumption study to identify specific compounds safe to humans and other lower animals, but acts as a repellent to specific pests. Note I said repellent, not poison. We do also need to ask the question of what happens when we create a crop unsuitable for a pest and it goes *everywhere* in 20 years.
While I would like Mosquitoes to disappear overnight, I also know that would be wholly devastating to the ecology. Scientists need to think ahead, and usually do. Implementation is determined by management, and they usually don't.
Don't even get me started on LEGAL which belongs under implementation. Holy crap, does that meet the definition of belligerent. I'll believe there might be a few farms out there that deliberately stole seeds, but most of the time it's nature acting as an accessory and distributing Monsanto's product like ninjas in the night. Monsanto even offensively assumes that their products are so superior that *everyone* really wants them, even the ones not paying for it. Seriously, unless my dick really was going to fall off without them, GMO seeds will never ever find a home in my soil. I use non-GMO seeds and participate in seed programs. Well not me personally, but others in my family that get all of the seeds for us. We are legion to use a saying, and anti-GMO only grows every single day. Nobody wants those fucking seeds. You should ask why, as it's not just some opinion given to these people such as myself. We make up our own minds.
Management - Evil, Corrupt, and Powerful. Who leads the FDA? Who is trying to strong arm Ecuador? Who abuses the legislative processes in countries around the world? Who tries to push their so-called "food" to people in secret vehemently opposing any attempts to correct Information Asymmetry? I could keep listing reasons, but this is truly why the people behind the technology fuck it up so much for the world. I don't lay the blame 100% at the scientists feet, although any GMO scientists out there I probably won't get along with very well. I think you are unsafe for people. Think of us *first* please and don't just *be right*. I would wish for you to have the highest levels of scientific integrity, something I believe is wholly impossible with the current management. If something doesn't smell 100% right just walk away from the company. For our sakes. Please.
Policy - Short Sighted, Duress, and Corrupt. All of the policies regarding GMO are not based in science, but in business. All I needed really was that sentence, but one might not be under the belief of how evil large corporations are in the world right now like I am. When decisions are based solely on money, my specific meaning, is that often it comes to the detriment of the people. 90 day food trials and the great difficulty to get any proper GMO science done comes from short sighted actions and policies designed to get ROI back on the research faster. Sometimes businesses DO kill people. This stuff happens. You want it to happen a LOT? Keep letting GMO corporations dictate the policies regarding the science and how the "food" will be introduced to the food supply. You won't find a whole lot of science in it. Probably just junk science enough to the point to say they did *something* to appease regulators that strangely have more money all of the sudden or vacations catching large fish in the Gulf.
Intellectual Property - Should Not Exist. I cannot stress this enough. NOBODY should own life. Unless you have your head in the sand about the corruption and recklessness that Big Pharma and GMO conduct itself with, you should wish to find another way to promote and subsidize this science. Giving share holders offensive legal entitlements over LIFE and FOOD is simply stupid. It's just stupid. We don't need GMO patents to explore this technology, and we need to do it differently. If only to mitigate the effects of the corruption.
Yes, I have a "seething hatred" for GMO corporations and science. Yes, it's a pretty up-there and fantastic statement that they should possibly be executed. That's just how dangerous I think they are with the idea of controlling death.
Comcast may deny me fast Internet and attempt to control the information and my freedom. I still wouldn't wish ill upon their persons (herpes aside). The GMO groups though are killing the food supplies slowly and may permanently disrupt it. They are a clear and present danger to the people of the world.
Obviously, I'm not proposing any actual violence. The best thing I can do personally myself is become a steward for the seeds. I let some crops go long enough and harvest the seeds, and then offer those seeds freely to my neighbors. That's about all anyone can do, and I highly recommend it. If only because fresh NON-GMO tomato soup with a dozen different varieties is orders more delicious than the crap from the store.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 31 2014, @06:45PM
an anathema
That's an adjective, not a noun (a common error).
Other than that, right on the money.
The hubris of megacorporations is astounding.
The revolving door and "civil servants" are at the heart of all of this.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday August 31 2014, @07:33PM
I consider the judges decision to be reasonable, on several different grounds. But you are overstating your case, though not as badly as the person that you are replying to.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday September 01 2014, @03:54PM
How am I overstating it?
The argument is very important to me personally. Anything to help refine my arguments or make them more accurate I appreciate.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday September 01 2014, @06:07PM
just for one example, if this isn't overstating your beliefs, then you should seek psychiatric help.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by subs on Sunday August 31 2014, @07:33PM
Death codes
There are no terminator seeds on the market dude, quit drinking the conspiracy juice. Besides, the technology works by ensuring sterile offspring, it doesn't do "the shortening of life spans" as you said.
come very close to warranting an a mass execution IMO of the scientists
Had to lol here.
Yes, consider the thread Godwin'd.
I will and you can take all of your butthurt elsewhere, I'm not going to respond to you anymore. Thanks for the good laughs anyways.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday September 01 2014, @04:18PM
Quit buying into their propaganda "dude". You think it's an unreasonable position to assume that the shareholder's interests that resulted in the development of the science happened for no real reason and they just stopped?
Get your head out of your butt with your giggly ignorance. The Terminator seeds were part of a program to develop intellectual property controls for GMO science that is developed. This didn't just stop. It's not part of some conspiracy juice. These are real events, real technology, real scientists, and real *money* that were behind the Terminator science.
Do they still have the need for those controls? Hell, yes, they do. Can a reasonable person assume they are still working on these controls? Yes, I can.
The fundamental method of control, in fact the only that can exist, is to shorten and alter the natural life *cycle* of the plant in way that only makes sense to make money, and makes even less sense than a screen door on a submarine to let loose in nature.
Those are facts, and not opinions.
Ohh, if you want to dispute the term "span", fine. That might not be as accurate. Thank you. *CYCLE*. Cycle is a better word that more accurately describes what is being disrupted.
I might also note that other than your laughter you can provide absolutely nothing of value to the conversation and have neither supported, proposed, or negated any of my reasonable anti-GMO arguments strongly based in science and observations about business and technology policy ;)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 31 2014, @11:35PM
I consider *ANY* genetic modification research to be extremely dangerous by default
You better stop eating anything then. Pretty much *every* *single* plant we eat has been manipulated. *ALL* of them. Take for example just simple non-gmo corn. It does not exist in nature. We created it. Corn is basically very tall grass with LARGE seeds. We cultivated it and selected it.
We have been manipulating our crops for centuries.
From the cloths you wear and the materials it is made of to the food you eat has all been altered radically from what the 'natural' version is.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday September 01 2014, @04:07PM
Geez. Really?
GMO stands for GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISM. Everything you just mentioned, in fact specifically, is NON-GMO.
I don't care about things being 'natural'. Humans are *not* natural anymore, so who cares right? The issue, which you should educate yourself on, is *HOW* they genetically modify an organism.
Manipulating crops the way you are talking about is perfectly safe. You still have all the seeds intact and biodiversity does not suffer. Using technology we developed from *viruses* we figured out a way to directly modify the DNA of the plant itself.
Is modifying the DNA directly remotely considered part of a natural process as the one you outlined with corn? No, it isn't. Why is 'natural' better?
Get over your hubris of being a human that can control your environment so effectively. Nature has been "doing" GMO for hundreds of millions of years. I trust that nature has a much better chance of getting it right and checking off all the dependencies, parameters, etc. Nature doesn't miss anything. and when it does, that's a natural mutation anyways that nature is testing. Most often that results in a longer neck for a giraffe, or bigger "seeds" on the corn. Not some runaway process because little Bobby fuckup was convinced he knew everything about corn DNA.
Man misses shit a million times a day.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 31 2014, @06:53PM
SoylentNews has hit rock bottom. Six months ago, most articles got >100 comments. Three months ago, they all got double digits. Now it's down to single digits, and the only articles with double digit comments are fueled by trolls.
This site is dead. The inability to find rational editors with an ability to produce clear, reasonably legible article summaries ran off what semblance of a community there was. If this site has a future, it is going to be as a kuro5hin-style dump for the mouth-breathers and conspiracy theorists of the web.
Nobody wants to read left-nut conspiracy theories of evil corporations and "the man." We wanted a tech site where we could comment. That ship has sailed.