SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Scotland's rural affairs secretary has said that the country will ban the growing of genetically modified crops and opt out of allowing EU-approved GMOs such as MON 810 (corn with an added Bacillus thuringiensis gene):
Richard Lochhead said the Scottish government was not prepared to "gamble" with the future of the country's £14bn food and drink sector. He is to request that Scotland be excluded from any European consents for the cultivation of GM crops. But farming leaders said they were disappointed by the move. Under EU rules, GM crops must be formally authorised before they can be cultivated. An amendment came into force earlier this year which allows member states and devolved administrations to restrict or ban the cultivation of genetically modified organisms within their territory.
[...] Mr Lochhead added: "There is no evidence of significant demand for GM products by Scottish consumers and I am concerned that allowing GM crops to be grown in Scotland would damage our clean and green brand, thereby gambling with the future of our £14bn food and drink sector. Scottish food and drink is valued at home and abroad for its natural, high quality which often attracts a premium price, and I have heard directly from food and drink producers in other countries that are ditching GM because of a consumer backlash."
[...] The move has also been broadly welcomed by environment groups. But Scott Walker, chief executive of farming union NFU Scotland, said he was disappointed that the Scottish government had decided that no GM crops should ever be grown in Scotland. "Other countries are embracing biotechnology where appropriate and we should be open to doing the same here in Scotland," he said. "These crops could have a role in shaping sustainable agriculture at some point and at the same time protecting the environment which we all cherish in Scotland." Huw Jones, professor of molecular genetics at agricultural science group Rothamsted Research, said the announcement was a "sad day for science and a sad day for Scotland. He said that GM crops approved by the EU were "safe for humans, animals and the environment".
The European Parliament voted to give member states the ability to opt-out of allowing the cultivation of EU-approved GMOs in January.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday August 11 2015, @03:02PM
Who decides what is trace amount? That would be Monsanto of course. There are of course the lawsuits: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents [theguardian.com] But don't forget all of the settlements in the RIAA vein: http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15825 [corpwatch.org]
And let's say the farmer is an organic farmer and must abide by certain rules to get the higher rate of pay, including not using GMO seed. How do they save their contaminated seed? They don't. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/monsanto-wins-lawsuit_n_3417081.html [huffingtonpost.com]
Finally, it doesn't matter if the patent ends. All Monsanto needs to do is one tweak, like with a drug, and it gets a new patent, then deploy that next to a non-customers and the wind and bees start the process all over again.
As others have said, the problem isn't necessarily GMO itself, it is the legal (and poison) framework built around GMO.
(Score: 2) by hankwang on Thursday August 13 2015, @05:35PM
Your first link did not suggest in any way that it was about trace amounts. In the second one, the farmers were suing monsanto, rather than the other way around. Third link: "For eight years, Bowman planted the commodity-grade soybeans for his second harvest, sprayed Roundup on them, harvested the plants that grew and kept the seeds they produced to plant later." - that's a pretty clear case to me.
We can debate whether it's ethical to patent genes, but I haven't seen examples where M was suing a farmer because a few % of his crop contained the patented gene.
Avantslash: SoylentNews for mobile [avantslash.org]