The Debate on Genetically Modified Foods Continues

Europe's thoughtful caution may spell long term economic doom

from JoeUser Forums

Today there is a report in the UK concerning the largest test on genetically modified crops done so far there.  The  "results" show that genetically modified crop fields have fewer butterflies and bees in them than the non-genetically modified ones. Their conclusion: GM foods scare off "good" insects like bees and butterflies.

Europe has a "Thing" about Genetically modified foods. They would argue that they are being cautionary. This, from a continent that boasts the most nuclear power plants per square mile in the world.  Genetically modified foods aren't some sort of magic.  They can be used to do great things and if used recklessly could do real harm as well. But the Europeans seem to have a problem with all genetically modified foods. Which is a real shame.

For one thing, genetically modified foods tend to not require anywhere near the amount of chemical herbicides and pesticides as "natural" crops do. I can't help but think I'd rather have food with fewer chemicals on them than more. Especially when so many of these chemicals are harmful to people and the environment.

The argument from Europe, which is valid, is that genetically modified plants, like normal plants, can see their genes make their way into the wild. Corn that scares off pests or is resistant to a certain type of herbicide might spread its genes to weeds. That is something that definitely needs to be watched. But at the same time, natural selection takes place every time we dump chemicals on our crops -- resistant insects and weeds are a daily fact of life.

The real loser, in the long run, is the European economy. As time goes on, genetically modified foods will be the norm. Right now, GM foods have problems such as slightly lower yields. But as time goes on, the benefits will become greater and greater. After all, humans have been modifying foods since the dawn of agriculture (for example - there is no such thing as an orange or lemon in the wild, they were created by man). Today's technology simply increases the pace and scope of these modifications.  In short, European farmers will eventually have to go this way to remain economically competitive and that will mean that they will become clients of American chemical companies who already have a long lead on their European counterparts. It is a lead that increases each day.

 

11,067 views 11 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am sorta confused as to what the point of your blog is. Are you saying the Europeans are wrong for being cautious? That's my understanding of it. If that is the posistion you are taking it's a very odd one and could use more clarification.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ah Draginol, you have forgotten something. Half the European budget is paid to farmers in subsidies. They can afford to be non-competitive ;-)

Seriously though, I do agree with you on a number of issues. Many Europeans are scared of genetically modified foods due to lack of knowledge. Many are scared of eating such products! They are being very cautious because the environment is very important to Europeans. If they mess up it'll be hard to fix.

Organic farmers (a major market in the EU) rightly point out that because of contamination their crops become useless if GM crops are grown in the vicinity. Eventually, even if all the scientists approve of GM crops, the big issue won't be whether they're safe, but whether GM grop growers have more right than organic farmers. Is it acceptable to grow GM crops within 10 miles of an organic grop? Contamination will occur (has been proven in UK). Who pays for the loss of income for the organic farmer?

Paul.
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Abe: My point is that being being cautious might be the right thing but it is ultimately going to cost them big time in the long run because GM food is the future of farming whether they want to accept that or not.

And I don't buy caution as being the real reason. I think politics is the real reason. LIke I said, this is from the continent with the most nuclear power plants per square mile than any other continent.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
GM crops and organic crops shouldn't be classified that way. Organic crops are merely crops that don't use pesticide or herbicide.

ALL crops are already genetically modified. It's just the method in which it's occurred has changed.

Just remember - oranges, lemons, corn, apples, and plenty of other crops are not natural. They are the result of human intervention.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Draginol, what do nuclear power plants have to do with anything? The two simply are not related. As for costing them big time in the long run; I don't think so. If Europeans don't want to eat GM crops then growing them would be foolish. It comes back to basic supply and demand. You provide what your customer wants. If they want cheap food then GM crops are the way to go, if they want organic then that is the way to go. I know if I was a farmer in Europe and most of my customers were asking for organic, guess what I would be growing...
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sigh..

Abe, look -- Some people argue that Europeans are just cautious about jumping onto the technology bandwagon. But history has shown that isn't the case by their quick and high level adoption of nuclear power.

Hence, I think there are other factors more in the front than caution.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is very probably some politicts involved in it. As was said earlier, much of Europe farmers have huge subsidies (which lead to a big confrontation with other countries at the last WTO meeting, if I remember correctly). There is also some irrationnal fear involved, I guess, and some with to have a 0-risk guarantee, which is a sad thing to ask for.

As concerns nuclear plants, I disagree with the parallel you draw. The way I understand the history of the creation of nuclear plants in France, the decision was fully political with little room for people protests. It's not that people have gladly adopted nuclear plants, they suddenly found themselves in the situation where removing them would mean much less power available. And I do not know how much of "Europe" has a high level adoption of nuclear power. Do you include Germany as well ?

(as a side effect of this adoption in France, it seems that France is now where all the high tech handling of nuclear waste is being done ... I read a couple days ago that a shipment would be even sent from the US)
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think Draginol was just using nuclear power of an example where Europe adopted a new tchnology quickly despite peoples reservations. In GM food they are doing the opposite. Therefore Draginol argues that fear of the technology is not the issue, it's politics as the politicians have shown previously that they will use new technology even if customers protest.

As for the arguments about organic vs GM I think you definitely have some important points. It's worth remembering that humans could crossbreed strains, what geneticists can do however is much more severe. They can mix totally uncompatible plant genes and even animal genes to gain theie desired effect. This scares many people. This scares many scientists as well because they understand the rigid controls and checks required. People don't trust big business to keep these checks in place if money is being lost, and people don't trust governments to keep big business in order. I could go into my lab tomorrow and use mice DNA to make a corn resistant to frost. The potential side effects are enormous though and being sure of what they are and trusting someone to decide to allow that crop or not are big issues.

Bottom line in Europe will eventually be whther the organic farmers (points taken about the naming of organic versus GM) or the GM farmers win the argument. Money is not a factor, technology is not a factor, fear is only dependant on trust in politics.

Paul.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Some people argue that Europeans are just cautious about jumping onto the technology bandwagon."--Draginol

I have never heard this posisition before, how was I supposed to understand that from your post? It seemed to me what you were saying is "well, they didn't show any caution in building nuclear power plants so why should they show caution with GM crops?! Obviously they are not a cautious people so certainly that is not the reason for their reluctance." Which I am sure you can see is an absolutely silly posistion to take, yet that is exactly what you seemed have been saying.

Also, the info you posted only talks about the UK. But then you go one to include all of Europe as if they were one in the same, which they are not. It also absurd to say, "Hence, I think there are other factors more in the front than caution." You can't point to a single instance in a nations history and use it to bake broad sweeping generalizations like you are. There is NO causal link. Let me change your arguement slightly so you can see how silly it is.

The quickly adopted automobiles and look at how many people those things kill. So they obviously adopt technology quickly and without caution in all cases. So therefore there is just no way that their hesitance with GM crops is due to being cautious about jumping on the technology bandwagon.

Have I made my point? And you still haven't shown how it will hurt them financially by not adopting GM crops. You simply made the claim without backing it up. Like I said, if they don't want to eat GM crops then they won't buy them. The organic industry is booming.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Abe, you and I are from different planets, clearly.

I don't even know how to respond to your statement that you've never heard Europeans argue that the reason they won't make use of GM foods is due to wanting to be cautious over jumping into it. I suggest doing some reading on the subject as this is the most common argument given.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I don't even know how to respond to your statement..."--Draginol

*chuckle* Well, we at least have that in common. ;)