Monasanto Uprooted: Germany Bans Cultivation of GM Corn

[[R_H]]

Spiegel Online

Germany has banned the cultivation of GM corn, claiming that MON 810 is dangerous for the environment. But that argument might not stand up in court and Berlin could face fines totalling millions of euros if American multinational Monsanto decides to challenge the prohibition on its seed.

The sowing season may be just around the corner, but this year German farmers will not be planting gentically modified crops: German Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner announced Tuesday she was banning the cultivation of GM corn in Germany. Under the new regulations, the cultivation of MON 810, a GM corn produced by the American biotech giant Monsanto, will be prohibited in Germany, as will the sale of its seed. Aigner told reporters Tuesday she had legitimate reasons to believe that MON 810 posed "a danger to the environment," a position which she said the Environment Ministry also supported. In taking the step, Aigner is taking advantage of a clause in EU law which allows individual countries to impose such bans.

"Contrary to assertions stating otherwise, my decision is not politically motivated," Aigner said, referring to reports that she had come under pressure to impose a ban from within her party, the conservative Bavaria-based Christian Social Union. She stressed that the ban should be understood as an "individual case" and not as a statement of principle regarding future policy relating to genetic engineering.Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND) both welcomed the ban. Greenpeace's genetic engineering expert, Stephanie Töwe, said the decision was long overdue, explaining that numerous scientific studies demonstrated that GM corn was a danger to the environment.

However the ban could prove costly for the German government. Experts in Aigner's ministry recently told SPIEGEL that it will be hard to prove conclusively that MON 810 damages the environment, which could enable Monsanto to win a court case opposing the ban and potentially expose the government to €6-7 million ($7.9-9.2 million) in damages.Monsanto said Tuesday that it would look into the question of whether it would take legal proceedings as quickly as possible. Andreas Thierfelder, spokesman for Monsanto Germany, said the matter was very urgent as the planting season was just about to start.

Aigner has recently come under pressure from Bavaria to ban GM corn. Bavaria's Environment Minister Markus Söder wants to turn Germany into a "GM food-free zone." Environmental groups have long called for a ban on GM crops in Germany, arguing that they pose a danger to plants and animals.

However, supporters of genetic engineering argue that a ban could prompt research companies and institutes to pull up stakes and leave Germany. Wolfgang Herrmann, president of Munich's Technical University, has said that a prohibition risks precipitating "an exodus of researchers."The issue has exposed a split between Bavaria's CSU and its larger sister party, Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union. Katherina Reiche, deputy chairwoman of the CDU/CSU's parliamentary group, has complained of the "CSU's irresponsible, cheap propaganda," claiming that it could harm German industry. She argued that anti-GM sentiment was one reason a subsidiary of the German chemical giant Bayer decided to moved its facilities for genetic engineering from Potsdam, near Berlin, to Belgium.

MON 810 was approved for cultivation in Europe by the European Union in 1998 and is currently the only GM crop which can be grown in Germany. The plant produces a toxin to fight off a certain pest, the voracious larvae of the corn borer moth. The crop was due to be planted this year on a total area of around 3,600 hectares (8,896 acres) in Germany. The cultivation of MON 810 is already banned in five other EU member states, namely Austria, Hungary, Greece, France and Luxembourg.

[Rye]

I hope they do sue, the anti-GM bullshit has been allowed to go on far too long with no repercussions for twatty governments. They need some sort of legal response to the scaremongering that's tolerated over it, as it's only going to suck in the long run.

[Redleader34]

GMO is evil, but not for the environmental bullshit, its that they make plants that CANNOT SEED forcing farmers to buy new seeds. Hate them for the fact that they are doing to nature what Microsoft and IBM did to software, force people to constantly pay for upgrades yearly, which could kill small farmer's budgets.

[[R_H]]

GMO is evil, but not for the environmental bullshit, its that they make plants that CANNOT SEED forcing farmers to buy new seeds. Hate them for the fact that they are doing to nature what Microsoft and IBM did to software, force people to constantly pay for upgrades yearly, which could kill small farmer's budgets.

Isn't that also done to keep the GM-plants' seeds from spreading?

[Lonestar]

Isn't that also done to keep the GM-plants' seeds from spreading?

Yeah. Also, people like Monsanto offer Third world country FREE SEED.

[salm]

Yeah. Unitl they´re hooked. They´re business practices resemble the ones of drug dealers.

[[R_H]]

Another article

German ban on MON810 maize: will the courts now decide?

Following the ban on cultivating MON810 Bt maize in Germany, Monsanto is considering taking legal action. At the moment, it is not known how long the ban will be in force.

"As soon as we have received the decision, we will examine the arguments. Then we can start taking legal action," a spokesman for Monsanto told the dpa news agency. The aim is to make it possible for farmers who have already bought MON810 seed to plant it this year. "We think the chances are very high that this temporary ban will be rescinded," said Monsanto.

German agriculture minister Ilse Aigner defended her ban as being based on "expert opinion". There were reasonable grounds to believe that "MON810 maize presents a danger to the environment". She referred, among other things, to studies upon which Luxemburg had based its recently enacted ban on cultivation. Possible impacts of MON810 maize on certain ladybugs and butterflies had been examined. The studies had previously been dismissed by scientists as being insufficient. In some cases only lab tests with Bt protein, the active agent in MON810, had been carried out. The insects concerned had been fed Bt protein in amounts that were far higher than what would have been encountered under natural conditions.

Other EU countries had already tried to base their cultivation bans on some of the studies which Aigner had used for her decision. Time and again some American study on the impact of MON810 maize on aquatic animal life, such as the caddisfly, would be cited.

Scientists from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) also dealt with these studies when reviewing national bans. None of them were scientifically sound enough to justify a ban on cultivation.

Even the German ban would hardly be able to stand up to a review by the EU Commission and EFSA. However, this process takes some time and would come all too late for this cultivation season. Also, there are not enough political majorities in the EU at the moment who can stop national cultivation bans not accepted in scientific circles. A court decision, such as the one Monsanto is considering, would be significantly faster.

The EU, moreover, must fear that the trade conflict with the USA will now become critical once again. The Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation ruled at the beginning of 2006 that scientifically unfounded cultivation bans in individual EU Member States were to be considered illegal violations of world trade agreements. The USA has yet to impose punitive tariff duties on European goods. The new U.S. Trade Representative, Ron Kirk, criticised the EU's genetic technology policy in his latest report. He explicitly referred to national cultivation bans in France, Austria, Greece and Hungary.

[Sea Skimmer]

GMO is evil, but not for the environmental bullshit, its that they make plants that CANNOT SEED forcing farmers to buy new seeds. Hate them for the fact that they are doing to nature what Microsoft and IBM did to software, force people to constantly pay for upgrades yearly, which could kill small farmer's budgets.

Umm, most western farmers already do buy seed each year be it genetically modified or not. It’s a lot easier and more reliable (if commercial seed doesn’t work you can sue the seller) then stashing away seed corn for a whole year and then converting it into something you can mechanically sow yourself. The seed issue is relevant for third world farmers, but as has been pointed out lots of seed is given away for free and no one is forcing them to use it.

[Vehrec]

GMO is evil, but not for the environmental bullshit, its that they make plants that CANNOT SEED forcing farmers to buy new seeds. Hate them for the fact that they are doing to nature what Microsoft and IBM did to software, force people to constantly pay for upgrades yearly, which could kill small farmer's budgets.

Umm, most western farmers already do buy seed each year be it genetically modified or not. It’s a lot easier and more reliable (if commercial seed doesn’t work you can sue the seller) then stashing away seed corn for a whole year and then converting it into something you can mechanically sow yourself. The seed issue is relevant for third world farmers, but as has been pointed out lots of seed is given away for free and no one is forcing them to use it.

Actually, most of the hybrid commercial varieties of seed have an unusual quirk that is due to how they are made. Two lines of very inbred corn for instance are crossed-the result has the maximum heterozygous advantage in nearly every quality of the plant. However, any F2 crosses of this line will invariably revert to at least one inbred and deleterious characteristic. So the second generation any given farmer would plant would be much smaller and have smaller yields than the first, given the shear number of traits that have been inbred in these plants. Some of these lines have been inbred for commercial purposes for nearly a hundred years, almost as long as Gregor Mendel's work has been known widely, making this one of the best examples of early genetic work.

[Broomstick]

GMO is evil, but not for the environmental bullshit, its that they make plants that CANNOT SEED forcing farmers to buy new seeds

It's been decades since agri-business started use corn hybrids that do not breed true in the next generation, forcing farmers to continually buy new seed. Monsanto's new corn is just an extension of that trend. That argument might work for other crops, but corn is so engineered, and has been for generations, that it's not the ideal crop with which to make this argument.

Even by time the Europeans had shown up corn (I assume we're talking maize) was so engineered by the Native Americans that it could no longer self-seed and was entirely dependent on human beings to continue its existence.

[Mayabird]

Also remember that Germany isn't a third world country, and that it's banned all GM crops except this one already anyway.

MON 810 was approved for cultivation in Europe by the European Union in 1998 and is currently the only GM crop which can be grown in Germany.

[Drooling Iguana]

GMO is evil, but not for the environmental bullshit, its that they make plants that CANNOT SEED forcing farmers to buy new seeds. Hate them for the fact that they are doing to nature what Microsoft and IBM did to software, force people to constantly pay for upgrades yearly, which could kill small farmer's budgets.

It's not like non-GM corn is going to suddenly disappear. Monsanto is still going to have to keep their prices competitive with the regular stuff if they want to stay in business.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Quick question, as my knowledge of the GM foodstuff debate is extremely limited. I am assuming this has actually been proven safe, and the whole scare of GM foodstuffs is like the scare over nuclear power, right? I only ask, as I due recall hearing crazy stories from back after X-rays were first discoved that shoe stores and stuff used to have mini X-ray machines for seeing how well a shoe fit. Apparently, this fell out of practice when it was found that exposing yourself to radiation for shits and giggles was a bad idea, especially with children. I did hear this on the History Channel, so take the actual level of risk with a grain of salt, like anything made for the masses regarding radiation. I suppose my point is there are no long term problems that we are unaware of right? This isn't a case of us going all out on something that has great short term benefit, but bad long term reprocussions, like asbestos insulation, that we don't know about or don't care about enough, is it? It apprently can't reproduce, so thats a major environmental impact dealt with, even if unintentionaly. The corn is what's modified not us, and last I checked I didn't abosb and incorporate DNA from my last meal into my own like in some games or science fiction. Do any actual valid concerns exist?

[Vendetta]

GMO is evil, but not for the environmental bullshit, its that they make plants that CANNOT SEED forcing farmers to buy new seeds. Hate them for the fact that they are doing to nature what Microsoft and IBM did to software, force people to constantly pay for upgrades yearly, which could kill small farmer's budgets.

Umm, most western farmers already do buy seed each year be it genetically modified or not. It’s a lot easier and more reliable (if commercial seed doesn’t work you can sue the seller) then stashing away seed corn for a whole year and then converting it into something you can mechanically sow yourself. The seed issue is relevant for third world farmers, but as has been pointed out lots of seed is given away for free and no one is forcing them to use it.

More to the point, commercial seed is mostly nonfertile hybrids anyway. This "ZOMG CANNOT SEED" is not new, it's how the commercial seed industry works. Genetic modification is just a new way to do what they were doing anyway.

[Stormin]

As someone who actually works at a farm I can confirm that none of what we grow is from seeds coming from the previous years crops. It's simply not worth the time, effort or equipment (in some cases) to recover seeds even from the crops grown that produce them.

Personally I have little problem with GM crops although none are grown where I work. It's usually just skipping years worth of inbreeding plants to get desired traits so as long as the proper controls are in place I'm fine with it. Not producing seeds is a control, I would hate to think what would be needed to kill some crop plant that could reproduce and was immune to the less harmful herbicides.

[Broomstick]

Quick question, as my knowledge of the GM foodstuff debate is extremely limited. I am assuming this has actually been proven safe, and the whole scare of GM foodstuffs is like the scare over nuclear power, right?

Um.. sort of. More on Monsanto's corn in a bit.

I only ask, as I due recall hearing crazy stories from back after X-rays were first discoved that shoe stores and stuff used to have mini X-ray machines for seeing how well a shoe fit. Apparently, this fell out of practice when it was found that exposing yourself to radiation for shits and giggles was a bad idea, especially with children. I did hear this on the History Channel, so take the actual level of risk with a grain of salt, like anything made for the masses regarding radiation.

Yes, indeed, shoe stores used to use x-rays when fitting people for shoes. My parents remember this being done. No one is known to have become ill from the use of such machines, however, we're a more careful about exposing people to radiation these days. Even our medical x-rays use a lot less radiation than they did a half century ago.

A few early researchers into radiation did get seriously ill and even die from overexposure. But no shoe salesmen (that we know of).

I suppose my point is there are no long term problems that we are unaware of right? This isn't a case of us going all out on something that has great short term benefit, but bad long term reprocussions, like asbestos insulation, that we don't know about or don't care about enough, is it? It apprently can't reproduce, so thats a major environmental impact dealt with, even if unintentionaly. The corn is what's modified not us, and last I checked I didn't abosb and incorporate DNA from my last meal into my own like in some games or science fiction. Do any actual valid concerns exist?

Here in the US we've been eating "Franken-corn" for quite a few years now. So far no one has dropped dead, or even become seriously ill.

One of the big issues with this particular corn is "Bt", a naturally occuring pesticide that's been engineered into it. Bt is harmless to us (at least in any quantity you'd get from eating corn or one of its products) but it's toxic to insects. That's why it's effective against the corn borer. The concern is that it will also be toxic to beneficial insects. So it's not the genes people fear, it's a product of the genes that the plant has been engineered to produce. Here in the US there was much concern about its effect on insects such as the monarch butterfly (a species with few predators, as its larval food makes the adult toxic, which is all very ironic, really). So far as I know the only insect significantly impacted is the corn borer (which is anticipated to eventually develop resistance at some point) but I haven't extensively researched the matter so I could be wrong on that.

[PainRack]

GMO is evil, but not for the environmental bullshit, its that they make plants that CANNOT SEED forcing farmers to buy new seeds. Hate them for the fact that they are doing to nature what Microsoft and IBM did to software, force people to constantly pay for upgrades yearly, which could kill small farmer's budgets.

That's not exactly true. The terminator seed pattern isn't being used, what happens is that the genetic engineering tweaks don't hold true after several generations, so seed corn will lose said genetic tweaks you want.

Quick question, as my knowledge of the GM foodstuff debate is extremely limited. I suppose my point is there are no long term problems that we are unaware of right? This isn't a case of us going all out on something that has great short term benefit, but bad long term reprocussions, like asbestos insulation, that we don't know about or don't care about enough, is it? It apprently can't reproduce, so thats a major environmental impact dealt with, even if unintentionaly. The corn is what's modified not us, and last I checked I didn't abosb and incorporate DNA from my last meal into my own like in some games or science fiction. Do any actual valid concerns exist?

The real problems isn't the technology. Its the promises made that isn't being fulfilled and the sales pitch.

In this case, fears that the metabolised products of Bt may be toxic is probably overrated. The issue however is with regards to its environmental impact. For one, bt is something that's being used "naturally". The introduction of this into farm crops and current farming practices accelerate resistance amongst insects populations, while the threat of gene spread and or just normal usuage would hit vulnerable, beneficial insects.
The problem here is farming practices. If farms were to adopt non monoculture techniques, such as the practice of farming multiple crops or having cover plants and/or fallow season, you would inhibit the adoption of resistance, or even insect infestation naturally. However, economic practices rewards the dramatic overproduction of crops and single crops and so causes the degradation of the land for future farming.


There are valid concerns against GM food, but this is usually a result of false advertising, farming practices or consumer protection. For example, the mixing of GM crops into the food supply means that consumers cannot choose to consume GM foods over non GM foods. This means that the idea of consumer choice, in which consumers can "punish" or "reward" suppliers is gone. GM seed companies ultimate customers aren't you, the consumer who eat the foods. Its the farmers and agribusinesses who purchase their seed.

[K. A. Pital]

I didn't abosb and incorporate DNA from my last meal into my own like in some games or science fiction. Do any actual valid concerns exist?

That's of course silly, but I heard there are valid concernes about your micro-flora like bacteria etc. which inhabits your organism, incorporating the transgenes. Wrong or not, I'm not personally sure.

[Samuel]

I didn't abosb and incorporate DNA from my last meal into my own like in some games or science fiction. Do any actual valid concerns exist?

That's of course silly, but I heard there are valid concernes about your micro-flora like bacteria etc. which inhabits your organism, incorporating the transgenes. Wrong or not, I'm not personally sure.

If that is a problem, you can eat yogurt to counter the effects. There are some that are supposed to provide helpful stomach bacteria.

[Alyrium Denryle]

In this case, fears that the metabolised products of Bt may be toxic is probably overrated. The issue however is with regards to its environmental impact. For one, bt is something that's being used "naturally". The introduction of this into farm crops and current farming practices accelerate resistance amongst insects populations, while the threat of gene spread and or just normal usuage would hit vulnerable, beneficial insects.

Here is the problem with this. We will ALWAYS be in an evolutionary arms race with insect pests. We have been since the dawn of agriculture. Additionally, BT is target specific, and has been engineered that way. While it COULD affect non-target species, so do virtually all of our chemical pesticides, and these have harmful chemical runoff that fucks up entire regions. BT Does not.

The problem here is farming practices. If farms were to adopt non monoculture techniques, such as the practice of farming multiple crops or having cover plants and/or fallow season, you would inhibit the adoption of resistance, or even insect infestation naturally.

You also drastically reduce per acre yield and force more land clearage in order to feed the same number of people. The green revolution of the 70s artificially boosted our carrying capacity and staved off a malthusian collapse. If we were to re-adopt old farming practices we would undo those benefits and lots of people would starve.

I am all about decreasing the population, but I would prefer it be through the death of birth.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I didn't abosb and incorporate DNA from my last meal into my own like in some games or science fiction. Do any actual valid concerns exist?

That's of course silly, but I heard there are valid concernes about your micro-flora like bacteria etc. which inhabits your organism, incorporating the transgenes. Wrong or not, I'm not personally sure.

That can happen, but any bacteria that does will start producing the gene produce which costs energy for not selective benefit unless the gene is down regulated. As a result, it will have no effect, or will be selected out by competition with bacteria that have NOT taken up the transgene.

[PainRack]

Here is the problem with this. We will ALWAYS be in an evolutionary arms race with insect pests. We have been since the dawn of agriculture. Additionally, BT is target specific, and has been engineered that way. While it COULD affect non-target species, so do virtually all of our chemical pesticides, and these have harmful chemical runoff that fucks up entire regions. BT Does not.

Here's a hint. Who gives a fuck about whether we will always be in an evolutinary arms race? The point still remains that BT plants accelerates resistance, and introducing this trait to more species and crops accelerates resistance, weakening our other farming strategies.

You also drastically reduce per acre yield and force more land clearage in order to feed the same number of people. The green revolution of the 70s artificially boosted our carrying capacity and staved off a malthusian collapse. If we were to re-adopt old farming practices we would undo those benefits and lots of people would starve.

I am all about decreasing the population, but I would prefer it be through the death of birth.

Bullshit. China, Japan and even Iowa has polyculture fields and other practices which produce the same amount of calories/food. The problem is that all these require more labour, more costs and of course, more "thought" and management, making this more high tech than the standard monoculture farms.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Here's a hint. Who gives a fuck about whether we will always be in an evolutinary arms race? The point still remains that BT plants accelerates resistance, and introducing this trait to more species and crops accelerates resistance, weakening our other farming strategies.

What you are saying is essentially that we should not introduce a new anti-biotic because it will accelerate resistance to anti-biotics, the same broken logic applies. Additionally resistance to BT does not confer resistance to anything OTHER than BT, such as pesticides that we currently use, which insects already evolve resistance to.

So we have the same fundamental problem no matter what strategy we use. We act as a selective pressure on insect pests and they eventually evolve resistance to our pest mitigation strategies. The difference here is that with BT, we are not creating so much runoff from estrogen analogues that the frogs living 50 km away are feminized and start laying eggs despite being genetically male (Atrazine)

Run a cost benefit analysis you donkey fucking luddite.

Bullshit. China, Japan and even Iowa has polyculture fields and other practices which produce the same amount of calories/food. The problem is that all these require more labour, more costs and of course, more "thought" and management, making this more high tech than the standard monoculture farms.

Are you controlling for land use? How about agricultural runoff?

Here is a hint: When it comes to holding off the predictions of malthus for a bit longer, you want to be MORE efficient with food production. Not less.

[Redleader34]

If you want to be the most efficient, we might as well not grow meat though. I mean if anything with the absurd amount of corn/soy/wheat that goes to feed chickens and hogs you are wasting food and producing more waste in the form of tons of animal shit, methane emissions and fun things like animal remnants. Just saying this. Also I did not know about corn being unable to grow, but as wheat's origin shows, plants tend to share genes. Modern wheat is a hybridized form of wheat, but if we add natural pesticide generating genes they might spread to weeds, giving us a massive problem.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If you want to be the most efficient, we might as well not grow meat though. I mean if anything with the absurd amount of corn/soy/wheat that goes to feed chickens and hogs you are wasting food and producing more waste in the form of tons of animal shit, methane emissions and fun things like animal remnants. Just saying this. Also I did not know about corn being unable to grow, but as wheat's origin shows, plants tend to share genes. Modern wheat is a hybridized form of wheat, but if we add natural pesticide generating genes they might spread to weeds, giving us a massive problem.

The same problem exists with natural resistance to pesticides. Moreover, hybrid wheat strains were bred from plants that were already very closely related. Modern corn or wheat is not going to hybridize with pest plants. That would be the vertebrate equivalent of saying we could hybridize with a sheep... Something that, tavern jokes aside, the Scotts, Irish, and New Zealanders have been trying for some time and failing miserably at.