According to Elisabeth Rosenthal of the
New York Times, the European Union, unlike the U.S, restricts the commercial growing and marketing of GM crops. They are trying to make concessions to environmental activists that claim that GM crops have very damaging effects. But the World Trade Organization claims that these bans are illegal trade barriers because they are not based on any concrete scientific evidence. (The World Health Organization has concluded that GM crops are not to be considered dangerous for human consumption.) Yet Europe still has many restrictions five years later. In Italy, for example, there is a GMO-approval process set up that has no specifications for how to pass. France, Austria, and Germany outright ban most GMOs. This issue has even escalated to violence. In Vivaro, Italy, Giorgio Fidenato planted MON810 corn, better known as BT corn, last April. An Italian antiglobalization group by the name of Ya Basta raided his cornfields and destroyed most of his crop, leaving behind placards labeling the corn as "contaminated." However, some countries in the E.U. are more open, like Spain, Germany, and Portugal, who have limited allowed use of GM crops.
I think that the European Union is for the most part trying to be fair and listening to the environmental groups, but they're taking most of these things to far. They need to listen to the WTO and WHO. The bans are illegal and unfounded. However, they have a right to be cautious. Even the WHO point out that they can't reach a definite conclusion because of how short of a time we've been eating GM crops.
Questions
1) What's your take? Do you side with the environmental groups or the WTO?
2) Would you like to see a more cautious approach like the Europeans' in our own country?
3) Do you think the E.U. has the right to take action despite the WTO ruling?
Opinion/Reflection:
ReplyDeleteI personally think that what the European Union is doing is pretty clever. Here in the US we have no regulations for GM crops, but over there there are restrictions (on the commercial growing and marketing of GMOs). I wish the US did something like that because let’s face it, we are the guinea pigs for GMOs. We’re the testers to see if these genetically modified crops are safe. And if in the long run they do turn out to have some serious health consequences, we’re going to suffer because our government was too lazy to make sure the GM crops they approved were safe before allowing the public to consume them.
I think that the World Health Organization has a point, even though I don’t quite agree with it. Although GMOs haven’t been proven dangerous for human health, it hasn’t been proved that they are safe, either. And if we don’t know what the outcomes of consuming these crops are, then we shouldn’t be eating them. This clearly isn’t a concern in today’s society (in the US), considering that 80 percent of our processed food contains some sort of genetically modified organism. As I commented on Kate’s article, that’s an extremely scary statistic, because if these crops are discovered to be unsafe, sooner rather than later, there won’t be enough non-genetically modified food left to feed the world’s population. It would take months, maybe even years, just to grow normal crops, and by the time we could eat them, it would be too late. People would already be dying and dead because of hunger, starvation, and lack of nutrients. It’s just so terrible to think about, but it’s a reality people need to start considering.
I feel that the environmental activists aren’t being entirely truthful with their claim that GM crops have damaging effects. While this may prove true in the long run, it hasn’t been confirmed quite yet, so they really shouldn’t be saying it. I am still on their side, though.
It’s great that Europe still has regulations on GMOs, even with all the trouble people have been putting them through.
I believe that Italy, like the US, needs to develop a program regulating GMOs. All they have right now is a useless program, because basically anything can pass.
I think it’s wonderful that France, Australia and Germany ban GMOs from the start. After all, we don’t know the damage they can cause, so it’s best to get rid of them before they start to circulate around the country.
I feel that what the group Ya Basta did to Giorgio Fidenato’s crops was wrong, even if they were trying to prove a really good point. While their idea was somewhat clever, the group should not have done what they did, because they majorly overstepped their boundaries. My guess is that they were punished severely as well.
Finally, I have to say that GM crops might just be okay for right now, but if the government is going to allow its people to consume them, there needs to be regulations for each crop to pass before it is granted approval (similar to what Portugal, Germany, and Spain currently do).
This article relates to class because once again it is discussing the controversy over genetically modified crops, which we talked a little bit about in class.
Answer the Questions:
ReplyDelete1) I am definitely on the side of the environmental groups. Like I previously mentioned, I agree that the WTO (or the WHO, they said basically the same thing) has a point, but just because GM crops aren’t considered dangerous doesn’t mean they’re safe. While the environmental groups’ claims aren’t 100 percent truthful, I would rather be on the side that takes caution when it comes to consuming this experimental food with unknown health consequences.
2) Yes, I would like to see the US take a more cautious approach when it comes to GMO’s in our country, much like what the Europeans are doing. This way we can make sure these crops are at least somewhat safe for human consumption. And while that plan isn’t perfect, it would most certainly be a step up from how crops are allowed to be approved now, without any regulations or restrictions.
3) Yes, I think the European Union has the right to take action despite the WTO’s ruling. I believe that they have more power than the WTO does, and they should keep their program going because they feel it’s the right thing to do.
Ask more questions:
1. Do you think the group, Ya Basta, was punished because of what they did to Giorgio’s crops? And if you don’t think they were punished, would’ve you liked to see them suffer because of their actions?
2. Other than the BT corn incident, how many other acts of violence do you think there were because of this controversial issue?
3. Do you think the European Union is doing a good thing for its people?
4. Should the people in any country be allowed to vote on regulations GMOs must pass in order to be approved for human consumption?
5. Why do you think this issue is becoming such a primary concern now, rather than when these genetically modified crops first came out?
Add a graphic
http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/TwoPeas.html
This picture shows the European Union’s flag.
http://www.ent.iastate.edu/imagegal/plantpath/corn/ecb/bteardam.html
This graphic compares two groups of corn, one genetically modified (on the right), and the other not (on the left).
I love what the European Union is doing! I'm a huge fan of the EU, because it seems like the majority of their decisions are motivated by looking out for their peoples' interest, not for their businesses'. This is another example of this, and I wish American policy would move more in this direction.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that the farmer chose to plant BT corn. I remember reading about it during the GMO homeworks, and I can see why Ya Basta would be upset. I just wish they would have handled the situation a bit better, as Ya Basta aren't winning any support for the anti-GMO cause. The Wikipedia article on Bt corn (or "transgenic maize", as they call it") reveals that the corn can have a variety of undesirable effects. Besides some people possibly being allergic, scientists running trials with rats have documented at least three side-effects caused by the Bt corn. Not to mention the European corn borer, which I imagine they have quite a few of in Europe, can grow resistances to the pesticide, screwing over other farmers. And like with all GMO plants, cross-pollination could also contaminate other farmers' crops.
Here's a graphic showing the distribution of GMO regulations across the European Union
http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/fileadmin/pics/gmo-free-regions/maps/GMO_free_regions_30_4_09.jpg
I love that continent!
My opinion on this is that the European Union are correct and just in banning these GMO's because while GMO's have not been 100% proven to be dangerous, just as many crops have NOT been proven to be safe. However, I think that this is also partly a case of the E.U. trying to "one-up" America by taking a mostly unpopular law that we have over here and doing the exact opposite over there to try and show us up. The example here is that America has legalized every GMO species brought up for recommendation to the USDA. On the other side, however, in many European Union countries most, if not all, of the GMO's brought up for consideration have been shot down and banned.
ReplyDelete1) I side with the enviromenalist in this case because they have the right idea somewhat. GMO's are not a product to be full on banned (as happens in many European Countries) but not something that should be totally accepted without a second thought (as happens in the United States) but more a product that should be studied and have all options weighed before any decision is made. Although enviromentalists like Ya Basta just anger me to no end (for reasons I can not even begin to explain) and somewhat make me wish that the WHO's decision would pass just to upset Ya Basta. But my better judgement tells me that the enviromentalists are correct in this case.
2) I would love to see a more cautious approach in America but not so cautious that every GMO brought up for consideration is banned. Like I said above GMO's should not be passed without a second thought or banned immediatly, but considered with heavy thought. That type of approach can only help in the future.
3) Yes, because the WTO's ruling that bans are not legal without scientific proof makes no sense because if that approach is true than legalizing GMO's should also be illegal because there is not proof that these GMO's are safe.