http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ps-farming

'Look, there's a well-paying swivel seat in this for me...'

If he only had a look at the social impact of GMO in Asia on small farmers. Even in the US there is a backlash against GMO even among the public. Farmers are not allowed to keep seeds and have to buy new seeds every year and they are rising in price all the time. They can be sued for patent infringement because their crops have been cross pollination of their crop by a neighbours crop. In Asia there is a noticeable drop in effectiveness of the chemicals that they use. So they need to borrow more to get buy more chemicals all for the same yield. It is leading to a debt spiral and a rising suicide rate in Bangladesh and India. So clearly being in the museum might actually be better for farmers.

That sounds like one of the hypothetical but utterly impossible risks that can safely be ignored because it is stupid on every level.

GM isn't a single thing, it is a type. Accepting the good bits and banning the bad bits shouldn't be beyond the wit of industrialized nations. If we aren't opposed to having genetic engineering in our medicines, there seems no sensible reason to write it off entirely for our food.

I wouldn't be so sure about that: clickety.

Well, I stand corrected. Once more the universe demonstrates itself to be a quite immensely stupid place.
Is that also possible under European patent law?

Over here people look for GM free products. Farmers are against it.

Reading Daemon and Darknet from Daniel Suarez show what should happen - preferably without all the death.

I don't have a problem with the idea if GM per say.
What I do take issue with is the GM companies making the products to they don't produce seeds for the next year (so they cal sell again and again and again). That risks contaminating normal seeds and causing a massive issue in the future.

I have some concerns.

The terminator gene as you mentioned is one.

The forced change to traditional practices of seed collecting is another. So you have to buy new seed every year.

The fact that the policy is one directional. Once you go GMO you cannot go back. If you do and your crops are polluted by GMO genes from your neighbours then you get sued.

The significant drop in seed diversity from seed banks. Many of which are now owned by Monsanto and other GMO producers, so have no interest in supplying none GMO seeds. This could lead to a massive crop failure at some point which will make the dustbowl years seem like a walk in the park.

The growing resistance of weeds to Roundup and other pesticides thanks to gene migration. This is great for Monsanto as you need to but more Roundup just to kill the weeds.

The fact that politicians are taking bribes to peddle GMO as our only solution. If they are so essential then it should not be tolerated that a company can patent the food chain.

The real benefits would be better drought resistance or tolerance to bugs and these should be the equivalent of open source in that anyone can use them. Also if these genes get into weeds they will not threaten massive pollution from excess pesticide usage.

I am wondering if this is all to prepare us for the results of the EU-US trade deal being negotiated?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24965053

I imagine that the EU will have to relax certain restrictions.

The real nasties are in the abolition of sovereignty. The Trans Pacific Treaty is really bad in terms of rights of governments powers against corporations.