Under the draft German law, applicants seeking EU approval to cultivate GMO crops will be asked by the German government to remove Germany from the area in the EU where the crops are approved for growing.

If this is refused, a ban on growing the GMO crop in Germany can be imposed even if the EU approves the plant strain as safe to cultivate.

LONDON — The controversy over genetically modified crops has long focused on largely unsubstantiated fears that they are unsafe to eat.

But an extensive examination by The New York Times indicates that the debate has missed a more basic problem — genetic modification in the United States and Canada has not accelerated increases in crop yields or led to an overall reduction in the use of chemical pesticides.

The promise of genetic modification was twofold: By making crops immune to the effects of weedkillers and inherently resistant to many pests, they would grow so robustly that they would become indispensable to feeding the world’s growing population, while also requiring fewer applications of sprayed pesticides.

Twenty years ago, Europe largely rejected genetic modification at the same time the United States and Canada were embracing it. Comparing results on the two continents, using independent data as well as academic and industry research, shows how the technology has fallen short of the promise.

Newly developed labelling standards for GM free plant based foods and products of animal origin are said to be another step in the harmonization of regulations for a GM free Europe.

MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS FOR THE WORLD FOOD DAY 2016

To Professor José Graziano da Silva

Director General of the FAO

Illustrious Sir,

1. The fact that the FAO has chosen to devote today’s World Food Day to the theme “Climate is changing. Food and agriculture must too”, leads us to consider the struggle against hunger as an even more difficult objective to attain in the presence of a complex phenomenon such as climate change. With regard to facing the challenges that nature poses to man, and that man poses to nature (cf. Enc. Laudato si’, 25), I would like to submit some reflections to the consideration of the FAO, its Member States and those who participate in its activity.

What is the cause of the current climate change? We must question our individual and collective responsibilities, without resorting to the facile sophistry that hides behind statistical data or conflicting predictions. This does not mean abandoning the scientific data we need more than ever, but rather going beyond merely interpreting the phenomenon or recording its many effects.

(.....)

From the wisdom of rural communities we can learn a style of life that can help defend us from the logic of consumerism and production at any cost, a logic that, cloaked in good justifications, such as the increasing population, is in reality aimed solely at the increase of profit. In the sector in which the FAO works, there is a growing number of people who believe they are omnipotent, or able to ignore the cycles of the seasons and to improperly modify the various animal and plant species, leading to the loss of variety that, if it exists in nature, has and must have its role. Producing qualities that may give excellent results in the laboratory may be advantageous for some, but have ruinous effects for others. And the principle of caution is not enough, as very often it is limited to not allowing something to be done, whereas there is a need to act in a balanced and honest way. Genetic selection of a quality of plant may produce impressive results in terms of yield, but have we considered the terrain that loses its productive capacity, farmers who no longer have pasture for their livestock, and water resources that become unusable? And above all, do we ask if and to what extent we contribute to altering the climate?

Not precaution, then, but wisdom: what peasants, fisherman and farmers conserve in memory handed down through the generations and which is now derided and forgotten by a model of production that is entirely to the advantage of a limited group and a tiny portion of the world population. Let us remember that it is a model which, despite all its science, allows around eight hundred million people to continue to go hungry.

RE: Begin

Over the last century, the word “science” – rooted in Latin: scire (to know) – has had all meaning raided and stripped off it, leaving nothing – zero. The actual pursuit of knowledge has been replaced by silver-spoon-fed-shills parading as “defenders of science”.This “Data”-driven Zero-knowledge is being “hailed” as the solution, to all the very real problems faced by real people around the world. The problems caused by Zero-knowledge, Zero-cience.

(.....)

For the last century Zero-science has been the compass that has dictated the direction of the vector called “progress”, and therefore all “progress” has meant the “growth” of zeros in the accounts of the guilty. The entire Industry – automotive, container, shipping, piping, food, pharma, media and IT, share the same patent toting Original Equipment Manufactures (OEM).

“Innovation” now means “inventing” new language, to refresh the “tired” wheel before the old patent runs out, revolving in perpetuity, moving forward, in what has been established as the wrong direction. Ever faster.

We pledge, to the mountains of wisdom we stand atop, and the diverse possibilities of our collective futures, that the Patent Cartel will not be at the re-invented wheel of the bus to extinction any longer, they will be under it. The world will not be string-theoried along by the Geppettos above.

This is our “Stop!”, we are yanking the chain. We are getting off the patented vend-bus.

Each step we take back to our roots, guided by the soil under our feet, will bring us closer to harmony – with each other and nature.

We are here, present, and this is our time.

(The Hague, 15 October 2016)

To cope with drought and rising food prices, we need to urgently move away from genetically modified food and towards indigenous African crops. So warns the African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB).

“We need to urgently shift away from maize towards embracing a diversity of crops – particularly indigenous African summer grain crops such as sorghum and millet – and agro ecology,” says ACB director, Mariam Mayet.

Coinciding with World Food Day, the African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB), has released an important report. It is called “Transitioning out of GM maize: towards nutrition security, climate adaptation, agro-ecology and social justice.”

It makes a compelling case for South Africa to urgently transition out of GM maize production, to systems that are socially just, ecologically sustainable and provide nutrition security for a rapidly urbanising population in the face of the current crippling drought.

According to Mariam Mayet, Director of the ACB, “South Africa is at a crossroads: either it must abandon Monsanto’s GM maize including its bogus drought tolerant GM maize seed or face an economic, social and ecological crisis.”

Germany's federal and state governments will in future decide together whether to ban the cultivation of crops with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that are allowed in the European Union, a draft law showed, ending a long dispute.

An EU law in March 2015 cleared the way for the approval of new GMO crops after years of deadlock. But it also gave individual countries the right to ban GMO crops even after they have been approved as safe by the European Commission.

In Sept. 2015, Germany told the EU it would not permit the cultivation of GMO crops but there has been disagreement whether this ban should be undertaken by federal or state authorities.

The European Commission and a handful of EU governments want

Europe to grow more genetically modified (GM) crops. In the coming months, they want to authorisethe cultivation of two GM maize varieties (DuPont Pioneer’s 1507 and Syngenta’s Bt11), and to renew the licence for another maize (Monsanto’s maize MON810), the only GM crop currently grown in the EU.

The proposed authorisations would only be valid in 9 out of 28 European Union (EU) countries, as well as in three regions (England in the UK, Flanders and the Brussels region in Belgium). The rest of EU countries and the remaining four regions in the UK and Belgium were excluded under the EU’s new opt-out mechanism. The Commission is hoping that EU governments will accept GM crops so long as they are not grown in their territories.

Franziska Achterberg, EU Food Policy Director for Greenpeace, said: “GM crops have no place in sustainable farming. Rightly, the majority of EU governments and parliamentarians have rejected them.

NASHVILLE, Tenn (RFD-TV) Bayer AG, a German-based pharmaceutical company recently proposed a $66 billion takeover of U.S. seed company, Monsanto Co. – an idea that was not well received by the German people.

From one perspective, Monsanto was an advocate of genetically modified crops and a weed killer that could cause cancer, and had no place in the German market.

A group of MEPs has asked the Commission to examine the Bayer-Monsanto merger, and some of France’s best-known chefs have written an open letter condemning the invasion of the food chain by the agrochemical industry. EurActiv France reports.

A group of 55 MEPs yesterday (22 September) sent a letter to the European Commission, expressing their concern over the fusion of agricultural and chemical giants Bayer and Monsanto. Written by Green MEP Michèle Rivasi, the letter was co-signed by 54 of her colleagues, primarily from the European Parliament’s left-wing groups (Greens/EFA, S&D, GUE/NGL).

In it, the lawmakers urged the European executive’s DG Competition to address the subject quickly, if only because the new super-corporation’s €23 billion revenue would so far exceed the €5bn threshold for Commission scrutiny. The company’s European revenue is also well above €250 million, and Bayer and Monsanto are both big players on the same pesticides and seeds markets.