I hope those EU pinheads don't eat brocolli. It's very existence is the result of genetic modification--as are about 70% of all the organisms around today.

"...release dangerous genes into the environment..." If you think about that statement you should realize just what a bunch of dopes these clowns really are. If that doesn't do it, try this one, "...an expert on genetically modified organisms at GREENPEACE in BRUSSELS..."

Sheesh!

1. First, when you are talking the EU, you are talking a body rather distant from direct democratic controls. My guess is that the decisionmakers here view what they ought to do in terms of the elites in which the decisionmakers want to be a member. My guess is that the Euro elites want to be seen as environmentally oriented, and this is seen as an environmental issue.

In a more democratic arrangement, all depends on the salience of the issue. If it is possible the policies will cause the current government to lose its majority in the relevent parliament, then there is sufficient reason to ban their use, provided that this also will not possibly cause the current government to lose its majority. And, if things have gotten that hot, the legislators, rather than the eurocrats, will make the decisions.

2. It depends on how public opinion developed the way it did. As the Euro opposition to these plants is of fairly long standing, and the subject of much self-righteous rhetoric, the marginal cost to self-regard is probably larger in the public opinion is probably larger than the marginal benefit perceived by the public for this change.

3. The public views the lack of the gnetically modified plant as likely being of small benefit to them, while the downside of a lack of biodiversity as potentially big bad thing. You lose.

This is very crude, and not expressed in the terms of your discipline, but this is my guess on how it would go.

I won't comment on questions 2 or 3, but I think the answer to #1 is probably yes. I say this as someone who doesn't think GMOs pose any significant danger. I nevertheless find it interesting and somewhat heartening to see an a widespread consumer movement spring up in reaction to the possible introduction of these products. Frankly, consumers generally seem awfully docile and apathetic to the bigger picture of their consumption choices. Rejecting this clear expression of consumer preference on the grounds that scientists or technocrats disagree seems mighty arrogant.

1) Yes. The EU still has enough legitimacy problems that it shouldn't buck massive public hostility on an issue that isn't vital to Europe's well-being. I could see the case for less developed nations with starvation issues, but Europe doesn't qualify.

2) Time, familiarity, experience. As other regions allow GMOs European tourists and critics and such will be able to experience them when they travel. businesspeople and farmers will see what their competitors are doing. Assuming the scientist consensus is alright, they should like what they see.

3) That's a policy concern beyond my level of expertise. It would depend on how likely the loss of biodiversity was and to what extent it would be reversible.

Still, perhaps the biggest hurdle for Amflora is the visceral popular reaction against genetically modified crops on a continent whose food culture is ancient and treasured.

Ancient? Potatoes are an import from the Americas (as are tomatoes, chocolate, chili peppers -- and tobacco).

It is probably a reason to move cautiously and gradually with follow up study to build confidence. Some GMOs are as safe as conventionally cultivated crops, but that hardly means all are. While experts may believe this is safe, they don't have crystal balls to the future. While this may not be intended for human consumption, it would be foolish to think that it won't end up as such.

How many of the people opposed to GM foods despite a "scientific consensus" suggesting they are wrong also point to the "scientific consensus" in reference to global warming suggesting they are right?

More to the point, how many point to scientific consensus for GMOs ignore it when it comes to climate change?

The only issue I can see is that these potatoes don't appear to be edible, if the amypolectin content is really high, and they might get confused somewhere in the supply chain with normal potatoes. It would have behooved the inventors to also incorporate a gene which turned them a non-potato color, like red or blue.

Other than that hypothetical, there is no precautionary argument at all that would not also apply to all the new plant varieties generated the traditional way--through deliberately induced (by chemicals or radiation) random mutations. If anything, the GMOs are under more control than the products of traditional plant breeding.

"1) Is massive public hostility to GMOs a sufficient reason to ban their use?"

Sufficient reason?

Maybe the better question is, is it likely to happen in a democratic society? To the latter, yep.

Ditto for free trade.

>

Massive public hostility is generally a sufficient reason for other policy choices in democratic societies, no?

>

Safety concerns are common political arguments to justify protectionism. However, what is the meaning of "safe" in this context? Do GM products cause biological harm to humans? Probably not. I do suspect that the idea of "safety" is used broadly when discussing this issue, and encompasses perceived threats to concepts such as quality, tastiness, familiarity, and tradition. It is hard to argue that GM foods positively contribute to ideas like tastiness and tradition, particularly when these qulaities are not lacking in the first place.

3) The scientific consensus on GMOs cannot refute concerns about possible losses in biodiversity. Is this unknown still a sufficient reason to ban their use? In other words, when is the precautionary principle sufficient to warrant regulatory action?

The main arguments for the promotion of GM foods are economic: more production for less cost. People are not starving in Europe, and farmers aren't exactly in poverty either. Unless the population can be convinced that GM foods offer superior taste and enhance traditional cuisine, they won't receive a warm welcome. It is a tough sell, with small perceived benefit against major perceived risk.

People in the U.S. have a very diifferent relationship to food than people in Europe. The ubiquity of high fructose corn syrup (a GM food) in the American diet and its assocciated health effects are one of many examples that do not give Europeans a happy feeling. U.S. agriculture is based on industrial output, with many highly processed foods. Yes, there are huge food companies in Europe, but observing a European market and types of foods people generally eat and prepare reveals foods that tend to be less processed than their America counterparts. When buying a can of processed tomato sauce, you don't think as much about the tomatoes as compared to buying them fresh, with the intention of making your own sauce. American's don't care to eat what Great-Grandma ate, but Europeans certainly do. European agriculture tends to be smaller and more local, and the consumers demand a higher quality of food while devoting a larger portion of ther incomes to buying it. The cultural and behavioral differences are pretty vast.

>>1) Is massive public hostility to GMOs a sufficient reason to ban their use?>2) As I discuss in All Politics Is Global, here is a strong scientific consensus that GMOs are as safe as conventionally cultivated crops. If this scientific consensus, in and of itself, is insufficient to change public attitudes, can anything change public opinion on this point?>3) The scientific consensus on GMOs cannot refute concerns about possible losses in biodiversity. Is this unknown still a sufficient reason to ban their use? In other words, when is the precautionary principle sufficient to warrant regulatory action?

The main arguments for the promotion of GM foods are economic: more production for less cost. People are not starving in Europe, and farmers aren't exactly in poverty either. Unless the population can be convinced that GM foods offer superior taste and enhance traditional cuisine, they won't receive a warm welcome. It is a tough sell, with small perceived benefit against major perceived risk.

People in the U.S. have a very diifferent relationship to food than people in Europe. The ubiquity of high fructose corn syrup (a GM food) in the American diet and its assocciated health effects are one of many examples that do not give Europeans a happy feeling. U.S. agriculture is based on industrial output, with many highly processed foods. Yes, there are huge food companies in Europe, but observing a European market and types of foods people generally eat and prepare reveals foods that tend to be less processed than their America counterparts. When buying a can of processed tomato sauce, you don't think as much about the tomatoes as compared to buying them fresh, with the intention of making your own sauce. Americans don't care to eat what Great-Grandma ate, but Europeans certainly do. European agriculture tends to be smaller and more local, and the consumers demand a higher quality of food while devoting a larger portion of ther incomes to buying it. The cultural and behavioral differences are pretty vast. Assuming that acceptance of GMOs hinges on arguments that are rational for biological scientists is the main thematic mistake here.

>>1) Is massive public hostility to GMOs a sufficient reason to ban their use?>2) As I discuss in All Politics Is Global, here is a strong scientific consensus that GMOs are as safe as conventionally cultivated crops. If this scientific consensus, in and of itself, is insufficient to change public attitudes, can anything change public opinion on this point?>3) The scientific consensus on GMOs cannot refute concerns about possible losses in biodiversity. Is this unknown still a sufficient reason to ban their use? In other words, when is the precautionary principle sufficient to warrant regulatory action?

The main arguments for the promotion of GM foods are economic: more production for less cost. People are not starving in Europe, and farmers aren't exactly in poverty either. Unless the population can be convinced that GM foods offer superior taste and enhance traditional cuisine, they won't receive a warm welcome. It is a tough sell, with small perceived benefit against major perceived risk.

People in the U.S. have a very diifferent relationship to food than people in Europe. The ubiquity of high fructose corn syrup (a GM food) in the American diet and its assocciated health effects are one of many examples that do not give Europeans a happy feeling. U.S. agriculture is based on industrial output, with many highly processed foods. Yes, there are huge food companies in Europe, but observing a European market and types of foods people generally eat and prepare reveals foods that tend to be less processed than their America counterparts. When buying a can of processed tomato sauce, you don't think as much about the tomatoes as compared to buying them fresh, with the intention of making your own sauce. Americans don't care to eat what Great-Grandma ate, but Europeans certainly do. European agriculture tends to be smaller and more local, and the consumers demand a higher quality of food while devoting a larger portion of ther incomes to buying it. The cultural and behavioral differences are pretty vast. Assuming that acceptance of GMOs hinges on arguments that are rational for biological scientists is the main thematic mistake here.

The precautionary principle certainly doesn't warrant regulatory action, since it logically defeats itself. It considers the risk of permitting something, but it doesn't consider the risk of not permitting it. Ergo, the precautionary principle prohibits its own application.

"Scientific consensus", if it ever exists, should never be an argument for or against anything. All scientific progress is made by people who break with consensus. All we know in this case is that there is no evidence to show that GM food is harmful. Whether there is consensus is irrelevant. If governments act without even being able to show a concrete reason for doing so, they're regulating just for the sake of it.

As for democracy, it was never meant to impose any view held by a majority on others. It was meant to safeguard individual liberty and permit differing views on who should govern. As soon as "democracy" extends to matters beyond political choices, it reduces liberty and becomes merely mob rule. And since majorities are by nature conservative and afraid of change, that will choke progress and growth.

The precautionary principle certainly doesn't warrant regulatory action, since it logically defeats itself. It considers the risk of permitting something, but it doesn't consider the risk of not permitting it. Ergo, the precautionary principle prohibits its own application.

"Scientific consensus", if it ever exists, should never be an argument for or against anything. All scientific progress is made by people who break with consensus. All we know in this case is that there is no evidence to show that GM food is harmful. Whether there is consensus is irrelevant. If governments act without even being able to show a concrete reason for doing so, they're regulating just for the sake of it.

As for democracy, it was never meant to impose any view held by a majority on others. It was meant to safeguard individual liberty and permit differing views on who should govern. As soon as "democracy" extends to matters beyond political choices, it reduces liberty and becomes merely mob rule. And since majorities are by nature conservative and afraid of change, that will choke progress and growth.

We actually went through a very similar debate in this country last year, during the controversy over Dubai Ports World.

You had there massive public hostility to and a very high perceived risk arising from, a change in one sector of the commercial world. The question, there as here, was whether rules established for commerce will be followed if agreed-upon procedures are faithfully adhered to. The enduring threat to a liberal world trading system resides in the fact that the answer is so often "No."

1.No
2.Necessity
3.No