GMOs in and of themselves are fine. It's just a technology. Banning something just because it's a GMO is stupid policy, and definitely over regulation. GMOs are a technology. One can modify a plant or other organism for many purposes. Furthermore, concerns over intellectual property rights over GMOs are a question for how to regulate this technology, not a reason to ban it.

It's not banned there's many approved ones: https://ec.europa.eu/food/food-feed-portal/screen/gmo/search

But it's also important to review each variation and study it closely to avoid potential food safety issues.

This appears to be the main difference between the EU and the US.

In the EU you need to prove your thing won't be harmful before you launch it. In the US you launch it, but then if it's proven to be harmful it might get banned.

I refer to that form of regulation as "closing the door after the horse has already bolted regulation".

This is the American position. “If you can’t prove it’s bad now, it should be legal immediately”.

Europe food regulation runs on the precautionary principle. You have to prove it’s safe first.

Turns out most GMOs were fine but they actually allowed for a huge increase in the use of Roundup.

Roundup is wildly aggressive pesticide and a lot of GMOs were called “Roundup ready” crops, so they could absorb (in theory!) huge amounts of Roundup without being affected.

But the huge increase in the use of Roundup in America might be behind (according to some) the increase in neurocognitive disease.

In the US this was never a thought.

They never banned all GMOs so the very fact that you think that is interesting.

Think about it - who told you that? Why? Who benefited ?

The comment that I replied to says that they banned most GMOs.

I kind of wonder if "overregulation" and "unionization" are two terms carefully chosen to be negative by corporate interests?

Like how "piracy" in the context of software licence violations is equated with raping and pillaging on the high seas, and the phrase "drugs and alcohol" appeals to those who might feel uncomfortable with alcohol being a (first class, world's most popular after sugar) drug.

> world's most popular after sugar

Leaving aside the weird categorization of sugar as a drug - yes, I know it's addictive, but not all addictive things are drugs - caffeine is considerably more popular than alcohol.

Caffeine is a psychoactive substance of the stimulant class. You could definitely categorize it as a "drug".

I know, I'm taking issue with calling sugar a drug, not caffeine.

If I told you a consumable substance is mind-altering, habit-forming, pleasurable and difficult to quit, very bad for your health in the quantities most abusers take it, but they continue to do so anyway- what would you call it?

I've always maintained that most "drugs" are just drugs other people dislike, and everyone is apparently happy to go along with this cognitive dissonance; hence the common phrase "drugs and alcohol", "drunk driving" vs "drug driving" etc etc.

> If I told you a consumable substance is mind-altering, habit-forming, pleasurable and difficult to quit, very bad for your health in the quantities most abusers take it, but they continue to do so anyway- what would you call it?

Macdonald's food?

"Overregulation" as a word inherently means something negative. "Unionization" doesn't mean anything negative by default.

What's wrong with GMO?

Turns out most GMOs were fine but they actually allowed for a huge increase in the use of Roundup.

Roundup is wildly aggressive pesticide and a lot of GMOs were called “Roundup ready” crops, so they could absorb (in theory!) huge amounts of Roundup without being affected.

But the huge increase in the use of Roundup in America might be behind (according to some) the increase in neurocognitive disease.

In the US this was never a thought.

I'm ok with most EU regulations and I still consider banning most GMOs wild over regulation.

It's an ideological choice driven by FUD instead of being based on actual science.

Turns out most GMOs were fine but they actually allowed for a huge increase in the use of Roundup. Roundup is wildly aggressive pesticide and a lot of GMOs were called “Roundup ready” crops, so they could absorb (in theory!) huge amounts of Roundup without being affected. But the huge increase in the use of Roundup in America might be behind (according to some) the increase in neurocognitive disease. In the US this was never a thought.

Exactly, but the EU could have limited glysophate use, instead of blanket banning GMOs while still allowing imports of soy beans etc grown with it.

(Noticeable: partial bans on glysophate have happened later).

Nobody’s perfect, but not allowing GMOs without long term impact assessments was seems like the right decision.

It might have the saved the EU tens to hundreds of billions in fixing the after effects of glyphosate on human food, which the US is now dealing with.

It’s quite simple - protect your food source, protect it from any change whatsoever that’s not 100% necessary, and you are likely protecting the health of hundreds of millions.

At the time, the rationale was that there was not enough knowledge on the long-term effects of GMO.

Which was 100% right.