PM orders shelving of GMO bill
Thai PBS



BANGKOK -- Amid mounting protests from farmers and environment groups, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-ocha on Tuesday ordered the shelving of the controversial biological safety bill or GMO farming bill on the ground that the bill is not necessary yet.

In a sudden U-turn from the government’s earlier standpoint to press ahead with the GMO bill, the prime minister explained that GMO crops were initiated by western countries as optional crops in case there is a world war and normal cultivation is not possible. But for the time being, there is no threat of a world war and therefore it is not necessary for Thailand to press for GMO farming, he said.

Government spokesman Maj-Gen Sansern Kaewkamnerd, meanwhile, said that the Council of State informed the cabinet on Tuesday that GMO crops were a matter of the future and to issue a law on GMO farming now may not be appropriate and untimely.

Also, he said that the government was in the process of working out agriculture reforms which are yet to be completed.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/pm-orders-shelving-of-gmo-bill

-- Thai PBS 2015-12-15

GMO created as an option in case of war? I though it was only for the profits of Monsanto and Sygenta .... But he could be right: the destruction of the ecology and the health of animals and humans is part of warfare ...

Government policy announcements / reversals:

Police reform - changed our minds, it's a job for the next government

Reconciliation - not important now

Electronic tagging for tourists - stupid farang, not wanting to be tagged

Elections in 2016 - how about 2017 instead?

New charter - we'll try again

No subsidies for farmers - on no, the natives are getting restless

No populist policies - what nobody loves me? can't have that.

No Thaksinomics - let's hire Thaksin's economics guru

Tough on human trafficking - depends who's doing the trafficking

Single internet gateway - scrapped (supposedly)

No corruption will be tolerated - good people are by definition incapable of corruption

No political demonstrations - well anti-American demonstrations are okay

Salary and occupation on ID cards - we'll try again later

GMO bill - not appropriate and untimely

I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure.

Oh nice, now we have three threads on this topic. Why couldn't this have been added as an update to one of the other two existing threads? Here's the other thread - I suggest people who want to chime in regarding the safety, practicality and technicalities of GM farming post to this thread where those points have already been addressed to some degree:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/877390-thai-farmers-protest-against-bill-on-gmo-farming/

Anyway it seems to have been put on the back burner because they've got better things to occupy their time, and possible because they just didn't know what to do with it (lacking expertise).

...the prime minister explained that GMO crops were initiated by western countries as optional crops in case there is a world war and normal cultivation is not possible.

Belly laugh. I wonder what science fiction movie he got this from?

Edited December 15, 201510 yr by attrayant

More u turns by this government than there are in all the roads within Thailand.

GMO created as an option in case of war? I though it was only for the profits of Monsanto and Sygenta .... But he could be right: the destruction of the ecology and the health of animals and humans is part of warfare ...

"But for the time being, there is no threat of a world war and therefore it is not necessary for Thailand to press for GMO farming, he said."

"Prime Minister Prayut Chan-ocha on Tuesday ordered the shelving of the controversial biological safety bill"

This doof has been loading up his shelves lately...

I refuse to comment on the grounds that it may incriminate me.

GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Cabinet shelves draft legislation on GMOs
PETCHANET PRATRUANGKRAI,
PRATCH RUJIVANAROM
THE NATION



Battle rages on between academics, firms; panel to look at next steps

BANGKOK: -- ACADEMICS and private enterprises have called for the reversal of a decision to revoke the bill regulating genetically modified organisms (GMOs), saying that aborting the legislation would result in losses for the country in the long run.

But a non-government organisation cheered the decision and suggested the way ahead was to boost technology advancement in organic agriculture.

These contrasting reactions came after Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha said yesterday Cabinet had agreed to withdraw the biological safety bill - the 'GMO bill' - from the drafting procedure. He said that even though there had been long debate on the bill since 1997, there was no use considering it further.

"Other countries use GM plants in the event of war or crop failure due to disease. This is because these plants can tolerate drought and disease and also have high yields, which will be useful in the event of war around the world," the PM said.

Maj-General Sansern Kaewkamnerd said Cabinet decided to send the bill back to the Natural Resources and Environment Ministry so it can add |revisions based on the debate.

Jessada Denduangboripant, a scientist and professor at Chulalongkorn's Faculty of Science, said Thailand needed to have a GMO act to control and regulate GMO plants, and microbes.

GMOs were an important and useful technology that could help farmers improve agricultural productivity, as the growing of such plants uses less water and offers high yields. Taking the bill out of the legislative system will not help the country escape GMO plants, as it has already allowed the import of many GMO products, while some GMO plants are grown in Thailand, he argued.

Jessada said many countries in Asean had GMO laws and allowed the growing of GMO crops, if Thailand did not have its own law, it would no longer be able to control GMO plant combinations.

Pornsilp Patchrintanakul, adviser to the Board of Trade and president of the Thai Feed Mill Association, said Thailand should have a GMO law to regulate and enhance the management of GMO plant production, as many GMO plants were already grown in the country, while there was nothing in place to regulate the import of GMO products.

"Thailand needs to look at why this law is necessary rather than say 'no' to it, because it would not lead to an influx of GMO products or plants. The NGOs were afraid, as many GMO products were already sold and grown in the country, such as papaya," he said.

He added that about 10 years ago, a NGO grouping called for Thailand to draft the GMO bill, but now they refused to accept it.

Even if there is no such law, GMO plants will continue to be grown in the country, while businesses such as feed-mill manufacturers and instant-noodle enterprises need to import GMO maize and wheat flour to support their production, he explained.

Asked about concern over the combination of GMO and organic plants, Pornsilp said now that the bill has been abandoned, GMO plants and products would spread nationwide anyway in the absence of proper regulation. The country also needs such a law as a food-security measure, as GMO plants could help solve shortage of some food plants in the long run, while the government could also have a law to control the growing and import of the plants, he said.

Kasemsun Chinnavaso, Natural Resources and Environment Ministry permanent secretary, said the intention of the bill had been to control GMO production and prevent the smuggling of illegal GMOs. A committee will now be set up to examine the next steps following its revocation, said the official.

However, on the NGO side, the PM's decision to revoke the legislation was seen as good news.

Biothai Foundation director Witoon Lianchamroon said he was delighted the bill had been revoked, and stressed that any new law should aim to tackle the larger perspective of protecting the country's food security and biodiversity.

"I would like to see a broader legitimate body designed to protect our food supply sustainably by using safer technology based on organic farming. We have to move away from GMO because it is a danger to the environment and does not fit with global market demand,"

He wants the government to do more research on organic agriculture.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Cabinet-shelves-draft-legislation-on-GMOs-30275022.html


-- The Nation 2015-12-16

GMO created as an option in case of war? I though it was only for the profits of Monsanto and Sygenta .... But he could be right: the destruction of the ecology and the health of animals and humans is part of warfare ...

Monsanto defoliated Vietnam with agent orange, the US spent a huge effort to destroy rice paddies by relocateing villagers to cut of food to the Vietcong.

GMO is about Monsanto and you dont want them in LOS.

However the TTP agreement will allow Monsanto through the door if they are stupid enough to sign it.

World War 3 is already being fought does he not know this.

Edited December 16, 201510 yr by kiwikeith

A number of independent scientific studies have proven that the yield of GMO crops is less than the yield from non GMO crops.

A number of independent scientific studies have proven that the yield of GMO crops is less than the yield from non GMO crops.

A number of well researched reports but denied by the big boys is that GM corn causes stomach cancer.

Wouldn't that be great for the corn industry in LOS.

A number of independent scientific studies have proven that the yield of GMO crops is less than the yield from non GMO crops.

Sure. Zero is a number.

GMO created as an option in case of war? I though it was only for the profits of Monsanto and Sygenta .... But he could be right: the destruction of the ecology and the health of animals and humans is part of warfare ...

Monsanto defoliated Vietnam with agent orange, the US spent a huge effort to destroy rice paddies by relocateing villagers to cut of food to the Vietcong.

GMO is about Monsanto and you dont want them in LOS.

However the TTP agreement will allow Monsanto through the door if they are stupid enough to sign it.

World War 3 is already being fought does he not know this.

Look what Monsanto does in Africa.....If you have a movie with Darth Vader and Monsanto Darth Vader is the good guy.....

So there you go. GMO stumbles at hurdle of social and political acceptance.

We need a pile of peer reviewed papers to stand on while we berate the social and political discourse for not doing what big-agra want them to do.

A number of independent scientific studies have proven that the yield of GMO crops is less than the yield from non GMO crops.

That is for sure wrong.....There is much wrong with GMO crops, or actually not with the crops with the companies that sell it, but not that it wouldn't work.

Anybody who willingly puts themselves in the clutches of Monsanto needs their collective heads examining. When they have you by the balls then the price of seeds will start to rise...and one day, as with any monoculture crop strain there will be a massive failure...it's called nature. Just like antibiotics these crops will select out for parasites which have a tolerance, then you are up the creek without a paddle.

A number of independent scientific studies have proven that the yield of GMO crops is less than the yield from non GMO crops.

That is for sure wrong.....There is much wrong with GMO crops, or actually not with the crops with the companies that sell it, but not that it wouldn't work.

I think initially there are improvements in yield because you can plant crops closer together as they need less weeding (the need to weed requires space between the plants). This means you can plant more densely and achieve higher yields. But the effect diminishes with time and the higher yield is not sustained at the same level as weeds become tolerant of the GMO seeds. From my perspective, as a farmer, I would like to see mixed strains of key crops rather than a GMO monoculture.

Monsanto locks you in as you cannot take seeds from your GMO crop and replant them next year, sometimes they are attenuated, but =Monsanto have been very tough in suing farmers who replant, and indeed sued a farmer in Canada, who had GMO plants in his field mixed in with his regular crop....these GMO seeds came from neighbours' fields. Monsanto won this case and fgot monetary damages from the farmer.

Just keep out of the clutches of Monsanto.

well I'm VERY relieved there is no World War 3 imminent! and it must be true so let's shelve the farming bill

that has to be near the top of the 'great excuses for shelving farming bills' poll?

Edited December 16, 201510 yr by LannaGuy

'... the prime minister explained that GMO crops were initiated by western countries as optional crops in case there is a world war ...' He thinks? They were, so say, initiated to address crop problems in poorer countries; that ... and money.

They genetically modify the plants to be resistant to their herbicide so you can use tons of it to kill the surrounding herbage and everything else in its path. Not good for soil or biodiversity. They also modify the plants to be pest resistant. So the pests that are resistant to this survive and breed with the other survivors and create super resistant bugs and as someone else said you are then up sh!!ts creek.

A number of independent scientific studies have proven that the yield of GMO crops is less than the yield from non GMO crops.

That is for sure wrong.....There is much wrong with GMO crops, or actually not with the crops with the companies that sell it, but not that it wouldn't work.

I think initially there are improvements in yield because you can plant crops closer together as they need less weeding (the need to weed requires space between the plants). This means you can plant more densely and achieve higher yields. But the effect diminishes with time and the higher yield is not sustained at the same level as weeds become tolerant of the GMO seeds. From my perspective, as a farmer, I would like to see mixed strains of key crops rather than a GMO monoculture.

Monsanto locks you in as you cannot take seeds from your GMO crop and replant them next year, sometimes they are attenuated, but =Monsanto have been very tough in suing farmers who replant, and indeed sued a farmer in Canada, who had GMO plants in his field mixed in with his regular crop....these GMO seeds came from neighbours' fields. Monsanto won this case and fgot monetary damages from the farmer.

Just keep out of the clutches of Monsanto.

There are some that are resistant to herbicide. So you put lots of herbicide and crops have no competition anymore.

Nice side effect: seeds and herbicides are sold from the same person who also buys the crops. After 1 year no other seeds will grow anymore on the polluted land. Means they can increase the price for the seeds and decrease what they pay for the crops having the farmer as slave.

From my perspective, as a farmer, I would like to see mixed strains of key crops rather than a GMO monoculture.

What's stopping you from diversifying? Monocropping runs counter a best practice farming, but it isn't a GMO issue. The Irish Potato Famine was so bad in part because of the country's dependence upon a single breed of potato that had no resistance to the blight that devastated it.

Monsanto locks you in as you cannot take seeds from your GMO crop and replant them next year

Can you explain exactly how a seed provider can "lock you in". What does that even mean? Here's a seed catalog. How can one company force you to buy a particular cultivar?

Monsanto have been very tough in suing farmers who replant, and indeed sued a farmer in Canada, who had GMO plants in his field mixed in with his regular crop....these GMO seeds came from neighbours' fields. Monsanto won this case and fgot monetary damages from the farmer. Just keep out of the clutches of Monsanto.

This is a myth - a lie spread by the fear mongers. I keep smashing this myth in every thread we have, but it never fails to come back, zombie-like, from the grave and haunt the very next discussion. The case is Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser:

[T]he court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's 1998 fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted from his 1997 harvest. Regarding his 1998 crop, Schmeiser did not put forward any defense of accidental contamination.

So the defendant violated his contract and somehow Monsanto is the bad guy for calling him on it. What's the point of patenting your product, if you're not going to defend the patent?

Did you know that all monies awarded to Monsanto for claims of patent infringement are donated to youth leadership programs and scholarships. Isn't that utterly despicable? How do those people even live with themselves?

They should make a new dance in honor of Pay-O, something like one jump forward with eyes closed and mouth open, five small steps back while shaking the head and looking angry, rinse and repeat with perky Thai pop tempo.

Means they can increase the price for the seeds and decrease what they pay for the crops having the farmer as slave.

Already addressed this in the last post but here goes again.

See the link to the seed catalog in the previous post. Monsanto is one of many wholesalers to the seed supplier. The market sets the retail price of both seeds and crops, not the patent holder. Patents provide a period of time during which the holder may recoup their investment for their innovation by disallowing people to use the product without permission, or sell it as their own. There are other seed companies, and they compete for farmers’ business by offering seeds at competitive prices. In the catalog there are dozens if not hundreds of different cultivars to choose from - some GM, some not. It's also worth noting that patents don't last forever. Monsanto's GM soybean patent just expired this year.

Which part of this makes the farmer a slave?

So there you go. GMO stumbles at hurdle of social and political acceptance.

Got a sad story for you. It has to do with people in leadership positions making ignorant decisions. It's been making the rounds lately, so you might have seen it already:

US town rejects solar farm amid worries it would "suck up all the energy from the Sun"

The town of Woodland, North Carolina is in the spotlight this week after rejecting a proposal to rezone a section of land just outside its borders for the use of a solar farm.

[snip]

A retired science teacher, Jane Mann, said she was concerned about the rising risk of cancer deaths in the area (despite reports showing that cancer rates in North Carolina have fallen over the 2008 to 2012 period) saying that no one could tell her that solar panels were not causing the cancer.

She was also concerned that photosynthesis would slow due to the solar panels, stopping the plants from growing in the solar farm fields.

[snip]

Bobby Mann (it's not clear if he's related to Jane), said that he was worried that local communities would dry up. "You're killing your town," he said. "All the young people are going to move out." He also argued that solar farms would suck up all the energy from the Sun, and new businesses would not come to Woodland.

So there you go. Renewable energy stumbles at hurdle of social and political acceptance. These are people in positions of power, who are making hugely important decisions based purely on hearsay, anecdotes and "what if" fears that the solar panels might "suck up all the sun's energy". The combination of ignorance and power is downright frightening.

It's got more to do with a government responding to protests and public opinion.

But there you go again dishing out the ignorance accusation.

Frame the argument as only one of science and in one move negate the voices of everyone who is not a scientist while ignoring all the issues relating to GMO that are nothing to do with science or anything that science can address.

GMO is a powerful technology with powerful and far reaching impacts across societies, comunities, economies, global trade, health and nutrition, the environment, on existing species... To name but a tiny few.

These are socio-political issues to be resolved by governments civil society.

They are far too important and far reaching to leave to scientists and corporations.

The scientific evidence is welcome as a contribution to the social and politicsl discourse, but it is not and never will be the whole story or the only voice that must be heared.

He did this once before over another issue , fishing law, and he just delayed it a couple of weeks and passed it anyway.

I debate the science points because that's where my strength lies. When people use demonstrably wrong statements in front of courts in an attempt to defeat a proposal, I counter those wrong statements with corrections. I'll leave the philosophical aspects to the philosophers and the legal aspects to the lawyers. Why should I be required to debate multiple facets of an argument, which I may not be qualified to debate? I'll stick to the areas of the topic that I'm capable of supporting and/or defending.

You want to shut me up? It's easy: stop making patently false claims about the science.

Edited December 16, 201510 yr by attrayant