Scotland Issues GM Crop Ban (#Winning!)

08/12/20155 Comments

The Scottish government has just issued an order banning the cultivation of EU-approved GM crops. In doing so, it is just one of a number of countries around the world that have restricted or banned the cultivation or importation of GM crops. Today James outlines why this is a good thing, how people can get more information about this trend and its importance, and why we should celebrate and emulate these types of victories. Also, he thanks The Corbett Report members that participated in the recent "Winning!" contest.

Scotland to issue formal ban on genetically modified crops

GM crop ban -

Caution urged over editing DNA in wildlife

Russia will not import GMO products

GMO Free Regions

Biosafety Scanner

Winning! (Contest)

Filed in: Videos
Tagged with:

Comments (5)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Corbett says:

    Congratulations to info9, Sao Jorge and EYEisBloke for their winning contest entry, and thank you to everyone who participated in the contest. Please do keep the good news flowing, and submit it either to myself or James Evan Pilato for our weekly Good News Next Week segment.

  2. mammique says:

    Thanks James, it’s good news indeed, but I think that “winning” would be actions take beside or against the phony “representative” parliaments or other “elected” entities, not by them. IMHO we should not count on them or giving them any credibility. I prefer the story of Egres growing his/her own food, it takes more effort so IMHO it has more merit, no dependency whatsoever from “elected” representative to actually get organic food on one’s plate 🙂 But, yes, right it’s still good news to take, and a step in the right direction.

  3. I’m confused. A government banning people from cultivating GMO crops means using state violence against peaceful people who have harmed no one. This is directly against the ethical principles of a voluntary society. It should be considered bad news.

    The justification by the “precautionary principle” is troubling. Basically, if a thing could possibly cause some harm to someone, even unspecified and unproven, the thing must be banned. This is the same logic behind banning some other crops, marijuana for example, because it might cause people to do some bad things or harm themselves. Or gun control, because guns might be used to kill people. Or taxing carbon emissions, because they might cause global warming. It is the logic of totalitarian government.

    In a voluntary society, people do not use violence against people for doing things they don’t like, such as planting and eating GMO crops, if they have not physically harmed someone.

    • mammique says:

      Right, and see how “precautionary principle” is used against the people via Agenda 21. Some Corporate funded NGO says this land, lake, river, or whatever natural entity is in danger, “get out of it!” Then residents, farmers, etc. hire experts to prove in a court of law that this natural entity isn’t in danger, boom: “precautionary principle”, “we don’t have to prove that this natural entity is in danger, it’s preemptive”. Few years later, when the area is cleared from its people, a corporation financially related to the Agenda 21 NGO get the rights of exploitation on the natural entity. Thanks to the “precautionary principle”. In France we’ve even added it in the constitution. Not a single tree has been saved because of it yet.

  4. candideschmyles says:

    It’s not all good news here in Scotland.
    Especially if you are a rabbit. A real rabbit that is. There is no decline in the sale of batteries that I have seen reported.

    But seriously the beef of the reasoning is commercial and not ethical or even cautionary. However a lot of people campaigned long and hard for this decision and I think this is their victory.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top