I think folks underestimate how much agricultural science and technology there is that doesn't fall under the very narrow categories of genetic engineering and chemical pesticides.
Modern society is built on top of the massive productivity improvements in agriculture that occurred before those were introduced, and there is plenty of room to innovate without using those methods.
GMO crops are limited[1] in Europe, yet they continue to be a leader in agricultural innovation.
They are 'effectively' banned in Europe though. As you can see from this infographic[1] approval of a GMO requires a political vote in the European Commission. This takes place after a very expensive risk assessment, and you can't get that money back. It's a tough business case to spend a ton of money on the risk assessment and then be at the whim of politicians who are publicly against the technology and know they win votes by being against it. My company makes GMO plants and until the situation changes there's no way we'd considered trying to get approval.
I conjecture they setup this system because an outright ban, which would be unscientific, would violate international trade treaties, instead they just use this process.
There quite a number specifically approved, which is inconsistent with an "effective" ban.
My company makes GMO plants and until the situation changes there's no way we'd considered trying to get approval.
Demonstrably -- that is, from the list of products that are approved -- that's not true of the major players in the industry (e.g., Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, Syngenta) and even some smaller players.
Your company not having the resources to compete in a given market doesn't mean that that market has banned GMOs.
Those 2013 articles are outdated, Monsanto had a number of permitted approved this year. They either never withdrew their pending applications as those articles stated they intended to, or they got new applications approved in less than two years start to finish.
Of course there are other aspects to agricultural science and technology. However, there is nothing in this company that indicates they are advancing technology in any sense.
This is not to say they are not providing a worthwhile service. Even my local farmer's market provides a worthwhile service to me, but I don't call it a "tech market" just because some of the vendors have an online presence.
I see where you're coming from, but I think there are still a lot of possibilities for innovation here.
We waste 50% of food, with a big portion of that waste happening at the retail level. Food distribution services like Good Eggs have a pretty good shot at eliminating that waste.
Just to give an idea of the potential, attacking only food waste, without any other improvments to our food system, would comfortably allow earth to have a population of 10 billion.
Comments
I think folks underestimate how much agricultural science and technology there is that doesn't fall under the very narrow categories of genetic engineering and chemical pesticides.
Modern society is built on top of the massive productivity improvements in agriculture that occurred before those were introduced, and there is plenty of room to innovate without using those methods.
GMO crops are limited[1] in Europe, yet they continue to be a leader in agricultural innovation.
[1] edited, see dragonwriter's correction
No, they aren't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_genetically_modi...
They are 'effectively' banned in Europe though. As you can see from this infographic[1] approval of a GMO requires a political vote in the European Commission. This takes place after a very expensive risk assessment, and you can't get that money back. It's a tough business case to spend a ton of money on the risk assessment and then be at the whim of politicians who are publicly against the technology and know they win votes by being against it. My company makes GMO plants and until the situation changes there's no way we'd considered trying to get approval.
I conjecture they setup this system because an outright ban, which would be unscientific, would violate international trade treaties, instead they just use this process.
[1] http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/docs/decision_making_process....
There quite a number specifically approved, which is inconsistent with an "effective" ban.
Demonstrably -- that is, from the list of products that are approved -- that's not true of the major players in the industry (e.g., Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, Syngenta) and even some smaller players.
Your company not having the resources to compete in a given market doesn't mean that that market has banned GMOs.
Even Monsanto is giving up: http://www.euronews.com/2013/07/18/monsanto-re-thinks-its-gm...
http://www.gmeducation.org/government-and-corporations/p2134...
Those 2013 articles are outdated, Monsanto had a number of permitted approved this year. They either never withdrew their pending applications as those articles stated they intended to, or they got new applications approved in less than two years start to finish.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4843_en.htm
These aren't approvals to grow the crops in the EU, which is the core issue, they are approvals to import products grown elsewhere.
Of course there are other aspects to agricultural science and technology. However, there is nothing in this company that indicates they are advancing technology in any sense.
This is not to say they are not providing a worthwhile service. Even my local farmer's market provides a worthwhile service to me, but I don't call it a "tech market" just because some of the vendors have an online presence.
I see where you're coming from, but I think there are still a lot of possibilities for innovation here.
We waste 50% of food, with a big portion of that waste happening at the retail level. Food distribution services like Good Eggs have a pretty good shot at eliminating that waste.
Just to give an idea of the potential, attacking only food waste, without any other improvments to our food system, would comfortably allow earth to have a population of 10 billion.
Right, but that still doesn't mean there is innovative technology involved. Can I call a tailor a technology company because they have a website?