No. But looking after industries a lot of your population work in, is something that the government should do. Of course not blindly, but also not ignore it. It's not as easy as "tough shit, just another corrupted corporation."
*text*
Not accurate. Obesity, per WHO:
US: 33.7%
Germany: 20.1%
http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/ncd/risk_factors/obesity/atlas.html
Sure, and that is why these countries together each weigh their interests and then need to make a decision together. The car industry is a major one for Germany, and Germany is important in the EU, so you can't just say "tough shit" when talking about major companies in that industry, because changes there will impact a lot of people.If you want to get nuanced, don't forget that EU does not just Germany. Pushing EU wide legislation that benefits only Germany is a bit of a shitshow. Which in fact describes the modern EU pretty well. A shitshow.
No. But looking after industries a lot of your population work in, is something that the government should do. Of course not blindly, but also not ignore it. It's not as easy as "tough shit, just another corrupted corporation."
Or maybe the world isn't as black and white as that, and you shouldn't reach for extremes right away.
I'm saying companies like Volkswagen have a lot of people depending on them. That is something a government should take into account when making decisions.
GMO foods have been tested for years without any issues being found.
Testing something over and over on the off-chance you get a different result is pretty damn anti-science.
Sure, and that is why these countries together each weigh their interests and then need to make a decision together. The car industry is a major one for Germany, and Germany is important in the EU, so you can't just say "tough shit" when talking about major companies in that industry, because changes there will impact a lot of people.
That is to be seen. The investigation is ongoing and it is totally possible Volkswagen will pay in the billions, if not tens of billions, in fines and such.The world is pretty black & white. In a case of an individual breaking the law, you will pay for it, a corporation does, nobody is responsible and everyone just shrug their shoulders.
Hundreds if not thousands of employees were involved in this scam, and everyone will get away with it.
Negotiations are always in secret. As long as the final draft is public and goes through each elected parliament for approval, there is nothing wrong with that.Well, they actually negotiate in secrecy and kowtow to special interests, so they likely don't give a flying fuck about Johnny the Volkswagen Janitor.
I'm sure a country that has no problems allowing bromides, proven carcinogens and things that land you 15 year prison sentences in some countries, being added to their sugarated, highly processed food substances that have caused the US to be the only civilized country in the world where people have gotten smaller and less old, also would have no problems letting companies tell them they found no convlusive evidence their own patented new and improved tasty food was lethal. I'm not sure what this has to do with science.
i guess you really want VW to collapse completely then
BMW would be pretty fucked as well
Why does that stop at 2014 lol?
Roland_Gunner said:How does any of this relate to the safety of genetically modified food at all? Countries and NGO's from all over the world have tested GMO food and not found any safety issues. If we're still going back and forth on what constitutes 'science,' I assure you that throwing around a bunch of unrelated data points is in the 'not' category.
Show me where I asked for one-way free trade deal and where Germany cars should be sold in USA with few berries as possible?
You're putting words into my mouth, which I have never said. Stop making BS up.
If USA wants to add further laws for cars, they can go ahead and do it, its their country, their laws. What the USA is asking the EU, is to scrap some of the environmental laws, designed to protect and benefit ordinary EU citizens. That alone tells you everything you need to know about the shit they are trying to sell.
I guess you would also support the US for forcing us to change laws, where every individual can buy guns in the EU, thus benefit US arms industry right? Where does it end?
And so what if the USA is the biggest economy in the world? Does that mean we have to bend over and accept the terms they are giving us? We also have leverage on them, e.i 500+ million market that USA corporations are having wet dreams about.
The world is bigger than USA and it will only get bigger in the future.
Are you aware of how many post-WW2 agreements are in place that force countries under trade conditions? this isnt about cars, its about nearly everything, including that katy perry song currently being played on bbc1 radio which is legally having to be played due to quota.
If a GMO is found to be perfectly safe for consumption and the environment, then it will pass the tests of the EU and therefore will be allowed to be sold. Quoting other countries where they have been found to be safe strengthens the argument that they should be tested in the EU as they would pass those tests, and if not then it just shows that the EU is stricter with regards to new foods and thus, by argument, safer.How does any of this relate to the safety of genetically modified food at all? Countries and NGO's from all over the world have tested GMO food and not found any safety issues. If we're still going back and forth on what constitutes 'science,' I assure you that throwing around a bunch of unrelated data points is in the 'not' category.
I hate America.
If a GMO is found to be perfectly safe for consumption and the environment, then it will pass the tests of the EU and therefore will be allowed to be sold. Quoting other countries where they have been found to be safe strengthens the argument that they should be tested in the EU as they would pass those tests, and if not then it just shows that the EU is stricter with regards to new foods and thus, by argument, safer.
And those who are complicit. Looking at you, UK.You're entitled to but in this case you should save some for the craven governments who capitulated.
Presumably because 2015 data is not yet available.
If that's true, why doesn't the US just allow the EU to stick with its current laws, i.e. testing the food until it's considered safe? Surely nothing could be found anyway?
That is to be seen. The investigation is ongoing and it is totally possible Volkswagen will pay in the billions, if not tens of billions, in fines and such.
And we are not talking about breaking the law. We are talking about not being able to sell European cars anymore in the US. Which is a pretty major thing and should not be dismissed lightly. Should we just accept everything the US says? Of course not! But you can't ignore it straight away also.
Negotiations are always in secret. As long as the final draft is public and goes through each elected parliament for approval, there is nothing wrong with that.
Have you looked at your obesity rates and low living age? I am sure the two aren't related....
And I am sure I could find one study to support that fact, but I can't be bothered to look for it. Large parts of the world don't consume or support GMO's.
Think what you want to think.
Yes, and I believe that "agreeing on standards" essentially means lowering the standards of the EU. It'd be better to, instead of adjusting standards, create a test which okays a product in multiple regions. I really doubt that companies can't afford to simply test their products to a higher standard generally, which would also be beneficial to US citizens.Because unnecessary and redundant testing is a long-standing way to restrain trade. Testing the same thing 50 times imposes additional costs and slows the delivery of products to market. That's why this is a valid topic to negotiate in a free trade agreement.
That's exactly what you're arguing for. Otherwise, what's your argument? The US is threatening to stop doing a certain kind of business with Germany. They can do that. Germany now gets to decide if they care enough to respond with different legislation. That's called diplomacy.
I support gun control, but for the sake of argument, yes it'd be fine if the US threatened action over that in the EU, and it's up to the EU to react to that as they see fit.
The world is a big place, but as another poster corrected me, you don't pass the US in GDP until you collect the entirety of the EU together. If the US wants to push on Germany, there's a hell of a lot of pressure on the Germans to respond.
Right, which is diplomacy. Y'all are falling into the trap that people do in the US of thinking you have free speech but other people don't have free speech to respond to you about what you said.
You have the freedom to pass whatever rules you want. But other nations have the freedom to respond to that however they see fit, and one of those possible consequences is decreased trade. If you don't want that, then negotiate. That's basic politics.
Good thing people like you are not negotiating trade deals. Next up, just built a wall, it shows you have a spine.Wow billions in fine, an amount VW can make in a year or two back. Man that sure is a heavy fine....
And about blocking the sales of cars, let them do it. Sometimes you have to grown a spine and tell them the threat they are giving is unacceptable. I am pretty sure the EU car industry will survive without the USA, albeit in a smaller capacity, but the demand for german cars will always be all around the world, especially in the developing and growing Asia region.
If the trade deal is, not being able to sale cars or a shorter life expectancy, I will always take not being able to sell cars.
And if we give into this issue, where does it then stop? USA corporations being exempt from being taxed? Allowing US gun sales in the EU?
There is enough data. Big Data has increased since then.
Good thing people like you are not negotiating trade deals. Next up, just built a wall, it shows you have a spine.
As I said, you shouldn't just sign anything another country wants. But there are negotiations. There is some give and take, that in the end should benefit you with what you get out of it.
lol
It's quite fascinating to see someone thinking "let's test things first before we sell it to people" is anti-science.
Those are some jumps you make from negotiating a trade deal. Those things have little to do with this.Yeah sure. That's why in the modern world, there is an ever growing gap between and rich, young people saddled with debt before they even have a job, housing far too expensive.
Those sweet deals with corporations sure seem to be paying off well for the average consumer.
Yes, and I believe that "agreeing on standards" essentially means lowering the standards of the EU. It'd be better to, instead of adjusting standards, create a test which okays a product in multiple regions. I really doubt that companies can't afford to simply test their products to a higher standard generally, which would also be beneficial to US citizens.
Those are some jumps you make from negotiating a trade deal. Those things have little to do with this.
Governments should look at what is good for their citizens. If the EU thinks they can make a good deal that will benefit their people, they should negotiate for that and then sell it to their populations, which has chosen their government representatives to approve or deny it.
Taking hard and final stances in these things benefits no one.
That Greenpeace PR game is on point.
Can you provide me with a study that says GMOs are proven bad? Because I don't see Americans dropping like flies lately because of what they eat. Seems to me most of their problems are with their diet, portion size and exercise. Issues we already have here in the EU and plenty of it.Seems to be the USA has pretty much made their position clear. Allow GMO and we will allow car sales. Don't see much the EU can do here, other than accept or deny the offer.
Even allowing 1% of GMO is then already damaging EU citizens.
I rather take my health over the sale of some cars. No thanks
Well, the only theory I'd agree on for "agreeing on standards" would be "rising to the level of EU standards", which wouldn't really be agreeing on standards and more the EU forcing them on any imported products (which I agree with), so I feel like it's be more like "meeting in the middle", and I feel like compromise shouldn't be made with regards to regulatory standards. That's why I specify a universal test, isn't doesn't imply that compromise with regards to standards.Agreeing on standards could mean just that - that they want the EU, once agreeing upon a set of standards for food testing, to use the standards across members of the agreement - which I can appreciate in theory.
Seems to be the USA has pretty much made their position clear. Allow GMO and we will allow car sales. Don't see much the EU can do here, other than accept or deny the offer.
Even allowing 1% of GMO is then already damaging EU citizens.
I rather take my health over the sale of some cars. No thanks
Well, the only theory I'd agree on for "agreeing on standards" would be "rising to the level of EU standards", which wouldn't really be agreeing on standards and more the EU forcing them on any imported products (which I agree with), so I feel like it's be more like "meeting in the middle", and I feel like compromise shouldn't be made with regards to regulatory standards. That's why I specify a universal test, isn't doesn't imply that compromise with regards to standards.
Because what is 'safe' is a matter of opinion, and what the US considers safe is demonstrably bad for you. Therefore, their opinion is wholly irrelevant.How does any of this relate to the safety of genetically modified food at all? Countries and NGO's from all over the world have tested GMO food and not found any safety issues. If we're still going back and forth on what constitutes 'science,' I assure you that throwing around a bunch of unrelated data points is in the 'not' category.
Can you provide me with a study that says GMOs are proven bad?
And there is a lot you can do. That's why it's called negotiating. That is always why it is done in secret, so the US doesn't look like fools when they don't follow through on that threat for example. It really seems like you don't grasp how negotiating things works.
I doubt that either of us have the required knowledge and skill-set to scientifically compare the sets of standards, and say that they are equivalent or that one is better than the other, short of comparing specific GMOs and their acceptance in either market. It would be the job of the EU regulatory body to say that Canada's standards satisfy the EU standards and vice-versa, and because of some countries having demonstrably lower standards, a universal standard would not be ideal for a single country, so it just makes sense to have a universal test as I described earlier.Are you the sort of person that values scientific consensus? ie, Scientific consensus on things like... anthropomorphic climate change, Evolution, relativity - etc?
Well let's take Canada for example - our regulatory bodies take food safety seriously, and all novel foodstuff - doesn't matter if it's GMO from a lab or cross breed novel, are put through rigorous food safety standards testing. Would that seem good?
I see a lot of links saying the studies against GMOs are bullshit. On what information did you base your opinion on this matter, that makes you think it is so bad for people?http://lmgtfy.com/?q=GMO+bad+for+health
I do know how negotiation works. But what if, let's say allowing GMO is unacceptable to the EU at any level?
How would you then negotiate? USA does not want to compromise, neither does the EU?
What's so hard to understand about this. For me any negotiation for GMO is not on, no matter how small and at what level.
A trade deal is about money, no shit Sherlock. Why are we trying to sell cars in the US, they have plenty of cars themselves available!Yeah of course I support science. But why are they trying to export us GMO food, when we already have plenty of non-GMO food available. This is not Africa, where they are struggling to grow food for themselves. Trying to solve a problem, where there isn't one, purely for cash reasons.
This whole thing is simply about $$$ and any time there is a lot of $$$, damaging shit gets overlooked for $$$. It's simple really, and what will happen with farmers here in the EU who grow naturally, but then might have to compete with cheap junk GMO?
How is that in any benefit to the EU citizen health or farm producers here?
Are you the sort of person that values scientific consensus? ie, Scientific consensus on things like... anthropomorphic climate change, Evolution, relativity - etc?
Well let's take Canada for example - our regulatory bodies take food safety seriously, and all novel foodstuff - doesn't matter if it's GMO from a lab or cross breed novel, are put through rigorous food safety standards testing. Would that seem good? I'm not sure if the EU does that, but if it didn't, wouldn't it be raising the standards for the EU to do so? I bring this up to highlight that the assumption that the EU's standards are inherently better in -all- respects might need to be challenged.
Yeah of course I support science. But why are they trying to export us GMO food, when we already have plenty of non-GMO food available. This is not Africa, where they are struggling to grow food for themselves. Trying to solve a problem, where there isn't one, purely for cash reasons.
This whole thing is simply about $$$ and any time there is a lot of $$$, damaging shit gets overlooked for $$$. It's simple really, and what will happen with farmers here in the EU who grow naturally, but then might have to compete with cheap junk GMO?
How is that in any benefit to the EU citizen health or farm producers here?
I am amazed at how people just accept GMO where there is no need for it. I mean, is anyone fcking hungry in the USA or EU that we need GMO to compensate?
wtf am I reading here?
Why don't we walk around with air canisters and a mask and breath that instead of the fresh air all around? That's whats happening here....
How about cheaper food for EU citizens? Do you know how cheaper food effects a country? As far as I've seen, cheaper food has a significantly positive effect on developing nations, but still has a positive effect on developed nations as well. With no negative outcome, and many potential positive - it seems like a good idea to me.
Especially considering the sale of GM foods is legal in the EU, as far as I understand, with no negative health effects noted.
I am amazed you are so against it, without any proof shown from your side yet that it is bad.I am amazed at how people just accept GMO where there is no need for it. I mean, is anyone fcking hungry in the USA or EU that we need GMO to compensate?
wtf am I reading here?
Why don't we walk around with air canisters and a mask and breath that instead of the fresh air all around? That's whats happening here....
What safety compromises have we made in this race to the bottom at the moment exactly? You are throwing around a lot of accusations, with little proof to back your statements up.Ah a race to the bottom. That has always worked out great in any other industry.
What about when we reach the bottom, and we then start making safety compromises in order to produce even more cheap food.
Yeah of course I support science. But why are they trying to export us GMO food, when we already have plenty of non-GMO food available. This is not Africa, where they are struggling to grow food for themselves. Trying to solve a problem, where there isn't one, purely for cash reasons.
This whole thing is simply about $$$ and any time there is a lot of $$$, damaging shit gets overlooked for $$$. It's simple really, and what will happen with farmers here in the EU who grow naturally, but then might have to compete with cheap junk GMO?
How is that in any benefit to the EU citizen health or farm producers here?
Neither Trump nor Clinton seem to like it though, which is why Obama tries to have it signed before he leaves the white house.
Ah, good old European protectionism. That's why the biggest and most important companies in countries like Germany are 100 years old. Stifle innovation, appeal to moral standards, spread paranoia.
Better than being ruled by corporations that then go and pay politicians than further their corporate interests.
Sadly its creeping in the EU slowly as well.
You are aware that those companies profiting from protectionism would be doing exactly the same right? Or are these somehow less evil then those American corporations?Better than being ruled by corporations that then go and pay politicians than further their corporate interests.
Sadly its creeping in the EU slowly as well.
Ah a race to the bottom. That has always worked out great in any other industry.
What about when we reach the bottom, and we then start making safety compromises in order to produce even more cheap food.