http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0418-amazon.html

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

From "d41295":
"Scientifically, there is absolutely nothing wrong with GM foods. They are merely the time-advanced versions of crops that have been genetically modified for millenia. There is no data to date -- absolutely none whatsoever -- that shows a problem with the raising or consumption of GM foods."

Wow, that's pretty bold.  Do a search for    Bt+toxin+soil   or   "Roundup-Ready"+crop+escape    There are very serious concerns on both these issues, just to start with, which coincidentally (well, no) Monsanto is directly involved.  Science teaches discipline and caution in scientific conclusions and their consequences.   Not having this discipline is highly revealing.  Best go back and do some more reading.  Look up "seed-saving", "Terminator technology", "transgenic escape", etc.  

And:
"Liberals and environmentalists are making a big mistake by opposing GM foods, proving that they are anti-technologists and that they stand in the way of progress. There are so many problems in this world -- GM crops are not among them. Liberals are making a big mistake by opposing them -- as big a mistake as conservatives are making by opposing efforts to curtail global warming."

Leaving aside the divisive comments on liberals and conservatives, a scientifically conservative approach addresses both GMOs and anthropogenic climate change with the same careful discipline, realizing that one of the central, crucial issues of human power on earth is sustainability.  One might call this conservatism through discipline.  

I have been a wildlife biologist for over 30 years and I use technology a lot, for work and many other activities, but I realize its severe limitations.  So call me a liberal, an environmentalist, and a conditional anti-technologist, who lives with photovoltaic panels on his roof.  

The longer we allow undisciplined, market-driven technology to co-habit with the corporate oligarchy (and Monsanto and the current U.S. administration bipartite is the perfect example), the longer and deeper we will go into irreversible biodiversity and climate deficit.  One of my absolute favorite lines from any movie comes from Jurassic Park (?--yeah, I know) when the Jeff Goldblum character says, commenting on putting dinosaur DNA into frog eggs, and paraphrasing, 'We are so busy asking 'how' we can do things, we never stop to ask 'should' we do things.'  

So it goes.

David

Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

"Liberals and environmentalists are making a big mistake by opposing GM foods, proving that they are anti-technologists and that they stand in the way of progress."

Please, d41295, do not equate liberal or environmentalist with anti-GMO.

I'm pretty sure I'm a liberal, though "progressive" might better apply. And I'm pretty sure I'm and environmentalist, though perhaps "conservationist" might better apply. Yet I earn a living creating useful GMOs that will help farmers lower their costs and reduce harm to the environment. I've struggled with whether there is a conflict of interest here and resolved the issue. I'm helping people and the environment as much as any other tree hugger. Indeed, the vast majority of people I work with are liberals/environmentalists and see no problem employing GMOs where appropriate. This does not mean they are the solution to every problem, but they are definitely not the abominations the fringe elements of our society try to portray them as.

In my opinion, discussions have to move beyond whether true liberals or true environmentalists -- or true conservatives or true... whatever they call someone who prefers to foul their own nest -- are permitted to embrace certain technology and focus on how each technology can be employed for the greater good of civilization.

Politcal, social, economic, et cetera labels do not apply to specific technology. They apply to how technology is used.

1) Dangers of open release, cross contamination, and lack of containment.  The companies that develop these crops claim that they will not pollinate outside if their designated plantings, measures have been taken, etc.  But these claims fly in the face of common sense: many wind pollinated crops have ranges measured in miles and you cannot control where bees go as they make their rounds.  And it only takes one successful pollination to let the cat out of the bag. With a few exceptions, you cannot contain an open-planted crop with a high degree of certainty.

In addition, contamination of non-GMO farms by GMOs is at the root of Monsanto's legal action against Percy Schmeiser and others.  In addition to the legal threat created by Monsanto's pursuit of their "property rights", contamination is a direct threat to the livelihood of organic farmers.

The other problem with GMO food is that 99% of the studies that establish their safety were either performed directly by, or funded by, the companies developing the technology.  Many GMOs have been approved by the USDA as "generally recognized as safe" based on little more than the company's say-so.  Researchers who's work has found that GMO's might be unsafe or pose a threat have lost funding and been ostracized, such that the followup work has not been.

GMO foods might be perfectly safe for people and the ecosystem.  But we simply don't know: the scientific work has been insufficient in volume, and of highly questionable objectivity.  Until that changes, it's absurd to assume that GMOs are safe just because they are not acutely and obviously toxic.