GMO Crops, shudder or shrug?
May 22nd 2013, 2:21 am
#77
I have a comma problem
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: Fox Lake, IL (from Carrickfergus NI)
Posts: 49,598
Re: GMO Crops, shudder or shrug?
The irony wasn't lost on me.
May 22nd 2013, 2:27 am
#78
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Posts: 27,078
Re: GMO Crops, shudder or shrug?
I can and will simplify it. Golden rice. Not yet used. 670,000 under-5s a year dying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
Thanks for posting that. Now that kind of GMO I can support. Notice that the research is being done by the likes of University of California, Rutgers University, University of Nebraska and Tufts University. Scientific details came from Ingo Potrykus of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and Peter Beyer of the University of Freiburg. First field trials by Louisiana State University Agricultural Centre. Note also that a field trial was done with adult volunteers in the U.S. As I understand it, these seeds will not be patented monopolized by a corporation. They will be public domain. That is how it should be.
Not a corporate enterprise seems to be mentioned anywhere. That is how GMO should come about. A vast difference between improving the nutritional quality of a food and what Monsanto is doing. The problem is that what the public hears about is Monsanto modifying seed with insecticide and weed killer resistance. Nothing nutritional about that and as a result there is a lack of information as regards projects like Golden Rice. . I also have no indication that anyone other than Monsanto did any research on their products, if any was done at all, or if any field trials were carried out. I would bet not, otherwise they would be front and center in their promotion of their product, and i have not seen that.
So it is not the concept of GMO that i object to. It is GMO in the hands of corporations, untested and unproven and monopolized.
Last edited by dakota44; May 22nd 2013 at 2:30 am.
May 22nd 2013, 3:41 am
#79
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jun 2008
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 10,678
Re: GMO Crops, shudder or shrug?
Thanks for posting that. Now that kind of GMO I can support. Notice that the research is being done by the likes of University of California, Rutgers University, University of Nebraska and Tufts University. Scientific details came from Ingo Potrykus of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and Peter Beyer of the University of Freiburg. First field trials by Louisiana State University Agricultural Centre. Note also that a field trial was done with adult volunteers in the U.S. As I understand it, these seeds will not be patented monopolized by a corporation. They will be public domain. That is how it should be.
Not a corporate enterprise seems to be mentioned anywhere. That is how GMO should come about. A vast difference between improving the nutritional quality of a food and what Monsanto is doing. The problem is that what the public hears about is Monsanto modifying seed with insecticide and weed killer resistance. Nothing nutritional about that and as a result there is a lack of information as regards projects like Golden Rice. . I also have no indication that anyone other than Monsanto did any research on their products, if any was done at all, or if any field trials were carried out. I would bet not, otherwise they would be front and center in their promotion of their product, and i have not seen that.
So it is not the concept of GMO that i object to. It is GMO in the hands of corporations, untested and unproven and monopolized.
Not a corporate enterprise seems to be mentioned anywhere. That is how GMO should come about. A vast difference between improving the nutritional quality of a food and what Monsanto is doing. The problem is that what the public hears about is Monsanto modifying seed with insecticide and weed killer resistance. Nothing nutritional about that and as a result there is a lack of information as regards projects like Golden Rice. . I also have no indication that anyone other than Monsanto did any research on their products, if any was done at all, or if any field trials were carried out. I would bet not, otherwise they would be front and center in their promotion of their product, and i have not seen that.
So it is not the concept of GMO that i object to. It is GMO in the hands of corporations, untested and unproven and monopolized.
None of those have been tested as an individual product manufactured by a specific company to determine if they are safe and some have been suspected to cause some people problems. We live in a world were we need to decide whether the risk is acceptable and not always requiring expensive studies on every product making the price become double or triple.
I'm much more concerned about Chinese products shipped to the US without Chinese government and company concern about safety and what accidently or on purpose got into the product with no recourse for Americans. At least with Monsanto, it is an American company and if it produces something that causes people problems, they can be sued and if needed regulated.
Last edited by Michael; May 22nd 2013 at 3:52 am.
May 22nd 2013, 4:54 am
#80
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Posts: 27,078
Re: GMO Crops, shudder or shrug?
But the same could be said just about any product such as vitamin supplements, cosmetics, perfumes and deodorants, activia, and coca cola.
None of those have been tested as an individual product manufactured by a specific company to determine if they are safe and some have been suspected to cause some people problems. We live in a world were we need to decide whether the risk is acceptable and not always requiring expensive studies on every product making the price become double or triple.
I'm much more concerned about Chinese products shipped to the US without Chinese government and company concern about safety and what accidently or on purpose got into the product with no recourse for Americans. At least with Monsanto, it is an American company and if it produces something that causes people problems, they can be sued and if needed regulated.
None of those have been tested as an individual product manufactured by a specific company to determine if they are safe and some have been suspected to cause some people problems. We live in a world were we need to decide whether the risk is acceptable and not always requiring expensive studies on every product making the price become double or triple.
I'm much more concerned about Chinese products shipped to the US without Chinese government and company concern about safety and what accidently or on purpose got into the product with no recourse for Americans. At least with Monsanto, it is an American company and if it produces something that causes people problems, they can be sued and if needed regulated.
Vitamins in some cases do indeed undergo clinical trials. Here is a link to confirm that. http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01169259
The FDA requires all supplements to be proven safe, but the companies are allowed to do their own testing, if they do it at all. Fox guarding the chicken coop.
Cosmetics and the like also undergo trials, as required. The great debate on that issue revolves around such testing being done on animals.
Due to the strong public backlash against cosmetic testing on animals, most cosmetic manufacturers say their products are not tested on animals. However, they are still required by trading standards and consumer protection laws in most countries to show their products are not toxic and dangerous to public health, and that the ingredients are not dangerous in large quantities, such as when in transport or in the manufacturing plant. In some countries, it is possible to meet these requirements without any further tests on animals. In other countries, it may require animal testing to meet legal requirements. The United States and Japan are frequently criticized for their insistence on stringent safety measures, which often requires animal testing. Some retailers distinguish themselves in the marketplace by their stance on animal testing. The Co-operative Group in the UK maintains a cosmetic-testing website, [1] which includes statements from all their suppliers about the extent of their animal testing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testin...ics_on_animals
Activia is under fire because testing has proven there is no scientific basis for their claims.
Of course Pharmaceutical companies are required by law to conduct trials to prove the safety of their products. Unfortunately they cheat, lie and falsify the results, as has been proven in more than a few pleas to criminal charges for exactly that and paying huge fines. This is another case of letting the fox guard the chicken coop. Such clinical trials should not be run by the companies or by anyone that they pay to do so. They should be run by University labs funded by the government.
Automobiles have to undergo crash tests and meet numerous safety requirements.
The list goes on.
Your belief that we should just make our own decisions about what is safe and what isn't is, to be honest, not the least bit practical. Not everyone is a scientist.
Studies, by the way, do not double or triple the price of anything. That is a huge exaggeration. A product that will be marketed for years and even decades will pay for the studies thousands of times over.
I do not have such a lax attitude about product safety. I prefer not to discover the hard way that something is going to kill my kids, or me or cause serious health issues.
As for suing Monsanto, give your head a shake. They have so many lawyers that it would make your head spin. The only reasonable chance, and certainly not a guarantee, would be a class action suit. Do you know how long those take? Sometimes a decade or more. During that time they will march in an array of experts to say it wasn't their product that caused your problem. if you want an idea of what the ordeal would be like, look into Love Canal, or PG&E among others. The legal system goes slow and too often favors the deep pockets.
When it comes to products from China, their numerous failures are all the more reason not to buy them.
Last edited by dakota44; May 22nd 2013 at 4:57 am.
May 22nd 2013, 10:57 pm
#81
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 498
Re: GMO Crops, shudder or shrug?
I almost pissed myself laughing at that site. Let's look at a few of their alleged 'myth busting' comments
Myth: They use antibiotic resistance genes as part of the incorporated genetic material, so that the genetically modified cell can be selected by treating the cell culture with antibiotic to kill off all the cells that don't have the genetic material incorporated into their DNA. This, however, does not mean that the cell resulting from this procedure is what's required: almost anything could have happened.
Almost anything? Such as putting a fish gene into a tomato and ending up with a fish perhaps???
Almost anything cannot happen.
Perhaps the most unscientific comment I have ever seen.
Or how about this?
Myth: GMOs will increase farmers' input costs. The use of, say, herbicide-resistant GM crops will mean the farmer is charged more for the GM seed and is then tied to using a particular brand of herbicide, from a particular agribusiness, to control weeds. Biotech companies are even seeking to develop GM crops whose seed is infertile after one or two generations, thereby requiring expensive repurchasing of seed stock.
It is self-evident that this cannot be true. Farmers run a business. If something makes their business more expensive without a benefit then they are not going to use it, are they?
Again a response with no foundation or fact, just a blind bunch of bullshit.
Fact...Monsanto seeds cost substantially more per acre than natural seeds. When you add in the fact that they cannot save seed from a previous harvest (Monsanto would sue them into bankruptcy if they did) to plant the next year, the extra cost goes higher. Thereby, as stated in the alleged myth...they are forced to buy seed at higher cost, year after year. They are also forced to use Monsanto's Roundup weed killer, since that is what the seed is engineered to resist. Other weed killers would kill of much of the crop. But, as farmers are seeing now, they have just ended up with super weeds that are roundup resistant.
Also of note is that Monsanto bought the company that was preparing to commercialize Genetic use restriction technology, known as "terminator technology" that produces plants that have sterile seeds. The Delta and Pine Land Company intended to commercialize the technology, but D&PL was acquired by Monsanto in 2007. (You can find that on Wiki)
They do have a pledge on their website not not use terminator technology, but then a pledge is not law and can easily be broken when the mood strikes.
By the way, of interest is the unfortunate connection between that website and these folks.
Bivings Group is a PR company contracted to Monsanto. Bivings is the secret author of several of the websites and bogus citizens' movements which have been coordinating campaigns against environmentalists. One is a fake scientific institute called the 'Centre for Food and Agricultural Research.' Bivings has also set up the 'Alliance for Environmental Technology,' a chlorine industry lobby group. Most importantly, Bivings appears to be connected with AgBioWorld, the genuine website run by CS Prakash, a plant geneticist at Tuskegee University, Alabama. ... He set up AgBioWorld with Greg Conko of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the far-right libertarian lobby group funded by such companies as Philip Morris, Pfizer and Dow Chemical. All of that makes me suspicious of that site.
Prakash has quietly gone public on AgBioWorld's CEI connection. A footnote at the end of an AgBioWorld press release, "Report of Transgenes in Mexican Corn Called Into Question" attributed to:
- Gregory Conko, Competitive Enterprise Institute , Washington DC;
[email protected]
- C. S. Prakash, Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, AL; [email protected]
states, "Prakash and Conko are co-founders of the AgBioWorld Foundation
Myth: They use antibiotic resistance genes as part of the incorporated genetic material, so that the genetically modified cell can be selected by treating the cell culture with antibiotic to kill off all the cells that don't have the genetic material incorporated into their DNA. This, however, does not mean that the cell resulting from this procedure is what's required: almost anything could have happened.
Almost anything? Such as putting a fish gene into a tomato and ending up with a fish perhaps???
Almost anything cannot happen.
Perhaps the most unscientific comment I have ever seen.
Or how about this?
Myth: GMOs will increase farmers' input costs. The use of, say, herbicide-resistant GM crops will mean the farmer is charged more for the GM seed and is then tied to using a particular brand of herbicide, from a particular agribusiness, to control weeds. Biotech companies are even seeking to develop GM crops whose seed is infertile after one or two generations, thereby requiring expensive repurchasing of seed stock.
It is self-evident that this cannot be true. Farmers run a business. If something makes their business more expensive without a benefit then they are not going to use it, are they?
Again a response with no foundation or fact, just a blind bunch of bullshit.
Fact...Monsanto seeds cost substantially more per acre than natural seeds. When you add in the fact that they cannot save seed from a previous harvest (Monsanto would sue them into bankruptcy if they did) to plant the next year, the extra cost goes higher. Thereby, as stated in the alleged myth...they are forced to buy seed at higher cost, year after year. They are also forced to use Monsanto's Roundup weed killer, since that is what the seed is engineered to resist. Other weed killers would kill of much of the crop. But, as farmers are seeing now, they have just ended up with super weeds that are roundup resistant.
Also of note is that Monsanto bought the company that was preparing to commercialize Genetic use restriction technology, known as "terminator technology" that produces plants that have sterile seeds. The Delta and Pine Land Company intended to commercialize the technology, but D&PL was acquired by Monsanto in 2007. (You can find that on Wiki)
They do have a pledge on their website not not use terminator technology, but then a pledge is not law and can easily be broken when the mood strikes.
By the way, of interest is the unfortunate connection between that website and these folks.
Bivings Group is a PR company contracted to Monsanto. Bivings is the secret author of several of the websites and bogus citizens' movements which have been coordinating campaigns against environmentalists. One is a fake scientific institute called the 'Centre for Food and Agricultural Research.' Bivings has also set up the 'Alliance for Environmental Technology,' a chlorine industry lobby group. Most importantly, Bivings appears to be connected with AgBioWorld, the genuine website run by CS Prakash, a plant geneticist at Tuskegee University, Alabama. ... He set up AgBioWorld with Greg Conko of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the far-right libertarian lobby group funded by such companies as Philip Morris, Pfizer and Dow Chemical. All of that makes me suspicious of that site.
Prakash has quietly gone public on AgBioWorld's CEI connection. A footnote at the end of an AgBioWorld press release, "Report of Transgenes in Mexican Corn Called Into Question" attributed to:
- Gregory Conko, Competitive Enterprise Institute , Washington DC;
[email protected]
- C. S. Prakash, Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, AL; [email protected]
states, "Prakash and Conko are co-founders of the AgBioWorld Foundation
You have evidence you 'prefer' and nothing else will be able to come close and you'll certainly never change your mind. I do, however, admire your tenacity and, even if I don't agree with what you present as evidence, you do appear to be well read on the subject. Certainly been some food for thought and I will try to dig up some more information.
May 22nd 2013, 11:11 pm
#82
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Posts: 27,078
Re: GMO Crops, shudder or shrug?
As long as you have your incontinence pads on feel free.
You have evidence you 'prefer' and nothing else will be able to come close and you'll certainly never change your mind. I do, however, admire your tenacity and, even if I don't agree with what you present as evidence, you do appear to be well read on the subject. Certainly been some food for thought and I will try to dig up some more information.
You have evidence you 'prefer' and nothing else will be able to come close and you'll certainly never change your mind. I do, however, admire your tenacity and, even if I don't agree with what you present as evidence, you do appear to be well read on the subject. Certainly been some food for thought and I will try to dig up some more information.
No one has yet presented me with any study or trial that has been done on the GMO products that Monsanto promotes with modifications for insecticide and resistance to weed killer, let alone any scientific proof that it is not harmful. They all want supporting info from me, and what I present they discount, and yet they provide nothing to support their own beliefs. So I remain a skeptic about that form of GMO and hold my position until shown to be wrong.
Thanks again for your courteous response.
May 23rd 2013, 12:08 am
#83
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2010
Location: Mendocino, California
Posts: 954
Re: GMO Crops, shudder or shrug?
Monsanto Found Guilty of Chemical Poisoning in Landmark Case.
http://www.realfarmacy.com/monsanto-...andmark-case1/
http://www.realfarmacy.com/monsanto-...andmark-case1/
May 23rd 2013, 1:22 am
#85
The worse half of Weeze
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: Back in TX
Posts: 3,231
Re: GMO Crops, shudder or shrug?
Here is a summary of 24 peer-reviewed studies showing the safety of GMOs.
They talk about potential conflicts of interest, as well as funding.
It would cost you money to buy to read, so I've copied the abstract (note to any Mod not bored rigid by this - I don't believe I have broken any copyright law by doing this):
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...78691511006399
The aim of this systematic review was to collect data concerning the effects of diets containing GM maize, potato, soybean, rice, or triticale on animal health. We examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations). We referenced the 90-day studies on GM feed for which long-term or multigenerational study data were available. Many parameters have been examined using biochemical analyses, histological examination of specific organs, hematology and the detection of transgenic DNA. The statistical findings and methods have been considered from each study. Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed. However, some small differences were observed, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance. If required, a 90-day feeding study performed in rodents, according to the OECD Test Guideline, is generally considered sufficient in order to evaluate the health effects of GM feed. The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.
Here's some more...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...60412011000055
They talk about potential conflicts of interest, as well as funding.
It would cost you money to buy to read, so I've copied the abstract (note to any Mod not bored rigid by this - I don't believe I have broken any copyright law by doing this):
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...78691511006399
The aim of this systematic review was to collect data concerning the effects of diets containing GM maize, potato, soybean, rice, or triticale on animal health. We examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations). We referenced the 90-day studies on GM feed for which long-term or multigenerational study data were available. Many parameters have been examined using biochemical analyses, histological examination of specific organs, hematology and the detection of transgenic DNA. The statistical findings and methods have been considered from each study. Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed. However, some small differences were observed, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance. If required, a 90-day feeding study performed in rodents, according to the OECD Test Guideline, is generally considered sufficient in order to evaluate the health effects of GM feed. The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.
Here's some more...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...60412011000055
Last edited by Mr Weeze; May 23rd 2013 at 1:35 am. Reason: Missing a link
May 23rd 2013, 1:34 am
#86
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2010
Location: Mendocino, California
Posts: 954
May 23rd 2013, 2:44 am
#87
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Posts: 27,078
Re: GMO Crops, shudder or shrug?
Here is a summary of 24 peer-reviewed studies showing the safety of GMOs.
They talk about potential conflicts of interest, as well as funding.
It would cost you money to buy to read, so I've copied the abstract (note to any Mod not bored rigid by this - I don't believe I have broken any copyright law by doing this):
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...78691511006399
The aim of this systematic review was to collect data concerning the effects of diets containing GM maize, potato, soybean, rice, or triticale on animal health. We examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations). We referenced the 90-day studies on GM feed for which long-term or multigenerational study data were available. Many parameters have been examined using biochemical analyses, histological examination of specific organs, hematology and the detection of transgenic DNA. The statistical findings and methods have been considered from each study. Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed. However, some small differences were observed, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance. If required, a 90-day feeding study performed in rodents, according to the OECD Test Guideline, is generally considered sufficient in order to evaluate the health effects of GM feed. The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.
Here's some more...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...60412011000055
They talk about potential conflicts of interest, as well as funding.
It would cost you money to buy to read, so I've copied the abstract (note to any Mod not bored rigid by this - I don't believe I have broken any copyright law by doing this):
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...78691511006399
The aim of this systematic review was to collect data concerning the effects of diets containing GM maize, potato, soybean, rice, or triticale on animal health. We examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations). We referenced the 90-day studies on GM feed for which long-term or multigenerational study data were available. Many parameters have been examined using biochemical analyses, histological examination of specific organs, hematology and the detection of transgenic DNA. The statistical findings and methods have been considered from each study. Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed. However, some small differences were observed, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance. If required, a 90-day feeding study performed in rodents, according to the OECD Test Guideline, is generally considered sufficient in order to evaluate the health effects of GM feed. The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.
Here's some more...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...60412011000055
An equilibrium in the number research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was currently observed. Nevertheless, it should be noted that most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants. These findings suggest a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies. All this recent information is herein critically reviewed.
Research Highlights
► Studies specifically addressing safety assessment of GM plants are still limited. ► Published literature on GM plants over the past 4 years concerns only 3 products. ► More efforts are required to build confidence in the evaluation/acceptance of GM plants.
Now to decide if I want to burn $40 to buy it.
Last edited by dakota44; May 23rd 2013 at 2:47 am.
May 23rd 2013, 3:46 am
#88
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 316
Re: GMO Crops, shudder or shrug?
Thanks for the links. You are the only one who managed to put up anything that could potentially answer some questions. From the second link, I find this interesting.
An equilibrium in the number research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was currently observed. Nevertheless, it should be noted that most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants. These findings suggest a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies. All this recent information is herein critically reviewed.
Research Highlights
► Studies specifically addressing safety assessment of GM plants are still limited. ► Published literature on GM plants over the past 4 years concerns only 3 products. ► More efforts are required to build confidence in the evaluation/acceptance of GM plants.
Now to decide if I want to burn $40 to buy it.
An equilibrium in the number research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was currently observed. Nevertheless, it should be noted that most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants. These findings suggest a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies. All this recent information is herein critically reviewed.
Research Highlights
► Studies specifically addressing safety assessment of GM plants are still limited. ► Published literature on GM plants over the past 4 years concerns only 3 products. ► More efforts are required to build confidence in the evaluation/acceptance of GM plants.
Now to decide if I want to burn $40 to buy it.
May 23rd 2013, 6:09 am
#89
Mouthy Yank
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,229
Re: GMO Crops, shudder or shrug?
Heh. I just don't want to see the threat turn into Monsanto-bashing, just because I don't want it to turn into agribusiness-bashing, because I don't want it to turn into all-the-ills-of-the-world and a general reissue of Mother Earth News. I thought there was enough material in the subject we started with. But it wouldn't be a forum if we didn't follow it where it led, I suppose. Carry on. 
May 23rd 2013, 2:25 pm
#90
I have a comma problem
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: Fox Lake, IL (from Carrickfergus NI)
Posts: 49,598
Re: GMO Crops, shudder or shrug?
Heh. I just don't want to see the threat turn into Monsanto-bashing, just because I don't want it to turn into agribusiness-bashing, because I don't want it to turn into all-the-ills-of-the-world and a general reissue of Mother Earth News. I thought there was enough material in the subject we started with. But it wouldn't be a forum if we didn't follow it where it led, I suppose. Carry on.
So to build upon my 'I don't really care' post - GMO is not inherently bad, the science is sound and it can be (and is) used for many good purposes. That one organisation, a business and therefore one who has no place in science/agriculture anyway, may misuse the technology is not reason enough to condemn it in full.