When Bt corn was released in the US farmers were supposed to leave a "refuge area" around the GE corn. This corn was not GE (expressing the Bt gene). The theory was that some insects would feed on this non-Bt corn and thus would not develop resistance to the Bt bacterium that was spliced into the rest of the field. I asked several farmers whom I knew had planted Bt corn how much of a refuge area they had to leave, their answer, refuge area, what's that?

I asked a dealer how he was explaining the need for a refuge area to farmers. His answer, "well you don't need to worry about that"

So, why wouldn't we expect Mexico's corn to be contaminated by GE as well, after all world wide contamination is the plan of Monsanto. Once the cat's out of the bag there is no getting it back in.

There are many reasons to disallow the release of transgenic organisms, both here and abroad. And we certainly don't need any more reasons to exacerbate poor American-Mexican relations.

Eat what you grow, grow what you eat

Yes, Mexico has many wild and cultivated varieties of Zea mays. However, there has been a lot of research on exactly how many rows of corn need to surround a field to decrease pollen flow outside the field to less than 0.5%. Farmers can also use strategies such as timing the pollen shed of genetically modified maize to be before or after the receptive period of local varieties.

These techniques can easily be mandated by law, and modified as science develops better methods. If the laws aren't enforced, it isn't the fault of the scientists who developed the crops. For example, the EPA has mandated use of insect refuges for Bt crops. If farmers aren't planting these areas, then there obviously needs to be better enforcement.

Genetic engineering is just another new technology. Regulation of new technology is always difficult as we figure out how the technology impacts the world in unforeseen ways.

For more scientific discussion on GMOs, visit my blog: GeneticMaize.

Second, GE crops do NOT decrease pesticide use, they increase it.  One of their main claims is that they're pesticide resistant.

Third, it should not be blindly accepted that increasing yields is a good thing.  That's what the "Green Revolution" promised, and what it brought us is a planet poisoned with pesticides.  Moreover, there is currently enough food to feed everyone; hunger is a political problem, not a problem caused by lack of food.  And why would more food for an already grossly overpopulated species be good, anyway?

But is it really useful to accuse individuals of being industry hacks just because, though they clearly care very much about the environment, do not agree with the standard, most common, most popular environmental positions on every issue?

This does not apply simply to the discussion of GMOs, but shows up elsewhere on this and other websites. Wouldn't it be better to discuss the evidence and skip the name calling?

I would never sincerely do the following, but present it as an example. Couldn't someone dismiss a person like Tom Philpot as an industry hack, only interested in preserving his income by supporting organic agriculture independent of any real evidence that it is better for the environment? I mean, why should anyone trust him? His livelihood depends on presenting the best information about organic food and demonizing conventional agriculture. He could be very very biased.

So, if we all dismissed each other as hacks of one sort or another, there would, in the end, be no dialogue, no exchange of information, no sifting through the information we have, no education and changing of views for the better. All interaction would be pointless. Do we really want to live in such a world?

"Second, GE crops do NOT decrease pesticide use, they increase it.  One of their main claims is that they're pesticide resistant."

Actually, those engineered to produce their own pesticides DO decrease pesticide use. The natural proteins confined to the vulnerable portions of the plants are generally less harmful than repeatedly drenching the field and nearby areas with synthetic chemicals.

Herbicide resistance is another matter. The typical ads on television mention that the corn or soybean plants are herbicide resistant, allowing the farmer to drench a field and nearby areas with synthetic chemicals, protecting his plants and killing weeds. The point here, is that some folks claim this allows farmers to use less dangerous herbicides (protecting animals, insects, fish, et cetera) and less tilling (conserving fuel and soil).

I'm not posting this comment to argue about whether herbicide resistance is a good thing. I just want to clarify that there are actually two things being discussed, one which substantially reduces the use of chemicals and one which supposedly replaces a hazardous or expensive chemical  -- or several chemicals -- with a less hazardous or less expensive one.

Wolverine, you are welcome to visit my blog. If you do, you will see that I am a young scientist who carefully considers evidence from many sources with the intent of finding solutions to the world's food, fuel, and fiber problems.

I fully understand that the concept of genetic engineering can be confusing and even scary - especially since scientists haven't worked to explain it. Keeping up with peer-reviewed literature can be difficult, but there are plenty of sites out there such as EurekAlret and ScienceDaily that provide summaries of recent journal articles, including many on topics relevant to the debate on genetic engineering. Just like in politics, we can't depend on media spin or on books written by people who need to sell their ideas to make money. If you take the time to read what actual scientists write, everything looks different.

For more scientific discussion on GMOs, visit my blog: GeneticMaize.