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. 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.

This isn't just about GE crops, it's about who controls the world's food supply. It's about farmers being able to save seeds, something they have done ever since the beginning of agriculture. Farmers growing GE crops have, in my opinion, been sold a raw deal by seed companies like Monsanto. And back in 1996 Monsanto was focusing on developing GE crops. It's no surprise that now the company wants to control the whole GE seed market. Not growing GE crops would be the answer, but the more concentrated the seed market becomes, the fewer choices farmers will have with regard to what's available. As a gardener I often see notations in my favorite seed catalog (Fedco of Maine) that a old time variety is no longer available. This loss of genetic diversity could one day prove a serious problem.

Hey, all:

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!

d41295 wrote...

"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.

Forward!

At the hearing at the European Patent Office on 3 May, ETC's appeal was successful.  Monsanto's patent on (all) genetically modified soya was revoked.  There is no possibility of further appeal.