It isn't the hybrid nature of our food which is at issue, but the method of achieving it. Gene insertion methods now being employed are hardly precise.
We don't know of anyone dying from eating GM food is because no research has been conducted to examine its effect on human health. Anecdotal evidence and animal research indicates harm, so why no human research?
The industry is muddying the waters with their 'substantial equivalency' - using slight of hand to divert attention from what is really happening. But intelligent scientists and other educated people around the world smell a rat and are looking at the evidential signs of a potentially major environmental and health disaster.
In 2004, the British Medical Association - not exactly a left wing bunch - said that the UK Government should adopt a more cautious approach to GM foods. It said more research was needed into the environmental, agricultural and health impacts of the technology. This is of course an example of British understatement. UK doctors do not usually speak out on such things unless they are seriously concerned.
Pro GM food activists should recognise that this technology cannot be allowed free rein in a natural environment before we know what it is doing to us and our world. There is a distinct lack of caution promoted by the biotech industry who clearly have a vested interest in a closed eyes approach. Risk assessment values of science are being thrown out the window for financial gain. That
Lewis_Walch: It isn't the hybrid nature of our food which is
So very rough math but but the data is easily accessible and not something I am sure Amber even considered doing. This kind of stuff is so common in this debate, just watch Food Inc, go to the internet and only read anti GMO websites, consider them gospel and carry on.
Its sad really. Just the laziness and lack of independent research that goes on these days.
benwha: So very rough math but but the data is easily
Amber15 recently included the following quote in one of her posts:
"They are in the process of owning food, all food." Paraguayan farmer Jorge Galeano says, "Its objective is to control all of the world's food production."
I am going to use that quote to display the ignorance and/or just a general lack of critical thinking, not sure how to put it but she has clearly made up her mind and no matter what people say or do she will wholeheartedly believe everything anti-GMO and filter out everything pro-GMO.
So back to the quote, the contention here is Monsanto is desiring to own food production. So we are now 16 years out from Monsanto starting, how much control do they have now? Well cobbling together data from the USDA, the IGC and the FAO, if you take the top 10 field crops (corn, soy, rice, wheat, rape etc) and consider the total global acres, where GMO is grown and Monsanto's mkt shares to come out to less than 2% being Monsanto seed. So adjusting for the US's vastly superior yield, be aggressive and double it to 4% of the top 10 major grains. That is what Monsanto "controls". But really, when talking about controlling global food, you should probably include fruits and veggies, protein production, hunting, fishing, other crops, etc, you begin to realize Monsanto "controls" an awfully small amount of food. After 16 years, the growth rate of the % is pretty small.
benwha: Amber15 recently included the following quote in one of her
Your reply is idiotic. If this is all you can come up with in response to the criticism of monsanto and control of food then there are only two explanations: you are a paid shill doing your best to deflect criticism or you know very little about the subject. Your responses here are as uninformed and misguided as any.
spitbug: Your reply is idiotic. If this is all you can
My criticism is about how people in this debate simply read something anti-GMO and consider it gospel without doing any independent research.
Amber15 earlier said that what she is doing is "its called balanced, intelligent thinking......." yet she put a quote on here that is easily disputed which is what I did. Did Amber ever consider doing a similiar type analysis? I would like to see it but I am guessing she just assumes it is true which is my point. Of course I could come up with more criticism.
Iwould be curious for you to explain why my take on how suggesting Monsanto is seeking to control "all food" is a more than a bit of an exaggeration. Could you include statistical data?
Thanks
benwha: My criticism is about how people in this debate simply
seedsofdeception.com
Expert Jeffrey M. Smith, author of the #1 GMO bestseller Seeds of Deception, and Genetic Roulette, presents shocking evidence why genetically modified crops may lead to health and environmental catastrophes, and what we can do about it.
nongmoshoppingguide.com
healthiereating.org
Help create the tipping point from consumers to force GMO's out of the market
amber15: Great video on Monsanto's tricks and sleight-of-hand pro-GMO data and
Replacing Nature: "Nothing shall be eaten that we don't own"
As Monsanto moves forward with its master plan to replace nature, they're buying up seed businesses and are now the world's largest. Over 200 independent seed companies have disappeared over 13 years, non-GMO seed availability is dwindling, Monsanto is jacking up their seed prices dramatically. Corn is up more than 30%, soy nearly 25%.
"We now believe that Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of (seed genetics). This level of control is almost unbelievable,' said Neil Harl, agricultural economist at Iowa State University who has studied the seed industry for decades."
"They are in the process of owning food, all food." Paraguayan farmer Jorge Galeano says, "Its objective is to control all of the world's food production." Renowned Indian physicist and community organizer Vandana Shiva says, "If they control seed, they control food; they know it, it's strategic. It's more powerful than bombs; it's more powerful than guns. This is the best way to control the populations of the world."
Our food security lies in diversity. Any single company that consolidates ownership of seeds, and therefore power over the food supply, is a dangerous threat. Of all the corporations in the world, however, the one we should trust the least is Monsanto. With them at the helm, the impact could be cataclysmic.
amber15: yes, Monsanto's on a mission: http://www.prisonplanet.com/monsanto-the-worlds-poster-child-for-corporate-manipulation-and-deceit.html Replacing Nature: "Nothing shall
Has there ever been an actual, confirmed "victim" of eating GMOs? What I mean is, I see all this scare literature about it, but no one's ever brought forth (to my knowledge) an actual person who has real adverse health problems -- or even death -- as a direct result of eating GMOs.
OTOH, millions of humans, everyday, eat food connected to GMOs (as the last slide above points out); but (again, to my knowledge) there's been no evident or directly connected adverse effects to this. I've seen lots of scary implied adverse effects, but no one's ever actually demonstrated a connected, measurable one.
To me, the lack of actual victims or data, compared against the prevalence of GMOs in the world's diet, leads me to view all the extreme anti-GMO hype as little more than a slippery slope, or even fearmongering.
Brian_Hudson: Has there ever been an actual, confirmed "victim" of eating
If you're hearing scary details about GMO foods it isn't coming from American media who maintain a ban on saying Monsanto's name. Even a rare foray into the subject of our growing Roundup Ready food supply as the ABC report on the Roundup Ready Superweeds fails to speak the name opting instead for a nanosecond typed name and byline.
Monsanto's covert control of the commodity crops violates all the basic principles of a Free Market and eliminates individual rights to choose what they swallow and from whom. The fact that these have never been tested for human health and safety effects is icing on the cake.
To correct a few popints, GMO foods are not prevelant in the world's food. Most of it is grown and consumed right here in America. Lots of the global supply is used as animal feed and filler for US corporations. Because the GMO foods were introduced with deregulation mania and a genius loophole in the food laws there was never any requirement to test for human health and safety.
Back in the days of President Bush the father, Monsanto Lobbyist Lawyer Michael Taylor, now food Czar for Obama, created a category called substantial equivalence that allowed GMO foods to get a pass and GRAS status for keeping nutrients within the same range. http://www.fda.gov/Food/Biotechnology/Submissions/ucm161130.htm
PamelaDrew: If you're hearing scary details about GMO foods it isn't
As Monsanto has moved forward with its master plan to replace nature, they have led the charge in buying up seed businesses and are now the world's largest. At least 200 independent seed companies have disappeared over 13 years, non-GMO seed availability is dwindling, and Monsanto is jacking up their seed prices dramatically. Corn is up more than 30 percent and soy nearly 25 percent, over 2008 prices.
A few tidbits:
Monsanto's public relations story about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are largely based on five concepts.
1. GMOs are needed to feed the world.
2. GMOs have been thoroughly tested and proven safe.
3. GMOs increase yield.
4. GMOs reduce the use of agricultural chemicals.
5. GMOs can be contained, and therefore coexist with non-GM crops.
All five are pure myths -- blatant falsehoods about the nature and benefit of this infant technology. The experience of former Monsanto employee Kirk Azevedo helps expose the first two lies, and provides some insight into the nature of the people working at the company.
Some Headlines:
Monsanto's toxic past
Infiltrating the minds and offices of the government
Hijacking the FDA to promote GMOs
Covering up health dangers
Fake safety assessments
Monsanto's studies are secret, inadequate, and flawed
Monsanto rigs research to miss dangers
Monsanto attacks labeling, local democracy, and news coverage
Canola crashes on GM
GM farmers don't earn or produce more
Herbicide use rising due to GMOs
Deadly deception in India
Doctors orders: no genetically modified food
Pregnant women and babies at great risk
Food that produces poison
GMOs provoke immune reactions
Animals dying in large numbers
GMOs remain inside of us
Un-recallable contamination
john649: Monsanto: The world's poster child for corporate manipulation and deceit
I just read some of the debate down below. Kudos to all! Some good back and forth.
However, one thing should be absolutely clear, Monsanto seeds are not infertile. This is partly why they go through so much effort to ,ake sure farmers don't replant them. However, what people might be thinking of is seeds produced by the hybrid process, which is irrelevant to being GMO, which produces seeds with a lot of vigour, however the seeds produced from the high vigour seed, do not have a great yield response which promotes the purchasing of seed next year. But this has nothing to do with the seed being GMO.
benwha: I just read some of the debate down below. Kudos
It's sad that people have to be explained the ancient technology of hybrid plants. Didn't Mendel do this first in the 1860's?? Hybrid corn was developed in the 1920's and people waited till now for it to be a controversy?? In 2010? Incredible. My great grandpa couldn't replant the seeds from hybrid corn. It's not a Monsanto conspiracy. The left wing has become strange. I read about the controversy of hybrid seeds being sent to Haiti. Left wing roups like GreenPeace were protesting it since these evil hybrid seeds supposedly makes them reliant on Monsanto since the corn seeds grown can't be replanted. huh? Of course they can't be replanted. It's been that way since the 1920's. Wake me up from this crazy dream please..someone?? Does the left wing really want agriculture sent back to pre-1860 technology??
HazelPethigFan: It's sad that people have to be explained the ancient
Correction: I used a poor choice of words. Seeds from hydrid corn plants of course can theorectically be planted and grow, but the yield is cut by more than one half. Not a viable option.
HazelPethigFan: Correction: I used a poor choice of words. Seeds from
Sorry one more question, how does an honest organic producer feel that, considering the large amount of ignorance there is about agriculture and a large premium people are willing to pay, there is a risk of fraud? which is likely already occuring on a fairly significant scale.
benwha: Sorry one more question, how does an honest organic producer
Organic producers have marketing interest just like any business does. Too bad it's come to the point that they created irrational hysteria in their marketing. They've convinced many that anything GM and anything nonorganic is evil.
The bizarre arguments now against hybrids must be making the organic producers hunch their shoulders in embarrassment because I know they know the truth.
Do we dare tell the maroons posting on this issue that most organic corn is hybrid?? Of course I will !!
HazelPethigFan: Organic producers have marketing interest just like any business does.
I would like to ask the author a couple questions:
1. How does an organic producer, whose issue with conventional ag is the use of toxic chemicals and GMO, jive that with their own use of toxic natural herbicides like BT and crushed chrystantynum leaves which are highly toxic, if not more toxic according to some studies, as well.
2. If we as a society decided to outlaw GMO's and food prices and green house gas production spiked, how do we get society to accept the much higher food prices and wouldn't the end result be a decimation of our internal agriculture to the benefit of developing world like China and/or Brazil? Will people really give up the luxuries the decline of food spent on a person's budget from 30% to 10% over the past 50 years has allowed?
I would really love it for Huffpost to provide a balanced approach to GMO's and conventional agriculture on here.
benwha: I would like to ask the author a couple questions:
good points but a little confusing, or confused rather. Organic pesticides can be dangerous but the example of BT, a systemic pesticide incorporated directly into monsanto's BT corn weakens your argument. GMO's have little to do with food prices lowering over the past decades. In fact farm policies and subsidies of "developed" countries have created cheaper agricultural commodities in the "developed" world but have led to higher costs for food in "developing"countries and in many instances has led to forcing farmers out of business due to dumping of excess product. Abandoning modern industrial farming would give china and brazil an edge but this isn't the same as abandoning GMO's.
spitbug: good points but a little confusing, or confused rather. Organic
Confused is an understatement, I hate typing on an iPod. I guess I wasn't so much making a point as I am just curious how organic producers respond when asked about the use of just as toxic chemicals as conventional farmers.
And I guess it is probably a more complicated debate regarding grain prices when you factor in subsidies and tariffs but when you look at how yields have gone in the US (check out PSD Online from the USDA) since GMO's were introduced, year over year yields have displayed dramatically less volatility and have grown, especially the last 3 years, well above trend yield growth rates of the previous 50 years.
And to be sure "abandoning modern industrial farming would give China and Brazil an edge" is a pretty big understatement. But no one cuts off their nose to spite their face quite like the good ol' US of A!
benwha: Confused is an understatement, I hate typing on an iPod.
In Britain and France, organic producers have for the past 10 years or so been invited to provide peer-reviewed scientific data that concludes organic food is safer, healthier and/or tastier and then they would be allowed to advertise their food as such. To date, they have been unable. The study the author refers to above was sponsored by Greenpeace and roundly refuted by French scientists, not exactly a GMO friendly bunch.
benwha: In Britain and France, organic producers have for the past
Food For Thought~~~ In case you haven't yet sent your letter supporting Rep. Kucinich's Genetically Engineered Food Right To Know Act (there is a link above under the article title) here's a few things the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAME) has to say:
~~Physicians should advice their patients not to eat GM foods;
~~Physicians should consider the possible role of GM foods in their patients' ill-health;
~~that there be a moratorium on GM food,
~~that there be more research on GM foods;
~~that there be immediate independent safety testing on GM foods, and;
~~that GM foods should be labeled.
How about them beans? It would seem this little debate has been clearly won by the "anti-GM-ers"
Interesting posts from everyone. Personally, I chose to actually DO something. Today, we have 6 GE free zones in BC Canada, with 2 more on the way. I have gone to municipalities and regions and used our political system to make change. I also educate the public on GM issues: not scare and shock, but truths. Not all GM is bad or dangerous. But there are serious issues in health, environment and corporate control that need to be addressed. None of the anit-GM'ers dislike science: in fact, most of them have no problem with hybrids and other improvements to crops. There are more and more being awakened to the issues every day, and it's not going away, like it or not. People don't trust governments and they don't trust corporations anymore. This alone fuels much of the controversy on these threads. For me, I seek the truth. Until then, I will continue to tour and educate and use the political system to move us closer to a safe and secure food system.
aprilreeves: Interesting posts from everyone. Personally, I chose to actually DO
In the US, there is a bill sponsored by Rep. Kucinich that would require GM foods to be labeled-----are GM foods labeled in Canada? Also, what are your thoughts about big corporations and agriculture---what's going on there?
MaryBethC3: In the US, there is a bill sponsored by Rep.
"None of the anit-GM'ers dislike science: in fact, most of them have no problem with hybrids and other improvements to crops"
Nope..many don't understand the science. that there is much data about GM that antiGM people need to address before they react. AntiGM people act like deer in the headlights when you ask them for data: "what? you mean GM reduces erosion? huh? what?"
And as for hybrids....the bizarre thing is that many antiGM people are confusing GM with hybrid. Look the a left wing groups protesting the fact Monsanto gave Haiti free hybrid seeds. They flipped out claiming that Haitians can't plant the seeds from hyrbrids and that this is proof that Monsanto is making Haitians dependent on Monsanto. Gee..things like hybrid seed corn were developed in the 1920's. Organic corn is mostly hybrid. I wonder what the organic producers think about leftists not liking hybrids anymore??
HazelPethigFan: "None of the anit-GM'ers dislike science: in fact, most of
We don't know of anyone dying from eating GM food is because no research has been conducted to examine its effect on human health. Anecdotal evidence and animal research indicates harm, so why no human research?
The industry is muddying the waters with their 'substantial equivalency' - using slight of hand to divert attention from what is really happening. But intelligent scientists and other educated people around the world smell a rat and are looking at the evidential signs of a potentially major environmental and health disaster.
In 2004, the British Medical Association - not exactly a left wing bunch - said that the UK Government should adopt a more cautious approach to GM foods. It said more research was needed into the environmental, agricultural and health impacts of the technology. This is of course an example of British understatement. UK doctors do not usually speak out on such things unless they are seriously concerned.
Pro GM food activists should recognise that this technology cannot be allowed free rein in a natural environment before we know what it is doing to us and our world. There is a distinct lack of caution promoted by the biotech industry who clearly have a vested interest in a closed eyes approach. Risk assessment values of science are being thrown out the window for financial gain. That
Its sad really. Just the laziness and lack of independent research that goes on these days.
"They are in the process of owning food, all food." Paraguayan farmer Jorge Galeano says, "Its objective is to control all of the world's food production."
I am going to use that quote to display the ignorance and/or just a general lack of critical thinking, not sure how to put it but she has clearly made up her mind and no matter what people say or do she will wholeheartedly believe everything anti-GMO and filter out everything pro-GMO.
So back to the quote, the contention here is Monsanto is desiring to own food production. So we are now 16 years out from Monsanto starting, how much control do they have now? Well cobbling together data from the USDA, the IGC and the FAO, if you take the top 10 field crops (corn, soy, rice, wheat, rape etc) and consider the total global acres, where GMO is grown and Monsanto's mkt shares to come out to less than 2% being Monsanto seed. So adjusting for the US's vastly superior yield, be aggressive and double it to 4% of the top 10 major grains. That is what Monsanto "controls". But really, when talking about controlling global food, you should probably include fruits and veggies, protein production, hunting, fishing, other crops, etc, you begin to realize Monsanto "controls" an awfully small amount of food. After 16 years, the growth rate of the % is pretty small.
Amber15 earlier said that what she is doing is "its called balanced, intelligent thinking......." yet she put a quote on here that is easily disputed which is what I did. Did Amber ever consider doing a similiar type analysis? I would like to see it but I am guessing she just assumes it is true which is my point. Of course I could come up with more criticism.
Iwould be curious for you to explain why my take on how suggesting Monsanto is seeking to control "all food" is a more than a bit of an exaggeration. Could you include statistical data?
Thanks
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=6AA5B0B23388CC6BF58D015A58DDB15C
seedsofdeception.com
Expert Jeffrey M. Smith, author of the #1 GMO bestseller Seeds of Deception, and Genetic Roulette, presents shocking evidence why genetically modified crops may lead to health and environmental catastrophes, and what we can do about it.
nongmoshoppingguide.com
healthiereating.org
Help create the tipping point from consumers to force GMO's out of the market
http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showConnection.php?id1=5580&id2=2976
Replacing Nature: "Nothing shall be eaten that we don't own"
As Monsanto moves forward with its master plan to replace nature, they're buying up seed businesses and are now the world's largest. Over 200 independent seed companies have disappeared over 13 years, non-GMO seed availability is dwindling, Monsanto is jacking up their seed prices dramatically. Corn is up more than 30%, soy nearly 25%.
"We now believe that Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of (seed genetics). This level of control is almost unbelievable,' said Neil Harl, agricultural economist at Iowa State University who has studied the seed industry for decades."
"They are in the process of owning food, all food." Paraguayan farmer Jorge Galeano says, "Its objective is to control all of the world's food production." Renowned Indian physicist and community organizer Vandana Shiva says, "If they control seed, they control food; they know it, it's strategic. It's more powerful than bombs; it's more powerful than guns. This is the best way to control the populations of the world."
Our food security lies in diversity. Any single company that consolidates ownership of seeds, and therefore power over the food supply, is a dangerous threat. Of all the corporations in the world, however, the one we should trust the least is Monsanto. With them at the helm, the impact could be cataclysmic.
If you're on facebook join the MILLIONS AGAINST MONSANTO:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Millions-Against-Monsanto-by-OrganicConsumersorg/289934516904
No more Franken foods!
OTOH, millions of humans, everyday, eat food connected to GMOs (as the last slide above points out); but (again, to my knowledge) there's been no evident or directly connected adverse effects to this. I've seen lots of scary implied adverse effects, but no one's ever actually demonstrated a connected, measurable one.
To me, the lack of actual victims or data, compared against the prevalence of GMOs in the world's diet, leads me to view all the extreme anti-GMO hype as little more than a slippery slope, or even fearmongering.
Monsanto's covert control of the commodity crops violates all the basic principles of a Free Market and eliminates individual rights to choose what they swallow and from whom. The fact that these have never been tested for human health and safety effects is icing on the cake.
To correct a few popints, GMO foods are not prevelant in the world's food. Most of it is grown and consumed right here in America. Lots of the global supply is used as animal feed and filler for US corporations. Because the GMO foods were introduced with deregulation mania and a genius loophole in the food laws there was never any requirement to test for human health and safety.
Back in the days of President Bush the father, Monsanto Lobbyist Lawyer Michael Taylor, now food Czar for Obama, created a category called substantial equivalence that allowed GMO foods to get a pass and GRAS status for keeping nutrients within the same range.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/Biotechnology/Submissions/ucm161130.htm
As Monsanto has moved forward with its master plan to replace nature, they have led the charge in buying up seed businesses and are now the world's largest. At least 200 independent seed companies have disappeared over 13 years, non-GMO seed availability is dwindling, and Monsanto is jacking up their seed prices dramatically. Corn is up more than 30 percent and soy nearly 25 percent, over 2008 prices.
An Associated Press exposé reveals how Monsanto's onerous contracts allowed them to manipulate, then dominate, the seed industry using unprecedented legal restrictions. One contract provision, for example, "prevented bidding wars" and "likely helped Monsanto buy 24 independent seed companies throughout the Farm Belt over the last few years: that corn seed agreement says that if a smaller company changes ownership, its inventory with Monsanto's traits 'shall be destroyed immediately.'"
http://www.naturalnews.com/029325_Monsanto_deception.html
A few tidbits:
Monsanto's public relations story about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are largely based on five concepts.
1. GMOs are needed to feed the world.
2. GMOs have been thoroughly tested and proven safe.
3. GMOs increase yield.
4. GMOs reduce the use of agricultural chemicals.
5. GMOs can be contained, and therefore coexist with non-GM crops.
All five are pure myths -- blatant falsehoods about the nature and benefit of this infant technology. The experience of former Monsanto employee Kirk Azevedo helps expose the first two lies, and provides some insight into the nature of the people working at the company.
Some Headlines:
Monsanto's toxic past
Infiltrating the minds and offices of the government
Hijacking the FDA to promote GMOs
Covering up health dangers
Fake safety assessments
Monsanto's studies are secret, inadequate, and flawed
Monsanto rigs research to miss dangers
Monsanto attacks labeling, local democracy, and news coverage
Canola crashes on GM
GM farmers don't earn or produce more
Herbicide use rising due to GMOs
Deadly deception in India
Doctors orders: no genetically modified food
Pregnant women and babies at great risk
Food that produces poison
GMOs provoke immune reactions
Animals dying in large numbers
GMOs remain inside of us
Un-recallable contamination
However, one thing should be absolutely clear, Monsanto seeds are not infertile. This is partly why they go through so much effort to ,ake sure farmers don't replant them. However, what people might be thinking of is seeds produced by the hybrid process, which is irrelevant to being GMO, which produces seeds with a lot of vigour, however the seeds produced from the high vigour seed, do not have a great yield response which promotes the purchasing of seed next year. But this has nothing to do with the seed being GMO.
The bizarre arguments now against hybrids must be making the organic producers hunch their shoulders in embarrassment because I know they know the truth.
Do we dare tell the maroons posting on this issue that most organic corn is hybrid?? Of course I will !!
1. How does an organic producer, whose issue with conventional ag is the use of toxic chemicals and GMO, jive that with their own use of toxic natural herbicides like BT and crushed chrystantynum leaves which are highly toxic, if not more toxic according to some studies, as well.
2. If we as a society decided to outlaw GMO's and food prices and green house gas production spiked, how do we get society to accept the much higher food prices and wouldn't the end result be a decimation of our internal agriculture to the benefit of developing world like China and/or Brazil? Will people really give up the luxuries the decline of food spent on a person's budget from 30% to 10% over the past 50 years has allowed?
I would really love it for Huffpost to provide a balanced approach to GMO's and conventional agriculture on here.
And I guess it is probably a more complicated debate regarding grain prices when you factor in subsidies and tariffs but when you look at how yields have gone in the US (check out PSD Online from the USDA) since GMO's were introduced, year over year yields have displayed dramatically less volatility and have grown, especially the last 3 years, well above trend yield growth rates of the previous 50 years.
And to be sure "abandoning modern industrial farming would give China and Brazil an edge" is a pretty big understatement. But no one cuts off their nose to spite their face quite like the good ol' US of A!
~~Physicians should advice their patients not to eat GM foods;
~~Physicians should consider the possible role of GM foods in their patients' ill-health;
~~that there be a moratorium on GM food,
~~that there be more research on GM foods;
~~that there be immediate independent safety testing on GM foods, and;
~~that GM foods should be labeled.
How about them beans? It would seem this little debate has been clearly won by the "anti-GM-ers"
http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
Nope..many don't understand the science. that there is much data about GM that antiGM people need to address before they react. AntiGM people act like deer in the headlights when you ask them for data: "what? you mean GM reduces erosion? huh? what?"
And as for hybrids....the bizarre thing is that many antiGM people are confusing GM with hybrid. Look the a left wing groups protesting the fact Monsanto gave Haiti free hybrid seeds. They flipped out claiming that Haitians can't plant the seeds from hyrbrids and that this is proof that Monsanto is making Haitians dependent on Monsanto. Gee..things like hybrid seed corn were developed in the 1920's. Organic corn is mostly hybrid. I wonder what the organic producers think about leftists not liking hybrids anymore??