George Monbiot (Guardian Unltd): Force-fed a diet of hype

[Jack Rabbit]

From the Guardian Unlimited (UK)
Dated Tuesday October 7

Force-fed a diet of hype
The verdict of the market means nothing to the GM industry and its government friends
By George Monbiot

It is curious that this government, which goes to such lengths to show that it responds to market forces, appears to believe, when it comes to genetic modification, that the customer is always wrong. Tony Blair may have spent six years rolling back the nanny state, but he instructs us to shut up and eat what we're given. The public has comprehensively rejected the technology; the chief scientist has warned that pollen contamination may be impossible to prevent; the field trials suggest that GM threatens our remaining wildlife. Yet the government seems determined to force us to accept it.
The best way of gauging its intentions is to examine the research it is funding, as this reveals its long-term strategy for both farming and science. It seems that the strategy is to destroy them both.
The principal funding body for the life sciences in Britain is the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). It is currently funding 255 food and farming research projects; 26 are concerned with growing GM crops, just one with organic production.
We're not talking about blue-sky science here, but research with likely commercial applications. We should expect it to respond to what the market wants. The demand for organic food in Britain has been growing by 30% a year. We import 70% of it, partly because organic yields in Britain are low and research is desperately needed to find ways of raising them. Genetically modified food, by contrast, is about as popular with consumers as BSE or salmonella.

Read more.

[Maple]

1. It fascinates me how DUers

faithfully believe science when it comes to global warming...but totally reject it when it comes to GM foods.

You believe what you wanna believe I guess...and science has nothing to do with it.

[cprise]

5. Why should we serve technology?

Even real science (as opposed to industrial technology) is just a human activity, one that dutifully observes nature.

But nature has become a derisive word on the Libertarian side of these conversations, as well as for those within the agri-corporations purveying their "science" (you know, the ones who keep telling us an organism can be safely controlled through its DNA, when in reality DNA is less central to organisms than thought and changing it often results in unpredictable side-effects).

This is about corporations desiring perfect control over living things to maximize profit, and we do not have to worship the products of this "science" at their industrial altar. Now is not the time to push genetic modification as a technology with corporate ethics at an all-time low.

[Maple]

13. Technology serves people

And you have managed to confuse it with your anti-corporate ideology as well, I see.

[Cha]

2. I don't like "science" messing with Nature! I will Not eat gm

foods..only Organic!

[Maple]

3. If science hadn't 'messed with nature'

You'd be dead at 20

And you eat GM food every day, and always have.

[el_gato]

4. bull

cut the crap

there is a huge difference between cross breeding of plants by farmers
and the injection of foreign genes across species into a plants genetic make-up

it's funny how GM pushers have no respect for other people's choices

keep your GM garbage to yourself

[cprise]

8. "across species" is putting it mildly

Yes I think garbage is exactly when this technology has the potential to become: Garbage, like yesteryear's computers on the trash heap, only this time the heap could turn out to be every square inch of our environment.

From an ecological standpoint, our industry produces nothing but garbage. What happens when designer fashion-food, or pets, become as common as designer drugs? We'll find them out in the wild, too, making the eco-system wither even more.

There is this denial in the GM industry that the tameness of "hybrid vigor" translates to the process of splicing genes. As has already been shown with GM salmon, the changes could lead to virulence instead, wiping out real salmon with a season or two of wildly successful breeding but leaving us with a sort of 'junk' fish in the long-term. All this because genetic engineers didn't know these larger salmon escaping into the wild had the potential to eliminate the natural competition during mating season.

[Maple]

11. No, sorry but there isn't

You just have no knowledge of the subject.

[cprise]

6. That is a load of BS

It is the worst sort of intellectual dishonesty to suggest that traditional breeding is "genetic modification".

Cutting and pasting genes (or creating new ones) into alien organisms completely outside their evolutionary context or a full understanding of the consequences is gambling with the very wealth of nature itself.

[Maple]

12. It amazes me

how people so easily condemn something they obviously have no knowledge of.

[JohnyCanuck]

7. Corporately driven agriculture is unsustainable.

The farming methods used and encouraged by the coporations pushing their GM food onto us will likely collapse as the current model of energy intensive, mono-culture, factory farmed agriculture will not be sustainable as soon as shortages in the supply of oil and fossil hydrocarbons become apparent (which is likely to be a lot sooner than many people think).

The current paradigm which the multinationals like Monsanto etc. find profitable in industrialized Western countries and which they would like to force on the rest of the world are to grow the same crops year after year in nutrient depleted fields and to dump tons of fertilizers to make up for the nutrient loss and soil erosion and to use pesticides (and/or their patented GM seeds) to kill off the harmful pests this type of farming causes to proliferate.

However factory farming is extremely energy intensive and the manufacture of fertilizers also require huge amounts of hydrocarbons both as energy sources and as feedstock and will not be sustainable in the long run.

This is an excerpt from the introduction of a new article posted at www.fromthewilderness.com regarding the impact of the coming peak in world oil production on agriculture:

October 3 , 2003, 1200 PDT, (FTW) -- Some months ago, concerned by a Paris statement made by Professor Kenneth Deffeyes of Princeton regarding his concern about the impact of Peak Oil and Gas on fertilizer production, I tasked FTW's Contributing Editor for Energy, Dale Allen Pfeiffer to start looking into what natural gas shortages would do to fertilizer production costs. His investigation led him to look at the totality of food production in the US. Because the US and Canada feed much of the world the answers have global implications

All told, Dale Allen Pfeiffer's research and reporting confirms the worst of FTW's suspicions about the consequences of Peak Oil and it poses serious questions about what to do next. Not the least of these is why, in a presidential election year, none of the candidates has even acknowledged the problem. Thus far, it is clear that solutions for these questions, perhaps the most important ones facing mankind, will by necessity be found by private individuals and communities, independently of outside or governmental help. Whether the real search for answers comes now, or as the crisis becomes unavoidable, depends solely on us. It is also abundantly clear that fresh water, its acquisition and delivery, is a crisis that is upon us now as certainly as is Peak Oil and Gas.

Here are just of few of the report's key findings:

1. In the United States, 400 gallons of oil equivalents are expended annually to feed each American (as of data provided in 1994).7 Agricultural energy consumption is broken down as follows:

· 31% for the manufacture of inorganic fertilizer (excluding feedstock)

· 19% for the operation of field machinery

· 16% for transportation

· 13% for irrigation

· 08% for raising livestock (not including livestock feed)

· 05% for crop drying

· 05% for pesticide production

· 08% miscellaneous8

2. To give the reader an idea of the energy intensiveness of modern agriculture, production of one kilogram of nitrogen for fertilizer requires the energy equivalent of from 1.4 to 1.8 liters of diesel fuel. This is not considering the natural gas feedstock.9 According to The Fertilizer Institute (http://www.tfi.org), in the year from June 30 2001 until June 30 2002 the United States used 12,009,300 short tons of nitrogen fertilizer.10 Using the low figure of 1.4 liters diesel equivalent per kilogram of nitrogen, this equates to the energy content of 15.3 billion liters of diesel fuel, or 96.2 million barrels.


The introduction and summary of the article contents are free, but to read the complete article requires paying for a membership.

www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil_summary.html

[Maple]

14. Ahahahahahahahaha

Oh that is hilarious.

Perhaps if you actually understood the science, you wouldn't post such rubbish!

[JohnyCanuck]

16. Hahahahahaha

If you really understood the science you wouldn't post such idiotic responses.

[JohnyCanuck]

9. Independent Science Panel Issues Negative Report on GM

Note to mod's. The Institute for Science in Society gives permission for the reproduction and dissemination of the following article as long as appropriate credit is given along with a link to their web site. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/


The Independent Science Panel on GM Final Report

Dozens of prominent scientists from seven countries, spanning the disciplines of agroecology, agronomy, biomathematics, botany, chemical medicine, ecology, histopathology, microbial ecology, molecular genetics, nutritional biochemistry, physiology, toxicology and virology, joined forces to launch themselves as an Independent Science Panel on GM at a public conference, attended by UK environment minister Michael Meacher and 200 other participants, in London on 10 May 2003.

The conference coincided with the publication of a draft report, The Case for a GM-free Sustainable World, calling for a ban on GM crops to make way for all forms of sustainable agriculture. This authoritative report, billed as "the strongest, most complete dossier of evidence" ever compiled on the problems and hazards of GM crops as well as the manifold benefits of sustainable agriculture, is being finalised for release 15 June 2003.

Ahead of the release of the 120-page final report, the Independent Science Panel is pleased to provide a four-page summary as its contribution to the National GM Debate in the UK.

It is a challenge to the proponents of GM to answer the case presented, rather than having to argue against the case for GM crops, which has yet to be made.

Please circulate this document widely.

Independent Science Panel Report released 15 June 2003
The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World – A Summary
Why GM-Free?

GM crops failed to deliver promised benefits
No increase in yields or significant reduction in herbicide and pesticide use
United States lost an estimated $12 billion over GM crops amid worldwide rejection
Massive crop failures of up to 100% reported in India
High risk future for agbiotech: "Monsanto could be another disaster waiting to happen for investors"

GM crops posing escalating problems on the farm
Transgenic lines unstable: "most cases of transgene inactivation never reach the literature"
Triple herbicide-tolerant volunteers and weeds emerged in North America
Glyphosate-tolerant weeds plague GM cotton and soya fields, atrazine back in use
Bt biopesticide traits threatening to create superweeds and bt-resistant pests
Extensive transgenic contamination unavoidable
Extensive transgenic contamination found in maize landraces in remote regions of Mexico
32 out of 33 commercial seed stocks found contaminated in Canada
Pollen remains airborne for hours, and a 35 mile per hour wind speed is unexceptional
There can be no co-existence of GM and non-GM crops

GM crops not safe
GM crops have not been proven safe: regulation was fatally flawed from the start
The principle of ‘substantial equivalence’, vague and ill defined, gave companies complete licence in claiming GM products ‘substantially equivalent’ to non-GM, and hence ‘safe’

GM food raises serious safety concerns
Despite the paucity of credible studies, existing findings raise serious safety concerns
‘Growth-factor-like’ effects in the stomach and small intestine of young rats were attributed to the transgenic process or the transgenic construct, and may hence be general to all GM food

Dangerous gene products are incorporated into food crops
Bt proteins, incorporated into 25% of all GM crops worldwide, are harmful to many non-target insects, and some are potent immunogens and allergens for humans and other mammals
Food crops are increasingly used to produce pharmaceuticals and drugs, including cytokines known to suppress the immune system, or linked to dementia, neurotoxicity and mood and cognitive side effects; vaccines and viral sequences such as the ‘spike’ protein gene of the pig coronavirus, in the same family as the SARS virus linked to the current epidemic; and glycoprotein gene gp120 of the AIDS virus that could interfere with the immune system and recombine with viruses and bacteria to generate new and unpredictable pathogens.

Terminator crops spread male sterility
Crops engineered with ‘suicide’ genes for male sterility, promoted as a means of preventing the spread of transgenes, actually spread both male sterility and herbicide tolerance traits via pollen.

Broad-spectrum herbicides highly toxic to humans and other species
Glufosinate ammonium and glyphosate, used with herbicide tolerant GM crops that currently account for 75% of all GM crops worldwide, are both systemic metabolic poisons
Glufosinate ammonium is linked to neurological, respiratory, gastrointestinal and haematological toxicities, and birth defects in humans and mammals; also toxic to butterflies and a number of beneficial insects, to larvae of clams and oysters, Daphnia and some freshwater fish, especially the rainbow trout; it inhibits beneficial soil bacteria and fungi, especially those that fix nitrogen.
Glyphosate is the most frequent cause of complaints and poisoning in the UK, and disturbances to many body functions have been reported after exposures at normal use levels; glyphosate exposure nearly doubled the risk of late spontaneous abortion, and children born to users of glyphosate had elevated neurobehavioral defects; glyphosate retards development of the foetal skeleton in laboratory rats, inhibits the synthesis of steroids, and is genotoxic in mammals, fish and frogs; field dose exposure of earthworms caused at least 50 percent mortality and significant intestinal damage among surviving worms; Roundup (Monsanto’s formulation of glyphosate) caused cell division dysfunction that may be linked to human cancers.

Genetic engineering creates super-viruses
The most insidious dangers of genetic engineering are inherent to the process; it greatly enhances the scope and probability of horizontal gene transfer and recombination, the main route to creating viruses and bacteria that cause disease epidemics.
Newer techniques, such as DNA shuffling, allow geneticists to create in a matter of minutes in the laboratory millions of recombinant viruses that have never existed in billions of years of evolution
Disease-causing viruses and bacteria and their genetic material are the predominant materials and tools of genetic engineering, as much as for the intentional creation of bio-weapons.

Transgenic DNA in food taken up by bacteria in human gut
Transgenic DNA from plants has been taken up by bacteria both in the soil and in the gut of human volunteers; antibiotic resistance marker genes can spread from transgenic food to pathogenic bacteria, making infections very difficult to treat.

Transgenic DNA and cancer
Transgenic DNA known to survive digestion in the gut and to jump into the genome of mammalian cells, raising the possibility for triggering cancer
Feeding GM products such as maize to animals may carry risks, not just for the animals but also for human beings consuming the animal products

CaMV 35S promoter increases horizontal gene transfer
Evidence suggests that transgenic constructs with the CaMV 35S promoter could be especially unstable and prone to horizontal gene transfer and recombination, with all the attendant hazards: gene mutations due to random insertion, cancer, re-activation of dormant viruses and generation of new viruses.

A history of misrepresentation and suppression of scientific evidence
There has been a history of misrepresentation and suppression of scientific evidence, especially on horizontal gene transfer. Key experiments failed to be performed, or were performed badly and then misrepresented. Many experiments were not followed up, including investigations on whether the CaMV 35S promoter is responsible for the ‘growth-factor-like’ effects observed in young rats fed GM potatoes.
GM crops have failed to deliver the promised benefits and are posing escalating problems on the farm. Transgenic contamination is now widely acknowledged to be unavoidable, and hence there can be no co-existence of GM and non-GM agriculture. Most important of all, GM crops have not been proven safe. On the contrary, sufficient evidence has emerged to raise serious safety concerns, that if ignored could result in irreversible damage to health and the environment. GM crops should therefore be firmly rejected now.


Why Sustainable Agriculture?

Higher productivity and yields especially in the Third World
8.98 million farmers adopted sustainable agriculture practices on 28.92 million hectares in Asia, Latin America and Africa; reliable data from 89 projects show higher productivity and yields: 50-100% increase in yield for rainfed crops, and 5-10% for irrigated crops; top successes include Burkina Faso, which turned a cereal deficit of 644 kg per year to an annual surplus of 153 kg, Ethiopia, where 12 500 households enjoyed 60% increase in crop yields, and Honduras and Guatemala, where 45 000 families increased yields from 400-600 kg/ha to 2,000-2,500 kg/ha
Long-term studies in industrialised countries show yields for organic comparable to conventional agriculture, and often higher

Better soils
Sustainable agricultural practices reduce soil erosion, improve soil physical structure and water-holding capacity, which are crucial in averting crop failures during periods of drought
Soil fertility maintained or increased by various sustainable agriculture practices
Biological activity higher in organic soils: more earthworms, arthropods, mycorrhizal and other fungi, and micro-organisms, all beneficial for nutrient recycling and suppression of disease

Cleaner environment
Little or no polluting chemical inputs with sustainable agriculture
Less nitrate and phosphorus leached to groundwater from organic soils
Better water infiltration rates in organic systems, therefore less prone to erosion and less likely to contribute to water pollution from surface runoff

Reduced pesticides and no increase in pests
Integrated pest management cut the number of pesticide sprays in Vietnam from 3.4 to one per season, in Sri Lanka from 2.9 to 0.5 per season, and in Indonesia from 2.9 to 1.1 per season
No increase in crop losses due to pest damage resulted from withdrawal of synthetic insecticides in Californian tomato production
Pest control achievable without pesticides, reversing crop losses, as for example, by using ‘trap crops’ to attract stem borer, a major pest in East Africa

Supporting biodiversity and using diversity
Sustainable agriculture promotes agricultural biodiversity, which is crucial for food security; organic farming can support much greater biodiversity, benefiting species that have significantly declined
Integrated farming systems in Cuba are 1.45 to 2.82 times more productive than monocultures
Thousands of Chinese rice farmers doubled yields and nearly eliminated the most devastating disease simply by mixed planting of two varieties
Soil biodiversity enhanced by organic practices, bringing beneficial effects such as recovery and rehabilitation of degraded soils, improved soil structure and water infiltration.

Environmentally and economically sustainable
Research on apple production systems ranked the organic system first in environmental and economic sustainability, the integrated system second and the conventional system last; organic apples were most profitable due to price premiums, quicker investment return, and fast recovery of costs
A Europe-wide study showed that organic farming performs better than conventional farming in the majority of environmental indicators
A review by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) concluded that well-managed organic agriculture leads to more favourable conditions at all environmental levels

Ameliorating climate change by reducing direct & indirect energy use
Organic agriculture uses energy much more efficiently and greatly reduces CO2 emissions compared with conventional agriculture, both with respect to direct energy consumption in fuel and oil and indirect consumption in synthetic fertilizers and pesticides
Sustainable agriculture restores soil organic matter content, increasing carbon sequestration below ground, thereby recovering an important carbon sink
Organic agriculture is likely to emit less nitrous dioxide (N2O), another important greenhouse gas and also a cause of stratospheric ozone depletion

Efficient, profitable production
Any yield reduction in organic agriculture more than offset by ecological and efficiency gains
Smaller farms produce far more per unit area than larger farms characteristic of conventional farming
Production costs for organic farming are often lower than conventional farming, bringing equivalent or higher net returns even without organic price premiums; when price premiums are factored in, organic systems are almost always more profitable

Improved food security and benefits to local communities
A review of sustainable agriculture projects showed that average food production per household increased by 1.71 tonnes per year (up 73%) for 4.42 million farmers on 3.58 million hectares, bringing food security and health benefits to local communities
Increasing productivity increases food supplies and raises incomes, thereby reducing poverty, increasing access to food, reducing malnutrition and improving health and livelihoods
Sustainable agricultural approaches draw extensively on traditional and indigenous knowledge, and place emphasis on the farmers’ experience and innovation, thereby improving their status and autonomy, enhancing social and cultural relations within local communities
For every £1 spent at an organic box scheme from Cusgarne Organics (UK), £2.59 is generated for the local economy; but for every £1 spent at a supermarket, only £1.40 is generated for the local economy

Better food quality for health
Organic food is safer, as organic farming prohibits pesticide use, so harmful chemical residues are rarely found
Organic production bans the use of artificial food additives, such as hydrogenated fats, phosphoric acid, aspartame and monosodium glutamate, which have been linked to health problems as diverse as heart disease, osteoporosis, migraines and hyperactivity
Studies have shown that on average, organic food has higher vitamin C, higher mineral levels and higher plant phenolics – plant compounds that can fight cancer and heart disease, and combat age-related neurological dysfunctions – and significantly less nitrates, a toxic compound.


Sustainable agricultural practices have proven beneficial in all aspects relevant to health and the environment. In addition, they bring food security and social and cultural well being to local communities everywhere. There is an urgent need for a comprehensive global shift to all forms of sustainable agriculture.


Members of the Independent Science Panel on GM

Prof. Miguel Altieri
Professor of Agroecology, University of California, Berkeley, USA

Dr. Michael Antoniou
Senior Lecturer in Molecular Genetics, GKT School of Medicine, King's College, London.

Dr. Susan Bardocz
Biochemist, formerly Rowett Research Institute, Scotland

Prof. David Bellamy OBE
Internationally renowned botanist, environmentalist, broadcaster, author and campaigner; recipient of number awards; President & Vice President of many conservation and environmental organisations.

Dr. Elizabeth Bravo V.
Biologist, researcher and campaigner on biodiversity and GMO issues; co-founder of Acción Ecológica; part-time lecturer at Universidad Politécnica Salesiana, Ecuador.

Prof. Joe Cummins
Professor Emeritus of Genetics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.

Dr. Stanley Ewen
Consultant Histopathologist at Grampian University Hospitals Trust; formerly Senior Lecturer in Pathology, University of Aberdeen; lead histopathologist for the Grampian arm of the Scottish Colorectal Cancer Screening Pilot Project.

Edward Goldsmith
Recipient of the Right Livelihood and numerous awards, environmentalist, scholar, author and Founding Editor of The Ecologist.

Dr. Brian Goodwin
Scholar in Residence, Schumacher College, England.

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
Co-founder and Director of the Institute of Science in Society; Editor of Science in Society; Science Advisor to the Third World Network and on the Roster of Experts for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety; Visiting Reader, Open University, UK and Visiting Professor of Organic Physics, Catania University, Sicily, Italy.

Prof. Malcolm Hooper
Emeritus Professor at the University of Sunderland; previously, Professor of Medicinal Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Sunderland Polytechnic; Chief Scientific Advisor to the Gulf War Veterans.

Dr. Vyvyan Howard
Medically qualified toxico-pathologist, Developmental Toxico-Pathology Group, Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology, The University of Liverpool; Member of the UK Government's Advisory Committee on Pesticides.

Dr. Brian John
Geomorphologist and environmental scientist; Founder and long-time Chairman of the West Wales Eco Centre; one of the coordinating group of GM Free Cymru

Prof. Marijan Jošt
Professor of Plant Breeding and Seed Production, Agricultural College Križevci, Croatia.

Lim Li Ching
Researcher, Institute of Science in Society and Third World Network; deputy-editor of Science in Society.

Dr. Eva Novotny
Astronomer and campaigner on GM issues for Scientists for Global Responsibility, SGR

Prof. Bob Orskov OBE
Head of the International Feed Resource Unit in Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland; Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, FRSE; Fellow of the Polish Academy of Science.

Dr. Michel Pimbert
Agricultural ecologist and Principal Associate, International Institute for Environment and Development.

Dr. Arpad Pusztai
Private consultant; formerly Senior Research Fellow at the Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland.

David Quist
Microbial ecologist, Ecosystem Science Division, Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, USA.

Dr. Peter Rosset
Agricultural ecologist and rural development specialist; Co-director of the Institute for Food and Development Policy (Food First), Oakland, California, USA.

Prof. Peter Saunders
Professor of Applied Mathematics at King's College, London.

Dr. Veljko Veljkovic
AIDS virologist, Center for Multidisciplinary Research and Engineering, Institute of Nuclear Sciences, VINCA, Belgrade, Yugoslavia.

Roberto Verzola
Secretary-General, Philippine Greens, Member of the Board of Trustees, PABINHI (a sustainable agriculture network), Coordinator, SRI-Pilipinas (network of advocates for the System of Rice Intensification).

Prof. Oscar B. Zamora
Professor of Agronomy, Department of Agronomy, University of the Philippines Los Banos-College of Agriculture (UPLB-CA), College, Laguna, The Philippines.


http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ispr-summary.php?printing=yes

The full report is avaialable for download here: www.indsp.org

[JohnyCanuck]

10. UK Insurance Companies won't insure GM crops

From an article in the Telegraph 8/10/03

The major agricultural insurance companies are refusing to insure farmers who intend to grow genetically modified crops, according to a survey that deals a further blow to Government hopes of approving at least one crop for commercial cultivation next year.

The survey, conducted by working farmer members of Farm, a campaign group, found insurance companies unwilling to take on the risk of liability claims against farmers who grew GM crops.

Leading rural insurance underwriters told the farmers that they were concerned that "GM could be like thalidomide - only after some time would the full extent of the problems be seen".

<snip>

All the insurers surveyed felt that too little was known about the long-term effects on human health and the environment to be able to offer any form of cover for farmers growing GM crops.

No insurance coverage for GM crops

[Maple]

15. I repeat.....

DUers love science when it assures them global warming is taking place.

Suddenly 'science' becomes a bad thing when it promotes GM.

Seems to be ideology...or idiotology...that makes the difference.

Hippies are history guys...get with the program, and allow the world to eat.

What a bunch of luddite romanticism! LOLOL

[JohnyCanuck]

17. All scientists are not in agreement about the benefits of GM crops

and the risks they pose, see post #9.

The UK insurance companies, who are in the business of making money by issuing insurance policies, use science and mathematics to evaluate odds and determine risks before deciding whether or not to issue policies. They have evidently decided that the risks of catastrophic damaged from GM crops is real enough that they don't want to cover it. Do you think they wouldn't like to increase the bottom line by getting some more business it they thought it was safe to do so? See post #10.

Why don't you send them a snappy email Maple? Tell them they are all out to lunch and are nothing but a bunch of 21st century luddites. See how quickly they'll figure out they're wrong and reverse their position.

By saying that we should hold off on further widespread use of GM we are only taking a precautionary approach that maybe it might be better to err on the side of caution rather than risk trashing the only biosphere we have. The same principle is the principle that caused many to adhere to the principles of reducing CO2 emissions even if there was a debate in scientific circles as to the extent of damage that fossil fuel burning was having on global warming. Better to err on the side of caution rather than risk the consequences of finding too late that a point of no return has been passed and damage has ocurred that could not be undone.

Edit punctuation.