In a quick review, I'd say I'd heard of it, practice a lot of it, but would probably only go for it in moderation. The 12 tenants look pretty reasonable, but trying to get all the way there would be difficult.
:)

Every expert that looks at this does not say so. Here's something to review: http://www.responsibletechnology.org/hea...
You are looking at a tiny spec of time in history to make the assumption that this is safe. There are plenty of articles to go read where there are experts bringing up concerns about negative side effects from GMO's and what they believe is evidence to support their claims. Now, I don't have access to their research to see if they are full of it, no more than you have access to the research done by those claiming it's safe - to verify they did full, complete studies with proper testing. The fact is neither of us 'know' which experts are right and which are wrong, and maybe, based on their studies, they're both right in certain circumstances. I prefer to err on the side of safety and what I can verify with my own two eyes. Statistics is a BS game that can create practically any outcome desired - is it in the interests if the GMO producers to produce evidence that their product is bad? If there are no flaws in the GMO products, why are so many experts expressing the same concerns I have? If GMOs are fine with no side effects and consequences, then by all means - let's turn the GMO factories on high. But I will not blindly follow the crowd - or the so called scientific consensus cited in some articles I've read. Consensus does not science make. My what if's are based on prior experiences with experimenting with nature - introduced species of plants or animals, effects of radiation and heavy metals on living things, the fact that we share nearly 99% of our DNA with chimps - showing how only a 1% variation means an awful lot - I can't ignore the fact that it is worth being cautious over. I find it ridiculous that you and others are not even willing to consider the fact that there could be problems with this. I consider the fact that it may be fine, but I have too much opposing reasons to blindly accept that it's safe. Plus like I said, every new pattern they create is a new combination that has no study to go by, especially in the realm of transgenic manipulations.

Have you heard of Permaculture?

I like the invention of swales - water catching ditch on contour. They allow for the retention and infiltration of rainfall; when they are planted with legume trees you get fertiliser, shade, depending on species cattle/goat fodder.

I am stating evidence. I don't need to cite another source. Study biology. If I sell crops of non-GMO to clients that want non-GMO and a neighbor plants GMO - my crops will have a high likelihood of having cross pollination. Period. If I were operating first and new neighbors came into the picture, it would not be asking a lot for them not to put my crops in danger. If we were raising the same GMO crop or different species of crops, then I decided to go for non-GMO of the same plant type they are raising, then yes, I'd be a donkey's rear end for demanding that of them. If I buy a piece of property to farm, I will consider what the neighboring farmers are doing with their land before I buy. Common courtesy.

Yep... we have been working towards no-till for the moisture and to help maintain the biological subsoil critters. They help get nutrients to the plants and by tilling you decimate them at the same time.

The problem is that you don't actually have any problems to point to. GMO food is safe. Everyone with expertise who looks at it says so. We all eat it. It's better for us. It uses less water, and less pesticide. It's better for the planet because we've used our intellect to craft the world around us.

Your 'concerns' are in the nature of 'what if', and horror at the idea that genes found in one species have been placed in another. So what, we share a large portions of our genetic material. If you want to add the ability to create a protein, add the gene for it.

And, we play with fire all the time. The ability to cook food is potentially the source of the additional energy that has let us grow our brains.

No, that's not accurate. I will never get lightning bug DNA into a corn plant no matter how long I put them next to each other or try to selectively breed them. I will never get a bear and lion cross to happen no matter how long I put them next to each other or try to selectively breed them. I will never get sheep to produce spider silk no matter how long I put them next to each other or try to selectively breed them.
And no, any viral infection will not transfer new DNA sequences into you DNA code and convert you into some hybrid with whatever it came from.
I think the difference in what we are talking about here is transgenic verses cisgenic. And in any case I'm not convinced that either is without consequence when they are done the way they are. But, I do believe transgenic manipulation is asking for trouble. Cisgenic is not as bad - at least there, they are naturally compatible species.

I have come to the conclusion that 'drought' is a man-made disaster.
The huge bushfires blamed on drought are similarly man-made.

My reasoning:
By removing the recharging of the water table from the consideration of Farmers, and Graziers to a smaller extent, we allow the variable rainfall, changing from season to season/ year to year, to run off and take the precious moisture needed by crops.

(In high rainfall areas the volumes of water runoff can contribute to erosion.)

Where the soil is less hydrated, there is less buffering of adverse circumstances. The trees having less moisture than is stripped away by evaporation(also evapo-transporation, where plants are working to regulate their temperature), are vulnerable to dessicating winds and then a lightning strike fire can spread rapidly.

The crops being grown and how they are produced have an enormous effect. Growing huge fields of grasses so that harvesters can economically collect them, leaving exposed bare earth in their wake are responsible for tipping the balance between precipitation and evaporation. Versions of no-till farming where the soil isn't tolled and the stumble left can help to mitigate the water loss of soils.

You are unwilling to consider reality and the science behind what you are supporting. I think if I told you that you were going to get blown up by pressing the trigger button on a bomb you would say the same thing - you're fear mongering and have no evidence to support your claim that THIS button will cause that THING to blow up... until you press then bottom and BOOM! You're not there to argue the point any longer. It's called patterns, using wider knowledge of scientific mechanisms, broad knowledge verses than looking through a narrow crack. "Jurassic Park Philosophy", chaos theory, whatever. You choosing to BELEIVE that there won't be any issues with it doesn't make rational concerns based on scientific observations incorrect. People used to think playing with x-ray equipment was fun an non-consequential. Oh, but they were wrong about the effects of radiation on their bodies. But hey, lets radiate the crap out of plant cells and embed foreign DNA sequences - how could that possibly have any negative consequences. I think you're missing the Randian point of question everything and learn, don't blindly follow and simply believe. I'm using a lot of experience, scientific education, past experience with people trying to alter nature with bad consequences, etc... Not to mention the fact that I have consistently said that I don't want to ban GMO, and recognize that it does have some great potential - but my concern it that this potential could be good and bad and only time will tell us which if we keep playing with fire. But in life it seems most thing have their good and their bad - I think it would be very foolish to assume we will only see to good come of this. But hey, it's progress right ;)

Australian Story is a program that interviews people who have had successful careers and reviews how their life progressed.

It did a story about how two farmers, neighbours, that have fallen out because of GM Canola.

The transcript of part one is at:

www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2015/s419...

Titled "Seeds of Wrath", one farmer told his neighbour in 2008 about the possible effects GM would have on his Organic farm; in 2010-11 the neighbour planted GM Canola and seems surprised that he was given a legal document.

I have never read this article before - yet they state almost exactly every point I am making. And please note my points and arguments are based on my study of plants, understanding of science, and so on. I do not probe the internet looking for these argument - I did a quick search to find this just to give you something since my knowledge is not enough for you.
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/hea...

I studied aerospace engineering and computer engineering in college. Thought seriously about going into Botany as I have had a serious interest in plants since before my teens. I raise a garden, grow commercial crops, and have bonsai that I've had since high school (when I studied under a bonsai master with a botany degree (she even has one of her bonsai forests on loan in the National Arboretum in D.C.). I've been in IT (and just about every branch of it) for nearly the same time frame (30+ years). I also love and enjoy physics. My wife is a certified Biology Teacher and has had an interest and love of chemistry for nearly 25 years. But hey. What do I know ;)

I think that in this case 'natural' means "they way I am used to doing it". These things aren't natural, they involve human intervention in natural process called selective breeding. This is no more natural than Genetic Manipulation, it's just older.

I'm a big fan of Boxer dogs. Unfortunately the breed has a couple of common flaws one of which is a heart defect. Breeders are making significant efforts to remove these genes from the Boxer genome. This involves genetic testing and monitoring young animals for 48 hours for any heart arrhythmia prior to breeding.

This would have been a lot easier if they picked the genes they wanted to transfer rather than doing crosses to see what they get. Natural is not always safer.

As to foreign DNA, any viral infection will do that to you.

The problem is - this is not plant sex - it is cellular manipulation via radiation, insertion of heavy metals, implanting of completely foreign DNA. When two people have sex, they have a person. What are they if the embryo were genetically modified to include DNA for hair derived from corn silk, breasts from a pig, and brain material from a dolphin? This is not the same thing. Again you are talking about natural hybridization processes, not genetic engineering.

Ok, you are correct - not Monsanto in this case, but the actual farmer.
And, also, I agree - you cannot sue for damages without damage. I stated this somewhere else in this thread that I may have misunderstood to original issue. I thought the judge said in the case that he was staying the farmer from planting GMO seeds until the merits on the case were heard. But, if the case is that a non-GMO farmer is suing for damages when the damages have not actually occurred - that is wrong. I guess what I've been arguing for is more of an injunction against the someone being upheld until the merits of the case were heard. Not in relation for 'potential' damages.
And I agreed with your last comment. Farmers need to figure out how to work these issues out, but I think it will be very messy. I think there are too many grey areas that simply don't have good answers. Like how far apart they should keep their crops - 100', 200', 300', 500', a mile? Like I said in one of my other comments, pollinators like bees have a large travel area. Wind... How could you possibly measure that effect!?! Full, hazmat level, sealed greenhouses or high tunnels? This is just another of my concerns for GMO. It was much simpler with heirloom and hybrid, but even that has many of the same issues.

this is fear mongering with no evidence to support your claim: scary, unhealthy, long term side effects

That is a concern - but again, these white cottons were made white by selective breeding, not genetic engineering.
But, yes, even supposed "heirlooms" are nothing but natural hybrids. The idea that any of them are 'pure' is really a falsehood, BUT they were done through natural processes. Our modern hybrids - can be cross bred as well to produce other varieties and can be selectively chosen for certain characteristics. But blasting them with radiation, injecting them with heavy metals, introducing completely foreign DNA sequences is my issue...

But GMO pollen can contaminate other crops - producing seed which will grow new plants hybridized between the non-GMO and the GMO varieties. If that can happen then the fruit/seed also has the GMO modifications in it as well. If we eat the plants, or the fruits, we still get the modified DNA and then resulting changes brought forth in the plant and their fruit. I'm much more content with hybrids than GMO. I agree with the Jurassic Park philosophy too - these GMOs are scary - brilliant - but scary and only the future will tell what they will do/not do. I just think the idea that they can manipulate these things the way they are doing it and have any long term predictability as to the outcome is nothing more than wishful thinking at the expense of everyone who consumes them directly or indirectly.

If this is the same case, then Monsanto was harassing the farmer, because the GMO seeds don't propagate from year to year, so the farmer can't plant them the next year. If the seeds he had did propagate, then they weren't Monsanto's GMO seeds.

You are speaking on natural processes. And general these DNA moving events are still within the same type of organism - humans to humans, tomato to tomato, and so on. Not bug to corn or fungi to plant. And as is pointed out in the wiki article I pointed out earlier are generally over "an evolutionary time scale". It's is a slow process that gets the chance to stand the trial of time. Not by genetic engineering processes:
"Genetically engineered crops have genes added or removed using genetic engineering techniques,[29] originally including gene guns, electroporation, microinjection and agrobacterium. More recently, CRISPR and TALEN offered much more precise and convenient editing techniques.

Gene guns (a.k.a. biolistic) "shoot" (direct high energy particles or radiations against[30]) target genes into plant cells. It is the most common method. DNA is bound to tiny particles of gold or tungsten which are subsequently shot into plant tissue or single plant cells under high pressure. The accelerated particles penetrate both the cell wall and membranes. The DNA separates from the metal and is integrated into plant DNA inside the nucleus. This method has been applied successfully for many cultivated crops, especially monocots like wheat or maize, for which transformation using Agrobacterium tumefaciens has been less successful.[31] The major disadvantage of this procedure is that serious damage can be done to the cellular tissue.

Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation is another common technique. Agrobacteria are natural plant parasites, and their natural ability to transfer genes provides another engineering method. To create a suitable environment for themselves, these Agrobacteria insert their genes into plant hosts, resulting in a proliferation of modified plant cells near the soil level (crown gall). The genetic information for tumour growth is encoded on a mobile, circular DNA fragment (plasmid). When Agrobacterium infects a plant, it transfers this T-DNA to a random site in the plant genome. When used in genetic engineering the bacterial T-DNA is removed from the bacterial plasmid and replaced with the desired foreign gene. The bacterium is a vector, enabling transportation of foreign genes into plants. This method works especially well for dicotyledonous plants like potatoes, tomatoes, and tobacco. Agrobacteria infection is less successful in crops like wheat and maize.

Electroporation is used when the plant tissue does not contain cell walls. In this technique, "DNA enters the plant cells through miniature pores which are temporarily caused by electric pulses."

Microinjection directly injects the gene into the DNA."

again from the wiki I cited earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically...
What you are describing is more in line with hybridization and selective breeding - these are not inherently the same. It may introduce new characteristics, but almost exclusively with the same kind of things - whether it be dogs, cats, plants, etc... through their natural reproductive processes.
Bombarding cells with radiation and heavy metals laced with completely foreign DNA sequences is farm from benign.

The magic of sex is that every generation is inherently unique!

My point is that there has not been enough time given to study these issues and that each particular GMO items would have to have their own study as they are all inherently unique.

But they do confirm what I am saying in that they can contaminate neighboring crops. And they use distances of x number of feet to separate the growing areas. However, those numbers are arbitrary. Do you think bees only travel a few hundred feet when pollinating? Bees can have a mile or more travel radius. Granted - I think most bees don't travel that far unless under extreme conditions, but 500ft - 1000ft. Yes - probably fairly common. I have berry bushes that the suppliers say to keep 100ft or more apart from each other so pollinators won't travel between them and spread disease. So the same should apply to flower/tassel pollination, but this article suggests 200 or 300ft or so. But I know bees travel much larger distances... and how to measure to effect of wind... The point is - it happens. If my crop gets contaminated by another heirloom or hybrid crop - I could still sell them as non-GMO - but not when contamination by GMO.
It's nice that they are at least trying, but this article and the NPR article you posted do not invalidate my argument about additional costs and potential crop/seed loses. Whether many or most seed purchasers buy, does not resolve the issue for those who do.
The one article made the point that getting corn that doesn't have some amount of GMO in it now is difficult - if other GMO items like tomato, spinach, lettuce, etc... make their way into the market - this will be the end result with them too. It will make non-GMO strains more and more difficult to maintain as cross pollination will happen - and at further distances cited in this article.

Ok - that's starting to smell a bit more like piracy then

From the appeal decision:

"In 1996 a neighbour grew Roundup Ready Canola on a field diagonally adjacent to Schmeiser's field. In 1997, Mr. Schmeiser noticed that a large number of canola plants from seeds saved from the field survived his normal spraying with Roundup for weed control along road allowances. He tested a section of the field by spraying it with Roundup, and 60% of the plants survived. Seed from that crop was used to plant all of his fields in 1998."

Actually, read the second of khalling's links. The story seems to be different than that.

Jan