which is the other potential harm. What if all our corn was GMO, and Monsanto couldn't make more seed? Guess we have no more corn.
I'm not actually sure if the sterile aspect is true. I know a number of law suits on farmers from Monsanto has been specifically because the farm planted a second crop from GMO seed, and didn't pay Monsanto for that privilege.
I had heard that one-season seed was also a goal.

ehhhh, not completely accurate. AIDS.
One does not have to start the digestion process via the mouth.
Kids are giving themselves vodka enema to get drunk (who in the hell ever thought of that)
anyway, yes, that requires a viral delivery mechanism, I know, but, that is technically what a virus does, it delivers a genetic bundle to the cells which then incorporate them into your DNA. Most make us sick, and white blood cells take care of it, but not always.

AND, the farmer of the GMO, should have the crop insurance, to safe guard his neighbor, when he cast his seed upon the wind.
I'm note sure 1.5 miles is adequate. Bees will go further. The wind, who knows. Animals.
That's the thing, this is issue is soooo charged, yet, Monsanto is getting all the protection.

You are referring to 'Golden Rice'.
To date, it is the only success story. However, it was not modified to the same extent as corn, beets, soy, etc. Rice already contained beta-carotene. The just upped it's production in the rice.
The results of those studies are still some what debated. Many say that the rice had nothing to do blindness reduction. They cite, economic improvements probably contributed to improved diet, as one possible explanation.

It's a complicated issue, and this one is not a left or right one either.
The problem is, once this genie is out of the bottle, it doesn't come back.
Don't pat mankind on the back too quick for his ingenuity.

I don't think Monsanto should be given the legal right to spit on my food, and then turn around and charge me for it.

GMO is NOT cross pollination. That's how you get "Hybrid's" - nothing wrong with that.
GMO's require gene splicing. They take genes from fish (in some cases) and splice them with a food crop DNA.
In the case of the fish gene's, it was/is an attempt to make some crops more cold hardy.

The difference is in taken one zipper with 5 teeth per inch and trying to zip it to one that has 7 teeth per inch. Get a big enough pair of pliers and you can force them.

Cross Pollination is like inter-racial marriage (Black dude,and a white chick)
and GMO is like inter-species (white dude, and a chicken).

DDT was a result of the over-use of it, as later determined.

GMO - DDT = Apple, and PC's.

GMO is dangerous because their is no way to 'recall' the crop once it's released to the wind.
What if, 5 years from now, we do determine a real health risk, from the Corn, let's say. How do stop it from propagating? You gonna set the entire worlds corn crop on fire?? That's the problem.
Remember when "margarine" was better than butter. Forever, we were told that. OOOPS, is uses hydrogenated fats - they aren't so good. It's easy to get rid of Margarine.

This insanity has to stop before they poison us all and we can't reverse it.

I must agree with the thrust of this article. The genetic modification designed to make the plants endure a herbicide has two consequences. First, we ingest the gene when we eat the foodstuff. Second, you can bank of the foodstuff carrying a herbicide load that is far heavier than would otherwise be the case.

More to the point: seeds from these midified crops have broken out into the wild. There is the source of the contamination of which the article complains.

Part of being a good student of Objectivism is recognizing objective reality when it stares you in the face.

Amen, brother.
Actually genetic modification has been going on for centuries, but not by chemists.

Leave the government out of then. As it stands. the FDA is owned by Monsanto. Further, we wouldn't allow the CDC to release a modified strain of bacteria out of their lab (without an inoculation at least), why should monsanto be allowed to have their GMO free to propagate without a safety net?

Jury is still out on harm. We're getting super weeds now. New studies show, that GMO foods require just as much, or more weed killer, and fertilizer as the non-GMO crop.
Yes, Modified Corn Starch is everywhere, and it's expanding every day. As is Americans waist line, and our insulin dependence.

If you want GMO food, go for it. that's your choice (another Gulch Idea). Monsanto needs to be responsible for keeping their GMO from spreading. The non-GMO farmer has no chance of preventing Monsanto from pollenating his fields. It's a matter of who damaged who? As far as I'm concerned, Nature trumps science when it comes to "right-to-propagate'

Genetic modification has been taking place since before humans walked the planet. Cross-pollination creates new forms of plant life, and cross-breeding of animal species has done the same. Survival depends on adaptation, since predatory species target organic weaknesses in their targets, and the successful cross breeds are the survivors.

One GMO effort that was monumental in its impact was the development of corn/maize from barely edible grasses. The explosive growth of the Mayan, and Mississippian cultures was brought about by the spread of this Native American food technology.

GMO paranoia is second only to climate change obsession, with fear and propaganda displacing logic, facts and science. The idea that falsified proclamations of calamity could be successful in court was established by one of the world's worst murderers, Rachel Carson. DDT, which is harmless to humans and higher animal species, has been banned as an insecticide based on falsified and misinterpreted anecdotal "evidence", with the result being over 100 million African and Asian deaths from malaria since the late 1960s, topping the score of even Hitler, Mao, and Stalin as killers of their fellow humans.

I took one of your articles and here is a balanced article on the same study-this involving pigs.
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/06/st...
The largest factor in the validation of these types of studies seems to be the contractural agreements with those who purchase the seeds to not scientifically study them. This is due to the concern of reverse engineering. Companies spend billions in R&D and they want to protect their products. Overall, how is it in Monsanto's interest to put products on the market that overwhelmingly harm people?

these sources are highly biased.
Here are the facts:
1. Monsanto cannot force a farmer to buy their seeds. Farmers entered willingly into contracts with stipulations. Some farmers do not want to adhere to those stipulations.
2. Monsanto insidiously did get Congress to insert a law into an unrelated Bill that makes them teflon from farmers taking them to court. That is immoral and most likely your senators and representatives voted for it.
3. everything you're eating has been genetically modified. Years of research, FDA trials and approval have gone into the science. I can't take the time to go through these studies one by one and point out the bias-but I have done so many other times in this site.

New research on the harmful pathways of glyphosate by MIT researchers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_AHLDXF5...

The “evidence” you provide is from places like activistpost and ecopedia? Seriously? That is like doing firearms research on the website of the Brady Campaign.

I used to know a salesman for Monsanto. He made his living selling seed and fertilizer to farmers in Montana. He was also an honest guy. Here was the takeaways I got from talks with him.

#1. GMO has never been proven to cause either short-term or long-term health effects in humans in studies recognized by the FDA. This was even acknowledged by activists in the recent lawsuit against GMO sugarbeets in California.

#2. Monsanto's policies forbidding the practice of growing seed are way too heavy-handed. Suing farmers that accidentally get GMO seed in a neighboring field is ridiculous.

#3. GMO corn, soybeans, sugarbeets, and others have the potential to wipe out hunger in Africa. New strains require less water to grow, are easier to farm, and more resistant to common diseases and insects that threaten crops.

#4. One of the main reasons Roundup-ready seed is popular is because it makes it so that beginning farmers can still get good yields from their crops because they don't have to be quite as precise in the application of herbicides for weed control.

#5. You may not know this, but nearly every processed product on the market contains an ingredient labeled "modified food starch". That comes from GMO corn and has been used in commercial application for decades.

Should Monsanto be more lenient in its contracts for seed? I would lean that way. Is GMO a danger to humans? I haven't seen any real science demonstrating such.

As per the ideas of the Gulch, I would leave the government out of the matter. Allow farmers to use the product or not as they see fit. Allow consumers to buy the products as they see fit. In the case of some mass effect due to GMO, I fully support a lawsuit against the maker.

The thing that really gets me is that all you anti GMO goons do not realize that the existence of GMOs is due to your own bellyaching over pesticides. You convinced people that pesticides were going to kill everyone. Companies like Monsanto provided a profitable answer, GMOs. More GMO = less pesticides. Now you same people are claiming that GMOs are going to kill us all.

Are organics the best? Certainly, and if one can afford the higher cost of organics, by all means knock yourself out. I am sure you and your family will be better off for it.

What really grinds my gears is that people like you crusade against the use of GMOs completely ignoring the fact that most scientists agree we have no chance of feeding the 7.02+ billion and growing people on this Spaceship Earth without GMOs. You would condemn BILLIONS of people to starvation and death without concern, or any other solution.

Am I saying that Monsanto is great? No, I do not have a lot of confidence in them, mostly due to their treatment of organic farmers and their closed lipped methods of operation. However GMOs are here to stay, and necessary at this point.

Why post this here?