So, no peer-reviewed scientific studies that show that GMO are harmful?

'If you had a choice whether to eat a organic apple vs. an GMO apple, which would you eat? Don't tell me you don't care.'

I don't care. Go find me a GMO apple, or any GMO fruit/crop, and I will gladly eat it in front of you. Genetics is fluid. Every generation is slightly different. What difference does it make whether the genes are changed over a few years in a field or in a few years in a lab?

GMO corn already proven it causes infertility in pigs.

Farmers decide what seeds to buy and plant. They can choose non GMO. But some like the yields GMO offers. Better yield translates into increased income. Also, some choose GMO because they don't want to spray so much damn herbicide and pesticide.

Farmers and crop researchers have been trying to cross breed things like increased yields and pest resistance probably even before the plow was invented, so they've been manipulating genetics even before Mendel. So what gets a GMO label? Should wheat strains that wouldn't exist in nature from cross breeding be considered GMO? Nearly every breed of dog probably shouldn't exist in nature also. It's only because man has been cross breeding and inbreeding and then selecting. Is that any better or natural? Ever eaten a banana? Most bananas are seedless, thus they can only be grown by grafting. That means having humans intervene and cut off the branches of one plant species and then growing another plant species on it. How frankenstein is that?

And some farmers are forced into purchasing GMO seeds by aggressive pesticide and seed companies who wish to monopolise the food system. Pesticide Action Network is a grass roots organisation I used to work with who through investigations in India found shadowy middle men employed by Monsanto who would do all kinds of things to force farmers into buying their GMO "high yield" Bt cotton seeds. They would "convince" (read "force") farmers into buying their seeds which they advertised as having higher yields, more, drought resistance etc etc, but once planted the exact opposite was true, the seeds cost 3x the amount as normal, required huge amounts of Round up (another Monsanto product), caused lower yields and in many places made the land unsuitable for future crops that were not the same, locking the farmer into buying the seeds again. The destruction in India was shocking with farmers committing suicide, land ruined etc... seriously, read up all about them as they aren't a company you really want to be involved in our food systems:www.panna.org/[...]

naturalsociety.com/[...]

Bhutan To Be First Country to Go 100% Organic

If there was ever a nation that could see the purpose behind organic, sustainable farming, it would be a nation that is composed mostly of farmers.

What this comes down to is no GMO, no pesticides, no herbicides, no fluoride-based spray products, no Monsanto intrusion at all, and a whole lot of high quality food available for the 700,000 citizens of Bhutan.

Some lands in Bhutan have not even been touched with harsh chemicals of any kind, and traditional techniques are utilized to produce high yields without Monsanto dipping into the pockets of family farmers. This is in sharp contrast to India's farming community, which has been shafted by Monsanto and subsequently nicknamed the 'suicide belt' due to the rampant suicides that can be blamed in part by Monsanto-induced financial ruin.

Monsanto have some unethical business practices, to say the least.

just coz monsanto is bad, dont mean that gmo is bad. someone on here brought up yellow rice before, how gmo yellow rcie is saving thousands who would otherwise starve. so should these thousands die because we (rich overfed whitey) dont want gmo?

Really it depends on the motivations of the people creating GMO goods. Are they doing it to help people or make money? If it is the latter, my personal belief is it can quickly lead to a situation where moral choices get put behind financial ones. If it is done for the sole purpose of feeding people and money is NOT made from doing so (or only enough to cover costs), it may not be a bad thing.

One thing that recent history has taught us though is that Monsanto as a company is rotten through and through. The way they flout law, the death and destruction they cause... basically they are a poster child of Corporate greed with zero social/environmental responsibility. Unless you have seen their practices first hand (as I have), you probably aren't likely to believe it as the spin they mete out to counter their activities is selective, the moral antithesis of the real world and far reaching.

There is a distinct difference between hybridising animals (selective breeding) and literally tinkering with the DNA of animals/vegetables. A great example is Terminator seeds - I am of the opinion living things have a basic reproductive right and as a believer in evolution, removing that right has terrible moral implications. Just as we do not sterilise prisoners convicted of crimes (we believe in the right of reform and second chances), we should not reduce a living things ability to breed through artificial means with the purpose of making money. Such practices are abhorrent as they lead to devastation for already established food/economic/environmental/social systems.

I am OK with GMO as long as we apply a precautionary approach to their use and are able to adequately restrict movement of GMO goods. Unfortunately that runs in direct contradiction of the goals of a company like Monsanto who wish to (and pay people) to release GMO seeds with little thought as to the consequences.

@neddy: There is little peer-reviewed research available on the negatives of GMOs (though there are some out there). The main problem, however, is that the corporations who hold these patents severely restrict access to their seeds for research purposes. They often require disclosure about the aim of the research before granting access.

For some background on that controversy, see www.scientificamerican.com/[...]

and

e360.yale.edu/[...]

From what I know about GMOs, the act of gene splicing itself isn't necessarily harmful. But we need to look at the impact of each strain carefully before allowing them out into the fields on a massive scale. Unfortunately, it looks like we are on track to repeat many of the mistakes we made during the green revolution.