Barry Commoner is 81 years old and a political activist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Commoner) -- hardly the most convincing authority for your claims. But it goes with the hysterical tone of this article:

"...is it human to even imagine in our most frightened dreams that food crops would be secret factories for vaccines, contraceptives, growth hormones and other designer drugs?"

And why not? Or are we supposed to insist that they have to be provided by animals, or other humans? And what's secret about it? -- after all, these are patented processes subject to government and public scrutiny.

Perhaps behind the hysteria there is some cause for concern: but nothing in this article persuades me of it.

On one hand the author tries to scare with the possibility of cross-contamination, then ends with the "terribleness" of sterile seeds. If we are going to go down the path of GM crops I think that sterility is a great idea - although this should also be build into pollen to avoid cross-contamination.

There is also the take on "essential food crops" being used for drug production. Ummm, tobacco is not an essential food crop mate. Sometimes its useful to have your work edited by a critic. Not to mention that many of the worlds drugs are based on plant chemicals - apparently we need to stop the destruction of the amazon because of all the potential cancer-cures lurking in the shadows (ok, we should stop deforestation anyway, but you get the point).

The bit about zimbabwe not accepting US corn beig "probably" due to fears about GM are very interesting - either you know that was a reason or you dont. The government there isnt known for caring about its people and whether they live or die anyway. It would probably be more correct to suggest that the US offered corn with the conditions that free elections were held, and Mugabe stuck up his middle finger.

A lot of hype for the most part. I have no trouble with being cautious, but we need to be a bit rational too.

(I haven't yet had time to read this most timely article, so this contribution won't do it justice. However, ...)

I have changed recently from being an agnostic in regard to GM into an opponent as a result of having read the article "Using the Internet to get yourself up to speed on the half-truths of the GM crop and food lobby" at http://candobetter.org/node/627

In this article, and in the comments at the end you will find testimony of representatives of Japanese consumers who recently made the effort to travel to Western Australia to persuade farmers and the Government NOT to allow GM canola. One reason is that it is impossible to to stop GM canola from contaminating non-GM canola. Here are the words of just one Japanese consumer of WA canola:

http://candobetter.org/node/627#comment-994
"It is impossible for GM and non-GM crops to co-exist. Farmers will not be neighbours anymore, they will be enemies, aided and abetted by Monsanto's lawyers. Allowing GM farming means the guy next door who wants to stay non-GM will be in constant fear of contamination. ..."

"...

"Only four countries (US 53%, Argentine 18%, Brazil 11.5% and Canada 6.1%) currently farm 90% of the GM crops. The rest of the world continues to say NO THANK YOU.

"I hope Australia will continue to ban GM farming."

See also "G8 biofuelling biofeudalism" at http://candobetter.org/node/701

I am a believer in diversity.

When the world is reliant on a couple of dozen basic crops as staples; rice, wheat, maize, oats etc. and the most efficient variety is a single variety (engineered or natural) when a blight occurs the devastation is far more radical than if a diversity of varieties are depended upon.

Example the Irish potato famine was the result of a blight which affected only one variety of potato, not all varieties.

I note an American is presently stocking a deep hole in northern Scandinavia with a library of different seed stocks, every different variety he can get his hands on, for this very reason.

I see the possibility of genetic engineers greatly enhancing the productivity of farm production and thus food stocks.

I recognize the genetic modification of these food crops can be for good or harmful effects introducing a genetically engineered human contraceptive within a crop is a case which could be argued both ways.

The control and ownership of seed stocks by a few corporations is another danger which the world does not need. Diversity of proprietary interest being as important as diversity of seeds. This can and will be fixed by the will of government legislature.

But more important than all that, the biggest single danger is

The consequence of the unforeseen and unintentional.

We have scientists advising governments, pretending they can influence weather patterns and insisting we pay a carbon tax, without knowing the consequences of their actions.

We have scientists engineering crops supposedly for the good of humanity, without knowing the consequences of their actions.

I think both are equally foolhardy ventures and should be questioned and possibly resisted by any person capable of thinking for and beyond themselves

Oh Gosh.

And I thought the author’s previous offering of Perpetual Hunger was poorly researched.

“However, by moving the Bt gene into the alien environment of corn, in addition to the insect-killing protein, the Bt gene could give birth, and often does give birth, to dozens of other proteins with unpredictable behaviours and possibly toxic effects on human health and nature.” No it doesn’t. If it did, these proteins would be able to be found. They haven’t.

“We suspect that genetic engineering is causing trouble not because we have results from studies, which barely exist, but from the failures of experiments. Clones are not doing well.” Clones are not genetically engineered.

“Zimbabwe rejected the humanitarian food from the US probably because of the near certainty that such GM corn, if planted, would contaminate its own corn with undesirable traits and which would have long-term dangerous consequences for food security.” No they didn’t. Zimbabwe and Zambia were concerned about markets in Europe and were told by European activists they would lose their meat trade to Europe if they accepted GM food aid from the US.

“This is particularly true in the genetic engineers’ production of sterile seeds, which, should they ever reach the market, would force both the farmers and peasants to buy new seeds every growing season.” No they wouldn’t. Farmers who grow high-yielding hybrid crops have to buy seed every year anyway. Also no one forces farmers to buy anyone’s seed in particular. They can buy seed from whomever they like, provided the transaction is legal.

“This green giant of high tech (genetic engineering) will very likely stumble and fall primarily because it is an immoral intervention in agriculture, without doubt the most sacred of all life-giving traditions.” If agriculture is the most sacred of all life-giving traditions, why isn’t the author out hand weeding crops and squashing bugs instead of writing this tripe?

The premise of this article is entirely factual. Deny it all you want, but morons who support GE in the manner (cross contamination is a fact, for one) of it's currrent use are like the idiot farmers who once were clamouring for the cane toad. Uneducated, opinionated morons ruining things all the time. Keep it up, guys. This is why the Murray Darling was ruined. You should all be shot.