Isnt it completely obvious that somewhere down the line (decades, even centuries) there will INEVITABLY be all sorts of unintended biological consequences from the use of GM foods.

Pandoras box.

And what a hoot suggesting that such "foods" which will be available to the already poor especially as they are controlled by profit seeking multi-nationals, who already have an appalling malfeasance record. And a record of lies, bullying and manipulations are somehow going to turn out to be the benefactors of the starving masses, most of whom are starving because of the way the global food system is structured. And the wealth system altogether. Has anyone ever noticed that ALL the wealth already goes to the already wealthy.

Especially as it is their legal obligation of such companies to maximise the profits of the company for the benefits of their shareholders.

The consequences will be both out there in nature, via all sorts of mutations, and also more importantly, via the emergence of new weird and wonderful, and most probably untreatable, diseases in human beings.
And even genetic mutations in human beings too.

The same disease and mutation possibilities of course applies to other animals too,including the many members of the bird family.

Many humans can only slowly metabolize the fats from genetically modified foods.It can clog capillaries in the eye and result in blindness in vulnerable people.The fat collects in all parts of the body.Ask the fat Americans (there are millions of them)how good is the GM food they eat.

A well-reasoned article that makes a sensible contribution to the debate. We know that technological change can make a major contribution to the welfare of the poor - the green revolution showed that. GM has the potential to do the same, but we must weigh each case in turn, not let techophilia or technophobia blind us to the potential risks and potential benefits.

This is the most disingenuous article of the week. "Alarm-raising without evidence"? regards cross-polination & gene-flow? More studies required? Yes, let's have more studies, and more still, until we get the results we're hoping for.

Mobile phones and aeroplanes are optional. How they can be compared to food is beyond me.

Mate, the risk of not going GM is that the GM industry will make smaller profits. There are umpteeen articles on GM on this site. This adds zilch to the debate.

Ah yes. The plan's coming along nicely.

Keep calling opponents nutters and luddites and it's only a matter of time before Aussies will be captured by Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow and the other chemical companies.

These are the same monsters who invented organochlorines. These bioaccumulative chemicals have now pervaded every eco-system on the planet. These are the chemicals they dumped on the Vietnamese people who are paying dearly in perpetuity. Monsanto continued to flog Agent Orange to the US government knowing the health and environment risks.

These are the chemicals which are endocrine disruptors - mutagenic, teratogenic and carcinogenic.

These are the chemicals which have contaminated our food chain, soil, air and water. They do not break down.

These are the reasons for the Stockholm Convention - a desperate bid to rid countries of these dreadful poisons. Some 60 nations have ratified the agreement to eliminate or reduce their uses.

So now Monsanto et al must look for new markets. Now it's Roundup time (Glyphosate!) This stuff kills frogs. God knows what else since only time will tell but it can be sprayed up to 18 times without affecting the crop. Then we consume this "fresh" produce.

This GM technology has already been flogged off to developing countries - together with enticements.

In the meantime Messrs Gates and Rockefeller have it all worked out. An inaccessible vault of GM seeds in preparation for Doomsday!

In which decade will the bun fight begin?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7529