Greenpeace is a very strange organisation. It has a profoundly anti-capitalist hidden agenda, which includes opposition to corporations and any sort of mining. I am sure that most of their opposition to GM food stems mainly from the corporatised nature of GM seeds. The application of their anti-mining policy is more interesting. In Australia, it is mainly confined to uranium mining, but with some spill-over from the anti coal mining campaign in Europe. Their success in having their anti-mining policy incorporated into the Kyoto Protocol was remarkable (In the protocol, blame for emitting global warming gases does not lie with the country that burns the coal, but with the country that mines it, if they are in Annex One). They closely follow the precept laid down by the notorious Nazi leader in the Sudetenland, who said "We must make demands that cannot be satisfied". The amount of spin and propaganda today seems to becoming overwhelming, or is it just that I am becoming old and cynical?

Philosophically I have a preference for traditional plant breeding; but admit to admiration for GM's capability to speed up processes and to introduce other aspects (beneficial or otherwise).
I have serious concerns on two fronts.
First is perhaps GM's potential to place a perilous dependence upon GM-developed plants at the expense of the biological diversity inherent in displaced traditional varieties. Second is the possibility that success in early stages could build complacency in humanity so that we continue further, down our blind alley of unsustainable numbers, to an even more parlous position.
As for Golden Rice, it sounds great. But rice grows in a multitude of environments;from lowlands to frost-prone highlands, from swamps to slopes. It has about a thousand varieties. To what extent can Vitamin A enhancement be introduced to all of these, and if so with what deleterious effects for production? For that matter, to what extent do rice-consuming societies eat polished white rice rather than the traditional unpolished "brown" of the times of their grandparents' childhoods? Is Golden Rice a saviour for the rice-growing family, or only for urban dwellers buying processed grain? I do not wish to knock Golden Rice, but wonder is it but masking a bundle of social problems for communities overburdened by the sheer weight of their own numbers.

It is common to see the pro-GM industry stretch the benefits of GM out of all proportion. David is obviously not aware, or refusing to acknowledge, that some countries (eg. Indonesia) fortify their non-GM grain with vitamins and minerals (including iron) at a cost of less than a cigarette/per person/per day. Consumers now can purchase Omega 3 off the shelf or even find products like bread that have Omega 3 added.
You certainly do not need GM techniques to gain this benefit... but of course these more basic and cheaper methods do not carry the "benefits" to investors that are associated with the intellectual property, patent rights and corporate control associated with GM crops. These investor benefits spin off to scientist such as Mr Tribe who are currently faced with the dilemma of reduction in government funding and a requirement to be cost-recovery based. Investors aren't interested in common good and less profitable non-GM plant breeding covered by the plant breeder rights rather than patents despite the huge advances in biotechnology which has the potential to shortcut conventional plant breeding by 5-7 years.
Endless problems are associated with GM. One problem relates to mistrust for scientists tinkering with the DNA of our food when scientists still consider the majority of the DNA to be "junk" simply because they don't know what it does. Scientists can't say GM methods are precise when they are introducing a gene (or lots of single genes because the number is not controlled) plus viral promoters and/or bacteria. Scientists don't control where the foreign gene lands and the success rate is very low.
CSIRO recently found new allergens in their GM peas that has the potential to cause health problems. These tests should be compulsory, not voluntary.
I think it is time the GM debate matured beyond the optimistic fantasy of "gotta have it cause its gunna be good".

I've got a problem with the Corporate copyright of grains which does not give poor growers viable seed for resowing. Whilst Monsanto can monopolise the production of such GM modified grains I want nothing to do with them.
I am in favour of maintaining the widest possible choice of variety. I already experience disappointment with current varieties such as rock Melon and pumpkin.
Rockmelons have been modified to produce a certain size,that are tasteless in comparison to older varieties and harvested when they are still green.
I havent been able to buy a decent pumpkin that wont shrivel to nothing when baked.
I feel for younger generations who havent experienced produce that hasn't been modified.

"First is perhaps GM's potential to place a perilous dependence upon GM-developed plants at the expense of the biological diversity inherent in displaced traditional varieties."
#GMO Pundit: GM methods actually can help increase crop diversity, and with the advent of GM soybeans in the USA, crop variety numbers have increased. With Golden Rice, breeders in several different Asian countries are now cross breeding the first Golden Rice with diverse local varieties. This all underlines the fact that GM doesn’t necessarily mean less biodiversity or displacement of existing varieties. And also, GM methods (transgenes) actually allow biodiversity to be increased for the traits – stress resistance, disease resistance, pest resistance - that most matter. Conventional and GM are complementary- GM traits need good conventional breeds to be successful. For instance in Australian cotton industry, partnership between traditional breeders and GM breeders were crucial for success.

"David is obviously not aware, or refusing to acknowledge, that some countries (eg. Indonesia) fortify their non-GM grain with vitamins and minerals (including iron) at a cost of less than a cigarette/per person/per day."
#GMO Pundit : Yes vitamin and mineral fortification to harsted grain is a good idea, but Vitamin A is not currently delivered in this way, and I suspect that it is not the best way to do address this issue, because seeds that enable vitamin A to be made in the crop are very economically self-sustaining. Once the farmers have the seed, there are no extra costs, season after season, unlike the situation with adding vitamins to harvested grain. The seed for the poor is essentially being given away, and in the case of Golden Rice, this does not mean corporate control.

GMO Pundit gmopundit.blogspot.com

If GM is so good, you would think that after decades of research farmers would be offered more than crops that are chemical resistant (just like our existing non-GM chemical resistant crops) or are Bt (produce their own insecticide).
Why not do the health testing that consumers want? It appears that anybody that does do intergenerational feeding trials followed by careful analysis of immunology, organs etc finds a rather serious problem occurring with GM foods.
Considering GM crops are not able to be recalled, we have the potential to have a major problem. Why be in such a rush to permanently contaminated the worlds food supply with a product that has building evidence of serious immunology problems?
If the company that owned the license over this product was liable for any health or economic damage caused by it, I am sure they would be far more reluctant to pressure for commercial release.