Now more then ever I’m convinced that genetically altering food is a great idea. Crops will be more resistant to weeds and insects making pesicides and herbicides less frequently used. This makes it cheaper for the farmer to grow his crops and less pollution in the form of harsh chemicals.
We’ve already got designer crops that were created to be resistant to a specific brand of herbicide. Genetically altered crops are here and they’re only going to get more popular. Yay science.
Marc
The OP is a typical vague and unsubstantiated rehashing of the typical corporate-PR soundbites in favor of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. On the bright side, however, some of his points are perfectly reasonable. On the downside, they barely scratch the surface of these extremely complex issues about biotechnology, global agriculture, and the environment. In case anybody wants to start a serious debate on the subject, here are some links to opinions exchanged in the Nation:
GM Food: Another View. A pro-GMO (although not rabidly so) discussion by Danny Kohl.
Letters. Various objections to and expansions of Kohl’s thesis (some thoughtful, some less so), and a response from Kohl.
Have fun!
Forgive me for saying huh?
I thought one of the problems of making herbicide- and pesticide-resistant crops is the fact that farmers then use more herbicide and pesticide without hurting yield, thereby increasing the amount absorbed by the plants and consumed by us.
Which is bad. (For us as produce-consumers. Great if you’re trying to make money farming.)
ay: *“We’ve already got designer crops that were created to be resistant to a specific brand of herbicide.”
Forgive me for saying huh?*
E.g., Roundup Ready crops, which are modified to be able to tolerant glyphosate herbicides which ordinarily kill anything and everything they hit. With Roundup Ready crops, farmers can spray Roundup (one such herbicide) and kill the weeds without killing the crop.
(Another potential problem, Giraffe, is said to be “escape” of the RR genes into wild species to create Roundup Ready “superweeds” which are also resistant to herbicides. But as with practically every other GMO issue, it seems to be still very unclear exactly how this will work or to what extent it’s actually happened.)
There are fields of cotton which are very difficult to kill with Roundup. So you can spray Roundup on the field and not be worried about harming your cash crop but at the same time kill the weeds.
Marc
I’ve got some weeds in my yard that seem Roundup resistant already! 
But seriously, a really good book if you’re interested in this discussion is Pandora’s Picnic Basket: The Potential and Hazards of Genetically Modified Foods, by Alan McHughen. I wrote a review of it, which can be found by clicking right here.
The author works in the field and tackles the pros and cons with rational objectivity.
One major concern with “designer crops” with built-in herbicide resistance or pesticide production (i.e. transgenic crops incorporating BT toxins) is that you risk the same problem we have with massive antibiotic use - ever more rapid development of resistance. A remedy that’s effective for many years with restrained patterns of application could become useless much more quickly if genetically engineered for use on a massive monoculture scale.
The warning signs are there for Roundup-Ready crops, and also for genetic engineering of BT toxin-producing crops.
Thanks to Kimstu for posting those links. I’ll look into them more when I can read about epistasis and pleiotropy without my eyes crossing. 
I have no specific objection to GM crops. It’s just that the whole idea makes me queasy.
Another of those ‘slippery slope’ issues. Next thing you know, the "non-chicken’ chicken UL will become reality.
And why are GM foods so label resistant?
Peace,
mangeorge
I can’t wait until were all paddling around in pea pod canoes and living in pumpkin houses.
Or running from killer tomatoes.
Oh wait, that’s been done.
Peace,
mangeorge
So! How 'bout that Golden Rice, eh?
mangeorge asked:
Because of public misunderstanding.
If everybody knew and completely understood the pros and cons of GM foods, then it wouldn’t be a problem. But they don’t. You have hysterical people saying ridiculous things. For example, in the book I mentioned above, the author relates a story of how an activist in Belgium got into an argument at a summit about genetically modified plants, and stormed out yelling, “You’ll never convince me to eat DNA!”
People have also heard things and believe them, whether or not they’re true. For example, genes from Brazil nuts have been put into soybeans. Has this caused widespread allergic reaction by people who have nut allergies? Despite some fear caused by media stories, the answer is no, and the author, whose own daughter has such an allergy, explains why.
So, would these fearful and uninformed people buy something that had a label on it? No. Even if there is absolutely nothing potentially harmful in it, they would not. That is why manufacturers don’t want to put specific labels on their products.
Oh, I understand that, David B. But even misinformed people have a right to know what they’re eating. A GM apple is not simply an apple, and we should know that. Same with BHT milk.
I don’t think that producers have a right to alter food, which they do to increase profits, and then try to fool us into thinking that everything’s as it was.
There’s a lot more to yellow rice than the commercials tell us, and some scientists are concerned about the ultimate effect of this ‘miracle’ product.
These guys, for example;
http://www.i-sis.org/rice.shtml
We cannot simply accept, with blind devotion, everything these companies hand us. That’s all.
Peace,
mangeorge
Time for a gedankenexperiment. Mosanto wants to create and market cotton that is resistant to Round-up. It does not go the GM route, but instead uses traditional horticultural methods. Over a five-year period, it grows crops of cotton, hits them with Round-up, and breeds (is that the right word in a plant context?) the survivors until it has created a new strain of cotton that is not affected by Round-up. It then markets the seeds.
You people opposed to GMO - would you be opposed to this as well? It’s the exact method that, over the centuries, created beefsteak tomatoes, silver queen corn, and MacIntosh apples. Is your beef the method or the results?
Sua
I think genetic engineering holds great promise for humanity if used wisely. But so far, it just seems to be being used to increase profit margins. I have no reason to think that Monsanto (for example) is thinking about the long range effects of genetic engineering.
For now, at the very least, we should label our food. I think people’s gut reaction to GMO’s should be telling us something.
Why aren’t these people proud to label their food as genetically modified?
**
Well let’s see. If you’re a farmer then you are very seriously concerned about the profit margin of your crops. They’re not farming out of the goodness of their hearts they are farming to make a living. So of course the first thing they’re trying to do is make it more profitable.
As to thinking that Monsanto isn’t looking towards the future that just isn’t true. Mosanto isn’t going to produce anything they think is bad for the farmers or bad for the consumers. They want to be in business for a long time to come.
There is some problem with food labeling. Aside from the fact that some people have been scared into believing it will harm them. A lot of food that is processed, such as bread, chips, or refried beans, get their raw materials from a variety of farmers from different parts of the country. So farmer A and B might be using GM seeds while farmer C isn’t. But they all sell their stuff to Frito-Lay, as an example, and it all ends up going to the same place.
Personally I’d still buy it if it were labeled. I think most people would as well. Unless they wanted to shell out the bucks for organic food. I honestly think GM crops will only increase in popularity.
Marc
On the one hand, labels don’t mean anything to the general public. Look at cigarettes, which have been labeled for thirty-plus years now and people still smoke despite the label. Nutritional labeling has been required for a while now and are people now healthier? No, they are in fact fatter and less healthy than ever. Labels do not impact what a person does or does not do.
On the other hand, a label on a GMO product would somehow mark it as “different” and therefore not as good as the non-GMO product. Corporations are loathe to admit anything they make can even possibly be harmful, especially food. Corporations are not known for their candor regarding the potential risks of their products. Look at the tobacco industry - it has still not admitted there is even a risk of cancer or anything else from smoking. Why should we expect another corporation to admit there is risk from one of its’ products?
I’ve run out of hands.
From bramble7278;
Yeah, right. Tell that to a diabetic.
Ok, that’s not fair. But a lot of people do use the information on food labels.
I still haven’t been able to find any info on the actual, per-unit, cost of labeling. I even googled. I need to know how much it costs the vinter to warn me about the sulfides in my bottle of wine!
Peace,
mangeorge
What a quaint picture you paint of the “farmer”. For the most part farmers are having a hard time competing with big business which has been taking over much of the farming industry. Many “farmers” are actually corporations farming for profits not “a living”. I’m under the impression that genetically modified farming is actually encouraging the dissapearance of the family farm. But I digress…
In relation to Monsanto,just what is you definition of a “long time to come”? If that means producing something that won’t lead to lawsuits you’re probably right. But I doubt they are asking questions like, “What are the long term effects of genetically modified pollen crossbreeding with local flora?”. We don’t know the answer to that and now the world is our test tube.
If most people don’t understand genetic engineering, how can they be expected to make a decision on it? We’re not ready as a society to deal with the implications. And really, I don’t think anyone is arguing that we really need genetic modification. So why not live without it?