It's not really a question of whether you think it's safe, it's a question of whether consumers have the right to know what they're eating. Personally I think they should have that right. It's pretty hard to argue that we shouldn't tell people what they're eating, unless you make money by growing/selling it or you're a federal bureaucrat taking donations from those who do.

Starving people? Give them access to growing their own foods and once they see what GMO's do to a body they will choose heirloom/natural any day.

HA HA HA. You see, if people know better they seek the truth that quackery tries to slide of hand.

Sorry,no customer here to gmo.

The GM companies are responsible for testing and reporting their own results to the FDA. It is a farce. There are more people with cancer than ever before... certainly there is some connection in this whole cycle.

Those of you who are FOR GMO's obviously have no freeking clue what you are talking about.

The tests on animals PROVE they are different, and potentially deadly. There is so much proof out there that the US public doesn't hear it's staggering.

Most of Europe have banned these foods and in the countries that don't ban it, they at least label the products so consumers know what they are eating.

Do yourself a favor and read Genetic Roulette and Seeds of Deception by Jeffrey Smith. Watch 'The world according to Monsanto'.

As for being a sustainable crop, that is also false. There are superweeds that are now roundup ready and can't be killed. The Roundup is destroying the land and making 'dead zones' that nothing grows in anymore.

Monsanto (aka the FDA) should all be tried for crimes against humanity.

This is a travesty of our food system and it's getting worse.

This is what happens when our government is owned by corporations with lobbyists and in the case of the FDA, most of the superiors are in fact former Monsanto employees. This is a serious conflict of interest with YOU paying the price with your health.

Welcome to corporate greed that is backed by the US government.

And btw, GMO corn is registered as an herbicide. It makes BT Toxins and those genes responsible for that CAN transfer to YOUR gut bacteria making your gut produce an herbicide inside you.

Then people wonder why they are sick.

Wake up....

You can side-step most of their shenanigans immediately without the government banning GMO items. It's easy:

• Grow a garden
• Buy local ORGANIC at farmers' markets or a natural food store
• DO NOT buy anything with corn syrup in it
• Make more meals with ingredients you purchase yourself or grow
• VOTE WITH YOUR WALLET - get 'em where they'll feel it
• Do NOT wait for the government to solve your problem
• And remember the definition of insanity? Doing something over and over again and expecting different results. Expecting our gov't to do something different while we wait is a form of insanity. The CEOs and shareholders wait to be paid so companies WILL continue to do what they do.
• Much easier to step away from it than to expect a major overhaul of policy.

I will tell you that most farmers are already farming with their testicles in a vice. They're leveraged and mortgaged and overloaned so deep that the only way to keep on from year to year is to continue to buy HYBRID GMO seed grains plus all the PETROLEUM related inputs needed to force the crop to grow. I have personally seen the DEAD soils in my area of the mid-west. Terrifying.

With the new Food Safety Bill that was just passed, growing a garden is now much harder and for organic farmers, it creates a massive amount of government BS they must go through to remain in business.

Make no mistake, this was done on purpose for that reason alone. When the FDA is subsidiary of Monsanto, small farmers lose.

Now they want GMO Alfalfa out on the market, despite a federal judges order not to. Why? MONEY. Alfalfa is a crop that doesn't need herbicides or pesticides to grow so why GMO it? Another attack on organics. Now to get organic meat you will have to be very careful since alfalfa grows wild and will easily contaminate the fields of organic farms.

People need to SCREAM for the FDA to stop this madness before ALL your food will create sickness and chronic illness.

YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT

Here is a video EVERYONE should watch.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5559950370092458530&hl=en#docid=3015279868041217732

checkerberry from 1.3 above - In my grandma's day it was standard practice to brag about EXACTLY what corn one was buying when they bought a can of corn.

The canning company was proud to let us know that we were buying say, "White Shoepeg" type sweet corn.

This sort of labeling would inspire consumers. I for one would like to see it come back. How hard would it be to add a couple of lines of text to a bag of frozen peas so we would know they were "Little Marvel" peas. Or a bag of frozen green beans might say "Kentucky Wonder."

Too difficult? Guess so . . .

The only way to know what I'm about to eat is to BUY FROM A LOCAL GROWER OR EVEN BETTER, GROW MY GARDEN AGAIN THIS SPRING.

"Kerry-257967

Starving people? Give them access to growing their own foods and once they see what GMO's do to a body they will choose heirloom/natural any day."

The way I see it, you will have 3 choices.

. Eat the GM food

. Pay more for the non-GM food, since it costs more to grow and is, probably, less healthy

. Grow your own

Puddleduck....even if you grow your own, which is an admirable thing to do, chances are, you're buying seed stock that's still owned and GM'd by Monsanto. Unless of course you're lucky enough to find some really good heirloom seeds. They have a virtual lock on a hell of a lot more than people think, which makes it more scary for the consumer.

I'm not a huge activist and I'll continue to eat it until I die, because it is cheap and I'm well aware that I'm going to die from something someday. But I would have a hard time convincing someone that it is safe when their products have been banned in Canada, Germany, Australia, France, New Zealand.......

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,618913,00.html

Well, I was going to post news articles on it, but there are too many to choose from. I'll give you the wiki link who convienently list tons of articles for me :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto

It's already been referenced, but go to: seedsofdeception.com. The book itself, Seeds of Deception, will scare the potty water out of you.

Yes, our foods have been naturally modified over the years. However, what these folks fail to tell you is that the mutations - and that is exactly what they are creating - rarely survive in nature. GMO's are mutations and the method by which they are created is hardly the surgical procedure the Monsanto's of the world would like you to believe. One doesn't just take a scalpel and carefully insert a gene. For Pete's sake, genes are virtually invisible. The mods are blasted into the DNA. Please read about this and make your decision.

How about this little tidbit? A modified grain produces its own insecticide. Isn't that great? Consider this. Is it a food or an insecticide? There's an argument about that right now. Who regulates it?

How about this? Starlink corn. Go look it up. On one hand these noble GMO folks tell us there's no worry. Hey, this stuff doesn't cross pollinate. Really? Just what is Mother Nature's mechanism? Just asking. Maybe the answer can be found in the fact that these GMO's manage to find their way into the food supply. No cross-pollination? Really?

Try this baby in a search engine: Corn + Monarch butterfly.

Finally, consider this. Homo sapiens are not butterflies. We are not chimps, trees, horses, dolphins, or radishes - but we share a great number of genes. This is the essence of our being. It's great to make the noble case that this is about saving mankind! Really? We don't even know how or when life began, but these guys sure know how to end it. Saving mankind or making money? It's your life that's at stake.

ROY WILSON-336103

You are confused.

What you're referring to is the genetic selection used in the long, slow development of many crops such as wheat, which originally began as a grass but was shaped generation after generation through the selection of larger seeds, ultimately leading to modern-day wheat.

This stands in stark contrast to genetic engineering, which is the
artificial inserting of genetic code (often from animal species, by the way)
into the DNA of a plant. This is a completely artificial, interventionist
"engineering" of the DNA of a plant that wildly differs from mere
genetic "selection."

GMO poison pushers attempt to confuse people with these terms by claiming that
"lots of foods are genetically modified," thereby blurring the distinction between genetic selection versus genetic engineering. I've even heard top-level scientists attempt to use this false argument, hoping that no one will notice.

The simple truth is that genetic selection works in harmony with natural
processes of gene variation within a species. If you grow corn, and you save
the seeds from your best-tasting corn to plant the next generation of corn, you
are engaged in genetic selection. This is natural.

Organics are en excellent source of e-coli, salmonella and other food borne pathogens. If you enjoy diarrhea and other enjoyable side effects of food poisoning then organics are your best bet.

Huh? Says who? I happen to eat nothing but organic and suffer from none of the things you list. How is it exactly that you propose organics are more susceptible to these pathogens than "conventional" (i.e., GMO and poisoned) crops?

There seem to be some confused people here who contend that use of GMO seed results in less use of poisons. In fact, the opposite occurs because the GMO crops (many produced by Monstanto) can withstand Round-Up (also produced by Monsanto -- very convenient...one-stop shopping!); therefore, you can dump a hell of a lot more Round-Up on your crops to take out more weeds (that is, before the weeds adapt to the poison and become "superweeds") without harming the Frankenfood plants. More GMO = more herbicides.

Also, it's my understanding that the gene modifications in GMO crops are unstable; they mutate in unexpected ways from one generation to the next. (See the Jeffrey Smith book referenced above.)

I agree with Hope. Opt out of the insanity. Yes, it may take more time and more work to find, buy, or grow organic. Sometimes it takes a little bit more money. Cut back on something else. Make health your priority. The government has already been bought, so we aren't going to find any help there. Vote with your wallet. That's the only way we can turn this around. If we don't buy it, they won't grow it. If others want to play Russian roulette with their genes (and perhaps wind up harboring pesticide-generating critters in their guts, as mentioned above -- I've read about that, too, by the way), so be it.

Back in the "old days" when farms weren't 1000's of acres, people used to cultivated (dig up the soil between rows of crop) and "walk beans" where you had a crew of usually teenagers and took 4 rows at a time and either pulled or chopped off weeds with hoes. Somehow people are thinking that that uses more chemicals?

Maybe farms need to get smaller so that the farmers can actually take care of their crops. The way things stand now, these big corporations are buying up all the land (at prices that are unimaginable). Then they look for ways of screwing the workers that care for it and the consumers that buy it. The last few years, i have never seen so much corn left standing in the fields because the owner didn't have time to harvest it. Then they can write it off as a loss because it didn't produce as well as it should have.

This issue doesn't have anything to do with whether or not GM foods are safe, it has EVERYTHING to do with giving consumer's full disclosure or withholding it from them. I believe consumers have a right to know as much as they want to about the merchandise they buy. I have yet to find a valid arguement in favor of withholding information from consumers about the products they buy.

There is a mis-conception that there is a difference between the natural selection process and the gene-splicing techniques used to give the characteristics of one organism to another. A lot of this has to do with confusion with selective breeding.

Selective breeding is where a husband of a plant or animal selects a particular characteristic and then reinforces it generation after generation. Look at dogs -- the process of selective breeding is on-going. Plants have been bred and hybridized for all sorts of characteristics for thousands of years. This is just natural evolution and guided selection.

But natural selection does not always work like selective breeding. Very often pieces of random genetic material are snipped from one organism and implanted in another organism. The most common way this is done is by viruses. This is how viruses cause cancer. This is how the flu virus mutates as it passes from bird to pig to man. And this is a major way that organisms mutate naturally.

The most common UNNATURAL way of modifying plants and animals is hybridization. Hybrid plants (like hybrid corns) cannot produce fertile corn. This is a very desirable trait if you sell seed corn. A jack and a jenny make a mule. A mule is sterile, so the only way you can make one is by hybridization.

But genetic modification is plants and potentially animals is much more similar to genetic naturally genetic mutation by viruses than it is to either selective breeding or hybridization. And it is considerably more "natural" than hybridization which produces fatally flawed plants and critters.

The idea if taking a desirable gene and inserting it into a plant is not new and is patterned after nature. In fact, in some instances, viruses are used to move the genetic material just as in nature.

I do believe that people have a right to know what they are eating, but there are much more serious issues afoot than than genetic engineering. Massive imports of food from other countries bring with it banned pesticides and insecticides and herbicides and fungicides that are extremely dangerous and the FDA is insufficiently manned to stop it. The imported foods bring in insects and diseases to which local plants and animals have no resistance. This causes more and insecticides and pesticides to be used. So-called "organic" foods are defined in such a way that over 90% of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, pesticides , fertilizers, and other chemicals are approved for use and still call the food "organic." (This is because any chemical derived from a naturally occurring plant compound is okay. Virtually all such chemicals are created by mimicking a naturally occurring plant protein, so they are all okay. Especially if they don't tell you.) And because food production is not keeping up with population growth, people are starving.

It is not genetic modification that I see is a problem. It is not telling people so they can choose. It is misleading the public that is wrong. It is allowing corporate control of the food supply so that corporate greed becomes the driving force and commoditization becomes the method that is wrong.

We have people in this world to feed and genetic modification, if properly used and scientifically vetted, is just one tool than can help. But leaving our food in the hands of corporations is not the way. Already, if you eat anything containing corn or products made from corn (including high fructose corn syrup), or soybeans or anything made from soybeans (which is even a longer list) you are already eating genetically modified food and have no choice. You gave up your right to choose when you put ADM and ConAgra in charge of your food.

I'm a farm boy and can grown most of my own food (and do grow a lot). But it is shocking how little people know about how food is grown, how seeds are produced and sold, how selective breeding and hybridization work and where food comes from.

All they see is the word "genetic" and it scares them because they have no idea what is being discussed. And then they see the word "organic" and think everything of all right again. Both views are equally wrong.

It is absolutely VITAL that BigAgra (read Monsanto) tell us what they are doing with our food!! At the very least, we can protect ourselves by understanding the barcodes for produce. Here's what they mean:

Labeling Standards for North America

Organic produce has a five-digit number beginning with a 9. Organic bananas, for example, would be given the designation of 94011.

Conventional produce has a four-digit number beginning with a 3 or 4. Therefore, the number on conventionally grown bananas would be 4011.

Genetically engineered produce also has a five-digit number on the label and begins with an 8. Again, the number on genetically altered bananas would be 84011.

Print this out and put it on your refrigerator.

more info at this website: http://www.innvista.com/health/foods/organics/labeling.htm

Chris 749391

There are many false things in your post. Hybridization of two corn varieties does not result in infertile corn. not at all, if it did corn would of died out long long ago as it is a HEAVY outcrossing plant.

In actual reality if you crossed a red earred corn to a blue one lets say, youd end up with a "hybrid" of those two varieties. If you used the same parents for each side(the male is the pollen donor and the female the one you take the pollinated seed from) you would end up with traits from both parents. you would get the SAME hybrid every time you crosses them in the same way.

If you grow out the seeds from there you will start seeing all the variation present in both parents. Including sometimes new or unnoticed recessives or mutations, and also you can over time use this to select out and recombine the desirable traits that were the reason you crossed both of those varieties......

Also the way viruses become part of the genetics of an organism is nothing remotely like the genetic splicing in question. It sounded good to one of the industries propagandists, and it stuck thats all. The processes are vastly different and relate with different types of genetic transfer......

Let us not forget these things have not been fully tested. in the ONLY tests done outside of the industry, they have proven completely unsafe. Several of the mainstays actually. Heck the GM cotton even messes with farmers who grow it, let alone drops yields greatly and having more pest issues.

Roy wilson....

Whether you realize it or not, everything you said was completely false. Gms have NEVER been fully tested. The small sets of tests we do have show them completely unsafe. These are not considered conclusive yet, well because the industry pulled strings and made most of them go away actually. Many lost their jobs... If you actually dig into it, I promise you without a shadow of doubt you would change your tune.

Unniversity of Chicago student.

Perhaps you should study the topic OUTSIDE of the info put out by those making billions and buying governments around the world to force themselves into and over markets....

Yields have NOT gone up with GMs. Not at all. Pesticide usage has went up drastically though. It is a cold hard fact that they try real hard to bury, but the truth is still there to be seen if you look.

As a plant breeder I can tell you without a shadow of doubt, GM style breeding within the same genus alone which actually WOULD be no or little different then conventional breeding, COULD greatly enhance yield and enable us amazing avenues of production. I could go on for hours actually.

This is not remotely the goal. It is exceedingly clear. There are standard varieties that blow them away, and solid indication if yield was the goal it could be greatly enhanced.

Years AFTER releasing these things they made those claims, not before. Because of course it is not true nor was the goal. It was a tactic by a PR agent, and apparently it even works on college students....

So all you fellow lab rats out there, keep in mind these things have NOT undergone actual long term tests!!! The few tests not performed by the industry make it very clear there is major issues. Including being nearly 100 sterile in the 3rd generation of mice eating GM soy..... Oh yeah we arent likely to get to many more studies anytime soon, because to grow them you have to sign a contract that says you wont share or grow or save those seeds. the companies refuse to share with researchers so much of it is being studied on YOU. Of course since it is not labeled no one would be able to pinpoint that they are causing issues anyway....

These agreements the farmers sign on the seeds also attempt to leave the farmers not the companies accountable for any issues the seeds create.... gee i wonder why non GM seed doesn't need such a signing agreement?

Check your sources, MmmMmmBeer...(thanks for the list, though...interesting reading). I mean...any one who stands to profit from genetic engineering will obviously be for GMOs.

Just looking at them briefly, many are from GE companies, BioTech journals or Big Food lobbyist group-funded websites (National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy is funded by Kellogg's...says so on their website). Other references are outdated. Super weeds, etc were after some of those reports were written.

These are probably the same sources that were fed to the USDA for the recent Alfalfa fiasco.

GE is inevitable with our corporate food industry (as scary as that is...), but the consumer should be allowed to know where their food comes from.

So tearing down a forest to put up a shopping mall isn't "diverging from nature"? how about selectively breeding cattle, rice, and corn over the past thousand years? Humans have been changing, modifying, and destroying nature since the day we evolved those abilities. GM foods can actually help feed our ever-expanding population, and use less land so that we can keep building more shopping malls!

There are plenty of places on this earth that does not call for deforestation to growfood. It comes down to what are you willing to do to work for your food.

There are plenty of places in the world that all it take s is better husbandry and the earth will sustain more people then we currently have on this planet.

read post #17, real facts from a real grower.

But you're right, we have tons of space to grow crops once we adopt GM. That's because GM seeds can be designed to grow in marginal lands, arid lands, swampy land, and even in salt water!

Still fake crap.

You can have it I will not buy it. That is why I grow heirloom seeds for my produce. And yes I can tell the difference.

No one is forcing you to buy GM foods. When you go to the grocery store, just don't buy corn or soybeans. It's just that simple.

Puddle....no, it's not that simple because it's more than just corn or soybeans. It's almost any crop a farmer plants, and you buy, from alfalfa to asperagus, beans to bananas. Bananas by the way, grown commercially, are ALL clones. They can't even reproduce anymore because "GMO is the way to go" bs we've adopted.

chuck---- this has always been true of banannas!!! that is just the type of plant it is. all those apples and pears and peaches in the store are clonal as well. We spread the desirable varieties through cuttings and grafting...

MmmMmmbeer- conventional breeding does all those things as well first of all. Second the GM guys arent trying to do more then a small fraction of what they could in that regard. Their salt tolerant crops though bring up a new issue. those were designed not for naturally saltier soils, they were made for OUR farmlands drenched in synthetic ferts. which build up salt over decades. Slowly these lands WILL shut down.... They literally are all ready starting to. So instead of fixing the problem they are breeding a bandaid in salt tolerant crops. this will ensure another generation before the soil is possibly unsalvagable.

I understand I am saying this well ahead of the curve. But trust me in 10-30 years, what i am saying here about the salts will be more common knowledge as the farms start shutting down.

Do all of you folks realize organics can be CHEAPER!!! Farmers now rely on all outside inputs. I could go at length explaining how the fallacy of synthetic ferts was built AND why the current shape of the organic movement is rather pathetic..... but basically it boils down to the fact you CAN manage fertility on site, by better utilizing KNOWN things. a forest does not loose fertility, and nether does a prairie. We can replicate WHY those do not loose fertility in our farms... Indeed both of those things generally build fertility, as soil is slowly built another process we can purposely pursue.

the vast majority of approved GM crops have NOTHING to do with growing in dry climates, or salt water. NONE of them. the union of concerned scientists actually state that conventional breeding out performs GE hands down.

over 95% of GE crops are made to withstand toxic herbicides or contain an insecticide.

It's actually the exact opposite, GM food costs less to make and distribute, but consumers will often pay a premium for "organic" label. I agree we should be informed before eating any food or taking any medication. The news is not an educational source. Try googlescholar, or if you have access, pubmed.

It does not make a difference if it is cheaper. If it tastes crappy, causes nausea or regurgitation, or un-healthy side effects it is not needed. It comes down to who you rely on, nature or man. I chose nature any day.

Huh that's funny, because the end product is equivalent in every way. Don't know where you keep getting your misinformation and these asinine notions, but PLEASE of the love of god stop spewing ignorance. Every post I have read from you has no factual basis, although it is your belief and you are entitled to that. As I said above, try googlescholar or pubmed if you have access. It may not change your mind, but should shed light on the ignorance you have been spouting off.

Sorry it is my choice and my right to ignore your pseudoscience propaganda. I do need your elitism or skewed science to know better.

If there is no difference between your GMO and Natural, why is it there? All it is is a money maker for you because you can not patent or push anything Natural.

Gmo's are like a person exercising on a stationarybike, they can peddle all they want but they still do not go anywhere. I prefere to walk or run on my own. I do not need you.

Kerry, the incidents of E. coli and salmonella are much higher in organics, if weight loss is your goal then go for it, but exercise is far more enjoyable, although slower than the organic trots.

"Kerry-257967

It does not make a difference if it is cheaper. If it tastes crappy, causes nausea or regurgitation, or un-healthy side effects it is not needed. It comes down to who you rely on, nature or man. I chose nature any day."

According to the article, you have already been eating "frankenfood". Did your food taste crappy or did you get sick from eating it, before you found out that you were eating GM food?

Yes I can tell the difference. The majority of foods in the store are altered. Why do you think they are labeled.

I do check labels or see where something is made. Didn't always because there was no need until after so many people/myself were suffering from food poisening.(Manufactured)

Why do you think I am against them now? I have had the crap and have been affected by it so I go natural when I can or in some cases go without because I would rather do with out if that is all that is available.

I do not eat out, I have almost eliminated home cooked meats to because of all the bacteriophage's and other various additive in the meats. But I do fish and raise my own chickens so my need of the bs out there is very limited.

MmmMmmbeer--- Your wrong here as well. Subsidies from MANY levels keep GMs "cheaper" the farmers are subsidized, the oil and such used to make the ferts etc are subsidized.

So lets see, seeds that cost multiples of standard seed(sane farmers could save a ton saving their own seed but this was brainwashed out of them)The inputs cost multiples more...... the work involved the same..... mmm nope not cheaper...

where you may be confused is, the modern organic movement is ALSO a joke. It grew out of some california market garden. They ALSO relied on all outside inputs. then you have certification on top of it.... In all reality using what we know today and taking it back to older systems will make it clear organic is the way to go for cheaper food. Let alone all the related issues. This type of talk we have here isnt congruent to me making my case, but it is rather clear breaking down all the variables, to simple non emotional math problems....

I'd rather rely on a smaller food supplier (farm/ranch, etc) with ethics and a sense of liability to their consumers than trust that the massive assembly-line corporate food chains have practiced safe food handling. Their solution: treat the meat in Ammonia to deal with the issue. Um...no thanks. I did read that organic produce will grow bacteria more quickly than conventional produce due to the speed of delivery and flash-freezing, etc. If you're buying locally every weekend, though, it probably isn't an issue.

Anyone that regularly eats all natural, hormone free, grass fed beef at home and then has a burger at their neighbor's chock full of fillers, hormones, etc. will testify to the vast difference in taste. I bought some blueberries the other day that were damn near inedible because they tasted like stems (studies of GM soy and corn found a higher level of lignin - the woody component in trees and plants). I'm not saying this is undeniable proof by any means, but it's just interesting that the GM blueberries tasted woody...

If you can't taste the difference between fresh, natural produce and GMOs then you have probably been desensitized by the massive amounts of sweeteners in everything you eat (this is not an insult, but a rising problem that I think is really sad). Chain restaurants put sugar water on lettuce to keep it fresh longer, concentrated sweeteners in coffees (4 pumps, really?), Splenda, and all the HFCS in EVERYTHING.

I'd like to see the population "give" first and formost.

Were I to strike a huge lottery I'd hire production of a GMO cereal grain which, when eaten, would cause humans to not get pregnant. Now that would be a useful GMO crop.

Look at the naturalnews.com website. There is an article now that deals with just that topic. Not by a lay person but the person directly involved. It is being put to the FDA to be wary of this GMO food. But just like all the other deadly crap the FDA approves this deadly grain will be approved.

Were I to strike a huge lottery I'd hire production of a GMO cereal grain which, when eaten, would cause humans to not get pregnant. Now that would be a useful GMO crop.

Well, it seems we're someone beat you to the punch...just have some GMO soy. Be sure to feed it to your kids, too, and in a couple of generations...poof! Sterility! Either that or just really high infant mortality.

"In both mice and rats fed Roundup Ready soybeans, their testicles showed dramatic changes. In rats, the organs were dark blue instead of pink. In mice, young sperm cells were altered. Embryos of GM soy-fed mice also showed temporary changes in their DNA function, compared to those whose parents were fed non-GM soy.

"More dramatic results were discovered by a leading scientist at the Russian National Academy of sciences. Female rats were fed GM soy, starting two weeks before they were mated.

• "Over a series of three experiments, 51.6 percent of the offspring from the GM-fed group died within the first three weeks, compared to 10 percent from the non-GM soy group, and 8.1 percent for non-soy controls.
• "High pup mortality was characteristic of every litter from mothers fed the GM soy flour.
• "The average size and weight of the GM-fed offspring was quite a bit smaller.
• "In a preliminary study, the GM-fed offspring were unable to conceive.

"After the three feeding trials, the supplier of rat food used at the Russian laboratory began using GM soy in their formulation. Since all the rats housed at the facility were now eating GM soy, no non-GM fed controls were available for subsequent GM feeding trials; follow-up studies were canceled.

"After two months on the GM soy diet, however, the infant mortality rate of rats throughout the facility had skyrocketed to 55.3 percent (99 of 179)." (www.pccnaturalmarkets.com/issues/gmconcerns/reproductive.html)

Article cites the following:

• Irina Ermakova, "Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards," Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
• L. Vecchio et al, "Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean," European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct-Dec 2004):449-454.
• Oliveri et al., "Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean," 48th Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7-10, 2006.
• I.V.Ermakova, "Genetically Modified Organisms and Biological Risks," Proceedings of International Disaster Reduction Conference (IDRC) Davos, Switzerland August 27th - September 1st, 2006: 168-172.
• Irina Ermakova, "Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies," Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4-9.
• Irina Ermakova, "Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards," Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
• I.V.Ermakova "GMO: Life itself intervened into the experiments," Letter, EcosInform N2 (2006): 3-4.

Not to mention rats that were put in front of GMO corn vs. non gmo corn and the rats ignored the gmo corn.

How about the deadly potato?

I have a dog that will not eat certain meat products. Obviously cloned or gmo.

Kerry, I'm still waiting for that savant dog of yours to share those numbers with the rest of us, that dog's got a talent that needs to shared.

Are you all stupid ? Dogs can SMELL cancer and tumors in people. Dogs AND cats can smell when someone is going to die. So why the hell wouldn't they be able to smell genetically altered food ? They have the most highly sensitive sense of smell in the world. WTF planet are you from ... URANUS ?

What you say may be true...and I would agree we need to continue to improve our food productivity, but don't be blind. The issue is 'he who controls the patents, controls the food chain'. The reason Monsanto sues others is to put them out of business and acquire the market share for themselves. The number of former Monsanto executives now in decision points in the US government is absurd and through their decisions clearly shows a prejudice against those who compete against Monsanto. You clearly have some great skills which benefit us all, its just sad to hear you fail to acknowledge the real issue with the seed industry, not to mention the other forms of agriculture now being genetically modified and controlled.

There is a difference between hybridizing a plant and altering it with round up or some other chemical that was NEVER intented to be part of that plant or animal species.

How many horns or mutated genes do you want in your food supply?

Actually Idiot, Monsanto lost the majority of corn market to Syngenta. So stop bitching about them pressuring/suing their way to the top. Their law suits were valid since the grower was contracted to use Monsanto seeds and then didn't. Breach of contract. No conspiracy.

Kerry- the amount of modified genetic material is determined to be insignificant compared to the amount of natural genetic information that remains by regulatory bodies and experts in genetics, environmental science, etc. The only difference between hybridization and GM is the time it takes. Corn would still be an inedible seed without human intervention. Those genes were mutated, by us, through cross breeding. Now we are using technology to finish what we started generations ago.

Some technology, forcing a farmer to only buy your corn or whatever plant because they were bread to be infertile to produce offspring and they have to exclusively buy from you the manipulator/monopolizer.

Not to mention if a farmers crop is infected by a GMOcrop within the vicinity, the farmer gets sued because the crappy pollen infects a farmers crop.....Give me a break. GMO is crap.

Trouble,

you got that right mixing common sense with starfish genes and shark cartlige to inject into corn to alter cattle feed that alters the human system....No thank you you have mixed it up enough.

The only difference between hybridization and GM is the time it takes.

Without GM technology, how long do you anticipate it would have taken us to actually convince a tomato and a fish to breed with one another so that the tomato offspring could have a fish gene in it??? Remember the fish-gene tomato?

"Get a Clue People": RE:

People have been manipulating our food genetics for thousands of years...selectively breeding animals and plants...MOST of the science we use just speeds up this process using genes already in plants...we just find them and put them into selected germplasm...

People must remember that for the number of humans today, we need to maximize the amount of food we can producing from a shrinking number of acres...

The science that "you" use is not speeding up the selective breeding that that humans have been doing all this time. Transgenic genetic engineering is not natural. Combining species genes would not happen in nature in the way that the your seed companies create new organisms. There's a big difference between selective breeding and transgenic genetic engineering.

See: 

"Animal-human transgenic combinations represent a booming aspect of biotechnology. Here are several examples:

Pig organs can be used for human transplants.

• Pigs are often chosen as transgenic animals because their physiology and organ size are so similar to humans. The hope is that pig organs can be used for organ transplantation, known as xenotransplantation, alleviating the shortage of human hearts and kidneys, which are in scarce supply. Researchers are also exploring the use of cell transplantation therapy for patients with spinal cord injury or Parkinson’s disease.⁴ There are several drawbacks to xenotransplantation (discussed below)."

Who died and left the "major seed companies" God?

And what will these seed companies resort to when the Earth's population reaches 30 billion? 40 billion? This planet does have a carrying capacity, do you think we have reached it yet?

I can see that anyone that argues FOR Transgenic organisms must be protecting their livelyhood or investment. There is no other reason to allow it.

paulchefurka.ca/Population.html

This was cut from my first comment: actionbioscience.org/biotech/glenn.html

And five minutes later see him puke his guts out. If you have to rely on someone to grow your food you deserve any side effects their fake food causes.

Yeah......one things for sure......if that starving man works for Monsanto.....he'd know better than to eat that "secret-sauce" corn.

I'd be happier if mankind stopped fornicating and producing more people than the world needs !! If we were all to "weed" out the greed from our own minds, critical mass would one day be achieved and hence no need for all this "invention" of mankind. For Monsanto ? Read "Highly refined Slavery/Colonialism".

And Bayer Phamaceuticals/Petrochemicals.

Nothing in the above statement sounds educated or even makes much sense. Misperception of risk...this article states pretty clearly there is no scientific evidence against GMO, it "just doesn't seem right" to folks like you. And in truth, it's perfectly natural to be scared of new things you do not understand. Just don't ruin it for the rest of the world by spreading ignorance :) Thanks, good day!

Sorry GMO byproduct,

I have had 5 greenhouses and currently actively use 2. I have done the comparing to natural vs. GMO and I prefer to grow natural.

I do not need to look to "science" if what I am doing suits me just fine. Investigation shows that all science does is cause dangerous side effects and one has to accept those dangers just because science says so.

If I do not need GMO science why do I need to listen to pusher like you? I am perfectly happy and fine with what I know. You can not offer me anything more natural then what I have.

I have to agree with Beer. I grow GMO corn and have for some time. The resistant weeds have to do with a farmer trying to cheat and not use the recomended rates and that is whay many have resistant weeds and not using a product with a different mode of action. If you would try and grow organic food the production of the millions of acres of US corn would drop in half. The US uses almost all of our corn domestically and we need 5 billion bushels just for feed use. We only grew 12 billion last year. Half is only 6. tell me that producing half as much grain organically is better than trying to help solve the world problems. Look to the middle east to see the potential results of growing too little food.

I prefer giving an angels share for natural or foods not GMO then to have 90+ returns on GMO. That which is not abl;e to grow can be tilled back into the ground for natural fertilizer. (No GMO needed) There are too many instances of people's health being affected and taste by GMO's.

So a product you loose to nature or a product you loose your health to? I choose to grow my own. I do not need science to tel me how grow what I choose to.

I recall asking one of my rancher/farmer relatives out in Colorado about 30 years ago "Why don't you quit with the industrial farming methods?" He said he had to keep up with neighbors. The way it looked to me it was all about yield. He failed to see, or factor in, that the energy it took to get the yield negated a lot of the result.

So great - you grow 200 bushel acres of corn but at WHAT cost?? Say it costs you 700 per acre to make 800 by the time you buy GMO seed, organo-phosphate insect (and bird and mammal) killer, herbicides, fungicides, and fertilizer - most of which are PETROLEUM based, then load up all these into your oil burning farm machinery. Each input in huge. My view was to retreat from expensive inputs and settle for less yield.

So you get 50 bushel acres of corn but consider the benefits of CLEAN land and another benefit of higher corn prices simply because there is LESS of it. Suddenly you're "only" growing 50 bushels per acre but YOUR INPUT IS ABOUT ZERO! And the price of corn goes up to where you could maybe make a few HONEST bucks. (Don't get me started about gov't farm subsidies . . . )

Fear prevents it. That's where they get our farmers. GROW GROW GROW is the tendency. Maximize yield. Trouble with that is when EVERYONE does it the price per bushel falls to BELOW THE COST TO GROW. This is an absolute FACT. I've seen it first hand where I live. The only ones getting rich are the suppliers to the farmers. Seed grains and petroleum.

The horse has already left the barn and farmers, being such completely independent types, any union or true cooperation toward improvement of the dire farm situation/environmental situation in this country won't happen in my lifetime I am afraid.

I know a guy who's been trying to grow organically. I haven't ever really seen a crop in his fields. There are 1000 times the weeds in his fields as anybody elses. And what do weeds grow, more weeds. The guy has been on the verge of going broke for years. Its only a matter of time.

On the fossil fuel use. I would have to make more trips over my fields doing a process that uses 3 to 4 times the fuel to achieve desirable results. I don't have that many hours in a day. Its just not possible. And we still wouldn't be able to feed those of us in the US

You also need to look at the so called weeds on just about any given field. A lot of those weeds are actually herbs that grow there NATURALLY. Some plants are noxious but those weeds are also a natural composting material that aids plant growth.

You can grow your GMO but everyone has the right to know what seed you use, chemicals and the process used to pollute the food supply. I will wager if you put a real, organic, heirloom tomato(Or any other crop) up against a GMO tomato and all the chemicals used to grow that tomato and the majority would choose the real one.

It actually probably wouldn't hurt to this country to grow less corn. We have more of the stuff than we know what to do with! Sure, we make a ton of it into high fructose corn syrup and sometimes even polenta or a tortilla or something. But it's in EVERYTHING. We burn it for fuel. We make batteries out of it. We feed it to livestock whose bodies never evolved to be able to use it properly. And still there's more and more and more...MOUNTAINS of corn. So, please, tell us what would be so terrible about growing less corn.

You mean other than the fact that were are at the lowest inventory levels in at least 10 years. By the time harvest starts in the US (late August) we will have less than a months suppy of corn available for any use, feed, ethanol, export, human consumption. By the way there is less than a handful of corn in your corn cereals.

You mean other than the fact that were are at the lowest inventory levels in at least 10 years. By the time harvest starts in the US (late August) we will have less than a months suppy of corn available for any use, feed, ethanol, export, human consumption.

Well, maybe it's time we (1) let animals feed on pasture, (2) consider alternate energy sources (we've had the techology for hydrogen-fueled vehicles for decades but have chosen not to employ it), and (3) plant something else for human consumption. We didn't evolve to ONLY eat corn in the myriad ways we've learned to prepare it. As for exports, nobody wants our GMO crap anyway...that is, nobody who's not already under our thumb.

By the way there is less than a handful of corn in your corn cereals.

Not in my corn cereals. I don't eat corn cereals.

Sadly the "Corn Lobby" in the US is so powerful ... and the product so overwhelming, that prospective "free trade" partners are "FORCED" into buying your excess High Fructose Corn Syrup before your country will sign any deal ... if this is not Colonialism, I don't know anything. Talk about exporting obesity !

What kinds of seeds do you think are in that vault. I know someone who put some there and there not all nonGMO

I agree, Monsanto, and the government don't care if we get cancer or anything else from eating this unnatural crap.

Good business for the pharmaceutical companies!

Um......don't forget about the oils and other ingredients derived from Corn and other GMO products......the fast food outlets are definitely not looking out for our health.

Rob - It's fast food which probably contains the most GMO sourced items. So the people who choose to eat that stuff are getting a double whammy of dis-ease.

• Just say "NO" to GMO. You heard it here first folks.

Not to mention why you have to feel sick after eating fast food or gmo products just to have something in your belly? Why do you think there are so many allergies and side effects of GMO? The combinations or manor the GMO/fast foods are MANufactured is the main reason people are so ill.

You do realize that "organic" was a marketing ploy right? The sole purpose of creating the "organic" label was to net growers more profit, since they already operate on razor thin margins. The product is identical to every other produce on the shelf. Simple analytical tests have shown this time and time again.

Now if you want to go down to your local farmer's market, go right ahead and spend a little more, if it makes you feel good inside. But I guarantee that the "organic" tomato sitting next to the standard shelf tomato at your friendly neighborhood supermarket is the exact same.

Keely - absolutely!

Buy or grow your own. There are heirloom seed saver organizations sprouting up all over the place. Search the internet and find a reliable source for your spring garden seeds. And support your local small grower of good organic fruit and veg. Don't forget the CSA growers. CSA = community supported agriculture. This is a cool and slow movement quietly going on and growing.

What MMM is saying is if you want to buy someone else's food other then it's GMO go ahead. Because the more people buy foods that are not GMO it affects their bottom line. So in other words.....buy only natural foods, the more you may pay is still better then round up ready crops any day.

Organic is not just a marketing ploy, in order to label your products as such, the producer has to be certified. Organic is non GMO and uses no pesticides. I choose organic because I know what I am feeding my family. I have a son with ADHD and recent studies have shown much higher levels of certain pesticides in ADHD kids. This doesn't mean the pesticieds caused the ADHD, but may have contributed to it, The research is ongoing. Also, research also indicates that preservatives, food colorings and additives may exacerbate symptoms of ADHD. Organic foods don't contain these ingredients.

You also need to be aware that the FDA allows a certain percent of fake or GMO in organics. So yes it would do you good to know where your organic food comes from. Make sure it is 100% organic.

By the way, even organic plants have naturally occurring pesticides in them. About half of these naturally occurring chemicals that have been tested (not many in the grand scheme of things) have been shown to be carcinogenic. Bon appetit!

About half of these naturally occurring chemicals that have been tested (not many in the grand scheme of things) have been shown to be carcinogenic.

Proof?

Sorry, I should have backed that up in my first post. I originally came across this info in the book RISK: Why We Fear The Things We Shouldn't - And Put Ourselves in Greater Danger by Dan Gardner, but if you Google "naturally occurring pesticides vegetables" you'll find some info. That specific study is referenced in the agairupdate.com article that shows up in the search results. I don't think any of this suggests that we should be terrified of vegetables, I just think it's good to have perspective. I think if anything, it suggests that just because something tests as a carcinogen in a lab environment (often extremely high doses given to rats), it doesn't necessarily mean it's that big a deal in the real world. In the Gardner book, he claims that some cancer researchers are beginning to question the value of these types of tests. It's the dose that makes the poison, as they say.

Thank you.

So what... Marigolds are the source of Pyrithrens which are used as natural insecticides. But guess what ? Marigolds are also SAFE TO EAT and are even fed to chickens to give their meat to add color to their meat. Guess what else... PEPPERMINT OIL...the stuff you flavor food with is also used as an insecticide. It'll kill a cockroach in about 15 seconds because it acts as a nerve toxin but it's PERFECTLY safe for consumption by humans and animals. This is no different than the fact that grapes, apple seeds and potato skins are toxic to dogs but not humans. Or that Tea Tree oil is toxic to cats but not dogs or humans.

Some of the arguments I hear against "natural" foods are completely asinine.

HEMLOCK and ARSENIC are natural but only an imbecile would consume them. Use some frigging common sense people.

Or don't be a consumer. I am proud to say I grow the majority of my own all-heirloom produce right in my own back yard...in a small city lot. If we went back to victory gardens and weren't so far removed from our food sources, would commercial yields really be an issue?

http://www.faqs.org/nutrition/Ome-Pop/Organic-Foods.html

I really hope some of the ignorant posters on here read this, I wish I could click "like" button a thousand times. Although not like they will believe science or facts....

How could you ever convince consumers that a gene from a banana belongs in a salmon? Or a gene from a salmon could somehow work its way into a banana?

These sorts of modifications are so out of the natural realm the food created by such interference deserves the title "Frankenfood."

Amen to Hope.

Selective breeding is completely different than genetic engineering. Genetic engineering involves taking genetic material from another organism say bacteria or insect and inserting it into the genes of plant material. This is not natural and would never happen in nature.

No, it is not new science; and generational condescension isn't new either. What's new are cancer rates among children and young adults. What's new is a drastic loss of critical thinking within the populace, specifically since the 1970's. What's new are autism rates, youth disorders (ADD/ADHD, etc.) and an explosion of auto-immune disorders. What's new is a complacent public that sits in stark contrast to the last generation raised on wholesome food - The Baby Boomers - and look what's happened to them since the '70's. They've become the very thing they were rebelling against. Do you even realize that the question was not whether or not these foods are good for us but whether or not we should HAVE THE CHOICE? What citizen of "free nation" in their right mind defends not having a choice? Look at society and tell me we don't have a massive, long-term study on the effects of manufactured foods and medicines: The U.S. is the only nation that has been living this way for the last 40 years. How are our graduation rates looking? How's our health report looking? How's our economic standing looking? How's our creativity and ingenuity looking? Maybe if you weren't so distracted by your own spreadsheets and instead were doing some research, you would have a broader perspective. If the internet isn't for you where research is concerned, the library is still open; at least until the states cut funding for them. You better hurry.

@justwatching:

You wrote this:

"Been planting "engineered" soybeans, corn, and cotton since the 1960's."

According the wikipedia, whatever you were planting was not what you apparently imagine it to have been, since the first genetically modified ("GM") food approved by the FDA for humans did not appear until 1994 (specifically, the "Flavr Savr" tomato) . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_biotechnology

In fairness, you were very specific in referring to "engineered" plants, which when referring to what one might call "classical plant husbandry" is not the least bit unnatural, strange, or bizarre . . .

On the other hand, you wrote this:

"Most of you weren't even alive then, so what do you know about the "old foods' and "old cotton"? All you know about is what you read on the "carved in stone" internet. This is not new science people."

And while a lot of younger folks were not alive in the 1960s, I was, and the fact of the matter is that this is new science, and it is sufficiently new that it did not exist in the 1960s and several decades thereafter . . .

So, while anyone with a computer, web connection, and the ability to compose English sentences can write just about anything, typing words into a computer does not make the words true . . .

It might be wonderful to imagine that you were planting genetically engineered ("GE") and genetically modified ("GM") soybeans, corn, and cotton in the 1960s, but you might want to refresh your memory in that respect with a bit of factual information, really . . .

Really!

@FreeNation?: WOOO HOOOOO!!!!! YOU ROCK!!!!!! Thanks for posting. :)

Time to tune out the Pro-GMO Propagandists. Their tired Monsanto talking points are boring the s h i t out of me and it scares me to death that they actually believe this crap. I for one hope each and every one of them have some kind of personal health tragedy or financial disaster that is frankenfood related.

These people have no conscience or ethics and sure as hell don't care about you, me or the devastation they're doing to the planet, its inhabitants or its resources. All they care about is MONEY. Well you GREEDY bastards.... YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU !

They didnt exist AT ALL then, and not commercially until the 90s. It actually IS new. I am a plant breeder by the way, though an amateur I do read much on the subject. It is 100 percent clear that this is about money and money alone. If they wanted to build better crops through the potentials of GMs it could easily be done, but getting folks to rely on high priced seed and ALL outside inputs ensures a solid profit margin for the seed company.

Heck if you know half of what you claim you would know yields did not go up. Pesticides usage did NOT go down as was claimed and keep in mind we are talking about a company that subverting laws and governments across the globe including our own.

There were NO GMOs manufactured during the 1960s! The first one was in 1973.

GMO Foods are unnecessary and unsafe. The only purpose is to be a Cash Cow for the useless and untalented Corporate Executives. We need to fight this harder than our Ancestors fought the Hybrids. At least the Hybrids do not spread in the Natural Environment.

yes I know this, gmos means the bug killer is built in the seed. meaning you are eating poison! and have been for a long time and so are your kids. alzheimers, adhd, autism, add and all the rest anyone???

its shelf live and corporate profits and you are a lab rat.

pissed - not quite true. What went on was SELECTION. This is quite different from whitecoats gene splicing stuff from say, a banana plant into say, a salmon.

Our ancestors simply SELECTED the plants which performed best for their needs. This is how the natural world works. "Products" which are useful which appear in the "market of nature" mostly remain. Products which serve no use generally disappear.

The quickest way we can get away from GMO nonsense is to simply STOP buying it. If enough of us feel it serves no useful function it WILL disappear.

The headline here was SHOULD IT BE LABELED? Emphatically YES it needs to be labeled. Why are they fighting it if everything is so very hunkydory? Because people want to be able to choose NOT to purchase it.

I hope they DO label it... w/a skull and crossbones just like all other toxic substances.

Well written. May I cut and paste into my files?

Becasue obesity and diabetic children don't have anything to do with the fact that most kids dont do anything but play video games anymore. They forgotten what its like to play outside. My kids, that live on a farm where we grow GMO corn are healthy and fit. They love to play outside. I think the exercise quotent to this equation is not given enough weight.

@Hope:

Sure! :)

The somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) stuff is particularly gnarly, although it takes a bit of reading and studying to discover the facts . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_cell_nuclear_transfer

Basically, the idea is to extract the nucleus of one cell and then to insert the extracted nucleus into another very different cell that has had its original nucleus extracted, which might appear to be a straightforward bit of biology, except that it is not the least bit straightforward, because it is imprecise . . .

There is a bit of extra stuff that tags along with the extracted donor cell nucleus, and there is a bit of stuff that remains when the nucleus is removed from the host cell, and it is the bits of extra stuff that do things that typically results in a large percentage of the resulting clones either never becoming viable or becoming so horribly wrong that they do not live very long and have such profound problems that it is patently evil for anyone to do this . . .

The Frankencloners never mention the failure rates and the horrible things they create, and they certainly do not want anyone to know the dark and terrible secrets of this patently evil Frankenscience . . .

This is the link to the wikipedia overview of "noncoding DNA", and it is useful to know that there are other types of "noncoding" genetic information . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA

And it is important to understand that the "noncoding" aspect is an misnomer, because it actually is "coding" but current science simply does not know enough about genetic algorithms to have much of a clue regarding what everything does . . .

For example, the genetic biology folks like to proclaim that they have "sequenced" the human genome, but when you do a bit of reading and studying, what you discover is that for the most part they have "sequenced" the genome of one man and then "sequenced" the genome of perhaps as many as 500 other people, which then is mapped using questionable mathematics to everyone on the planet, which a bit like the story of the three blind men examining different parts of an elephant and reaching three disparate conclusions regarding what it is . . .

"It has been informally reported, and is well known in the genomics community, that much of the DNA for the public HGP came from a single anonymous male donor from Buffalo, New York (code name RP11)."

[SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome_project#Genome_donors ]

Great! So, based (a) on some dude from Buffalo spanking his monkey into a biological sample jar and (b) on examining what effectively are discarded tampons, Frankenscience makes another huge leap into the future . . .

The FDA and USDA already have given their approvals for meat and dairy products produced from the progeny of Frankenclones, and none of it is required to be revealed clearly on food labels . . .

For some FUN facts on dairy and meat cloning, you can visit the CyClone website, which has all the information anyone really needs to know, for sure . . .

http://www.cyclonedairy.com/

For sure!

And if you have any problems, you can visit the Future PHARMS, Inc. website for exciting information on one of the breakthroughs in modern medicine, where "Elle" and "Guy" share their experiences, really . . .

http://www.havidol.com/

http://www.havidol.com/testimonials.html

Really!

And this is a link to the CNN/Money report on the 2008 FDA designation that "food products derived from cloned cattle, swine, goats, sheep and their offspring are safe enough to enter the U.S. food supply":

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/15/technology/simons_clones.fortune/index.htm

How comforting it is to know that "safe enough" is the gold standard at the FDA, for sure . . .

For sure! :(

It's EXTREMELY simple to avoid GMO foods.

1. Buy ORGANIC only.

2. If you can't buy organic, only by products that are certified by the NON-GMO Project or that are clearly marked NON-GMO or DOES NOT CONTAIN BIOLOGICALLY ENGINEERED /GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS.

3. Grow your own.

Works for me. If it's not clearly marked... ASSUME IT IS GMO and AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE.

http://www.nongmoproject.com

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.com

http://www.organicconsumers.org

http://www.cornucopia.org

Watch these documentaries: Almost all can be viewed free online via YouTube, Hulu, NetFlix or the movie's official website.

Food,Inc.

Food Matters

The World According to Monsanto

The Future of Food

King Corn

The Real Dirt on Farmer John

Food Fight

Dirt: The Movie

Fresh

The Garden

As We Sow

Diet for a New America

We Feed The World

What's On Your Plate?

Chow Down

You might also take the time to read : The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan

Please watch the YouTube video of Canadian Organic Canola Farmer Percy Schmeiser who was sued by Monsanto for patent infringement after THEIR rogue canola seeds contaminated Percy's crops. A true David Vs. Goliath story.