Comment from arthur tesla

In marketing, they say the consumer is KING! Give the consumer what they want, and they will beat a path to your doorway. Try to FORCE on the consumer what they don't want, and they will fight you tooth and nail at every step of the way! Organic foods are the fastest growing segment of the food industry in the US , growing at 20% market share a year. The consumer is voting with their pocketbook for natural, healthy. The consumer is OPPOSED to genetically engineered foods! New York Times poll, 53% of Americans won't buy genetically modified food http://wcbstv.com/national/CBS.News.New.2.721469.html Michael Antoniou, a molecular geneticist involved in human gene therapy, explains that genetic modification "technically and conceptually bears no resemblance to natural breeding." The reproduction process works by both parents contributing thousands of genes to the offspring. They, in turn, get sorted naturally, and plant breeders have successfully worked this way for thousands of years. Genetic manipulation is different and so far fraught with danger. . It works by forcibly inserting a single gene from a species' DNA into another unnaturally. Smith puts it this way: "A pig can mate with a pig and a tomato can mate with a tomato. But there is no way that a pig can mate with a tomato and vice versa. The process transfers genes across natural barriers that "separated species over millions of years of evolution" and managed to work. The biotech industry now wants us to believe it can do nature one better, and that genetic engineering is just an extension or superior alternative to natural breeding. It's unproved, indefensible pseudoscience mumbo jumbo, and that's the problem. From The British Medical Association Report: Members of the GM jury project* were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued. These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects. In addition, there should be an end to assumptions that GM crops are necessary to feed the starving, given the complex food distribution, social and economic factors that lie behind such hunger. Union of concerned scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/ Toxins, Allergic reactions,Lack of safety testing,Increased pesticide use, biological pollution,The industrialization and monopolization of agriculture, Ethical problems. Center for Food Safety Why is genetically engineered food dangerous? Genetic engineering uses material from organisms that have never been part of the human food supply. Without long-term testing no one knows if these foods are safe. Genetically engineering plants and animals for food is risky and unsafe. Biotechnology is too young of a science to be able to fully assess or understand the potential problems that can come from altering the genes of living creatures.There is numerous potential for problems on many different levels. From the unpredictable occurrence of toxins and allergens, to environmental hazards, to ethical issues, biotechnology poses a serious threat. US agronomist Dr Charles Benbrook warned last year: " Australia should avoid the problems and market losses that the US experienced with GM." But rice farmers know their market. About half of the U.S. rice crop, which was worth about $1.9 billion last year, is exported, and Europeans and Asian consumers simply don't want genetically engineered food. The USDA's Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has been investigating since last summer, but the agency won't say what it has learned. In a sense, APHIS is investigating itself. Its track record, frankly, is a little scary. In 2005 the USDA's inspector general said that APHIS, which regulates field tests of biotech foods, didn't know the location of some field trials, did no independent testing of nearby crops and did not even require submission of written protocols by some biotech firms, leaving the industry to, in effect, monitor itself. Attack of the mutant rice America's rice farmers didn't want to grow a genetically engineered crop. Their customers in Europe did not want to buy it. So how did it end up in our food? Fortune's Marc Gunther reports. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/07/09/100122123/in dex.htm Super Bugs, Super Weeds, this is not what we needs. Monsanto developed an insect-resistant type of cotton called Bollgard that's planted in more than 90 percent of Georgia 's cotton fields. But, the company is phasing it out because of concerns that insects could develop a resistance, and that could create super bugs. Their Bollgard 2 also resists insects, but it doesn't yield as much cotton. And, that could mean a 60-million dollar loss of net income for farmers. Gene escapes to weeds from engineered canola edited A recent study published in the scientific journal Molecular Ecology found that canola plants in Quebec, Canada, that were genetically engineered for herbicide resistance have interbred with a weed called wild mustard, producing hybrid plants that are resistant to the herbicide glyphosate. The herbicide-resistance gene persisted over five generations and spread from the hybrids into the mustard weeds, in spite of the fact that no herbicide was applied to the area. The event is significant for two reasons. One, it is the first known escape of a gene from a commercialized genetically engineered crop into a weed. Two, because canola is a major crop, covering an estimated two million acres across Canada , it is likely that gene escape has occurred at multiple sites in addition to the few that were monitored. The event echoes the escape of a gene for glyphosate resistance from field trials of bentgrass into wild relatives.