I wish more people would approach this with an open mind.

Ugh... I really don't want to dive into this one right now. Just mark me down for the pro-GMO team.

There is one GMO that most people have no knowledge whatsoever, it is banned in almost all countries in the world except the US where it exists but not widely, it is called the terminator gene. It is a gene that allows only one crop to be grown from the seed you purchase and make any progeny grown from the seed of this crop non viable forcing the farmer to purchases new seed from the company every year.

Anyone who tells me they don't eat GMO food is likely lying. GMO's are a genie we can't just put back in the bottle; here in Canada there is is no field of canola that does not contain GMO genes even if the farmer is totally organic and the land has never grown them. Pollinators spread them from them from field to field regardless of the crop grown; if there is a GMO variety grown then those gene pollinate non-GMO varieties. this fact has been used to accuse and convict farmers of drowning patented varieties without purchasing a technology agreement several time here in Canada even though there was no evidence for proof that he/she had purchased or acquire any seed stock. Corporate investigators routinely trespass onto fields to acquire samples for testing.

Although the article touches on many issues and shows Daniels to be the idiot he is; it fails to address what lies at the heart of the debate. Governments have walked away from funding our independent research institutions, excepted corporate funded research as factual, made approval of new products a rubber stamp without any independent testing, allowed corporate interests to control the debate and the worse thing of all; the patenting of lifeforms.

The making of GMO should have just been a way of accelerating crossbreeding programs to developed to improve crops and the flavour, frost, drought, and pest resistance, and yields. Instead it has become a corporate tool for unlimited profits with little or no concern for the consequences.

I am a proponent of what is known as Agroecology which is not organic farming since it does not preclude the use of limit amounts of chemicals or chemical fertilizer. The article touches on this type of farming without labeling it. It is a holistic approach to farming where the goal is to maintain consistent and sustainable farming that protects the environment and the productivity of the soil making uses of multiple crops and livestock.

It is not a new concept at all. There is a First Nations' saying that says do not take from the land take from its bounty.

I think opposition to GMO's is just another religion. As an atheist, I give in to the science.

If we could just GMO some people, the ones playing god with our lives. I know a few I would do first.

Interesting read. There is one issue that the article doesn't address: climate change. I suspect that things will get worse... much worse... to the point that both types of farming systems fail to the point of a global food shortage, before world governments take substantial steps to addess climate change. If it does get to that point, the only option I can see is farming in controlled environments, i.e. in buildings.

I don't purposely eat any GMO foods, but I know when I eat out I don't have the same control as when I prepare my own food. So, yes, I'm against GMO's for a number of reasons, the two reasons mentioned in the article plus I can't believe that there are no health consequences with the chemicals/pesticides that are used on our crops (plus damage to the soil and pollinators). The GMO seeds that are created are patented and then are controlled by a small group. Why are there a number of countries around the world that have banned GMO's? IMO, because the US government doesn't care about the health and well being of it's populace where these countries do. The capitalist economy has created an environment where the dollar governs everything including our health and well-being (and MONSANTO is one, if not the biggest, influence).

Opposition to GMOs is based more on attitudes than on facts. Mutation is a naturally occurring process, happening millions of times every day. It is the basis of natural selection, ergo evolution. Some mutations produce organisms which are more suited to the environment, meaning that those organisms are more likely to survive and pass on their DNA. Other mutations are harmful to the organism and doom the organisms chances for long-term survival. That is evolution in action.

Producing GMOs is producing artificial mutations. Do we know fully what the long term effects of a GMO will be. No. But we can and should study that question as fully as possible in a controlled environment before we decide to move ahead with a GMO. But, if the positive consequences of a GMO appear to outweigh the negative, it is worth a try. Let us not blindly reject all GMOs, but study each carefully before we release it into the environment at large.

Hippie from way back; natural is best.

I don't mind little tweaks to DNA here and there, hell - nature does that all on its own. What I do object to is cross-species DNA splicing. Like - fish DNA in tomatoes. Really? The practice stopped because of outrage, so obviously the food industry needs accountability and oversight.

Interesting article. Was dismayed that the Koch brothers could be manipulating data on GMO production. Not enough research data available - two types of farming-mass farming on huge farms vs smaller farms producing up to 20 times yield. Need more scientific study.

I prefer to avoid GMOs. I've read arguments both ways and I just don't want to be involved in a lab experiment. And I've never believed Monsanto had the people's best interest at heart. My late former FIL worked there for his entire career, he was a chemical engineer. The stuff he would tell us!

Hell NO GMO for me.