genetically modified produce.

Bullshit, we have all the follies of conventional agriculture to rely on! You think killer bees were made in a lab? Now just imagine we could engineer tomatos that eats people!.... in maybe a hundred years or so once synthetic biology takes off. So no please give me your GMO doom scenarios.

Yeah and its not like we build our reactors with containment domes.

Yeah if only the irish had had a GMO potato that was resistant to disease.

Not at all, I'm all for lethal operons, restrictions on engineering herbicide resistant plants, and all for testing, but you people don't know how to pick your fights so we don't get that kind of prudent well educated regulations. you moan about Monsanto but do nothing about them!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In addition to the obvious (the trashing of the BT insecticide, the increase in atrazine contamination from increased overuse, the introduction of genetic uniformity with all the attendant risks, etc) there is the obvious point: it's what you don't know about and can't possibly predict that will surprise you.

And I am all for genetic engineering of many kinds - such as speeding up ordinary breeding programs, eliminating the multi-generation backcrossing and so forth; or in various kinds of medical and epidemiological applications; and of course in pure research into almost anything.

The question is what to do in the meant time - before the testing has been done, before the proper restrictions on engineering have been determined, and so forth.

The next fifty years or so, at a minimum,until we get a handle on this stuff.

We're not kings. We are not the ones preventing regulation of any kind - nothing is stopping the professionals in the field from creating and imposing prudent regulations.

They don't. They don't because prudent regulation would shut down their most lucrative operations, and limit them to doing the kind of beneficial research they use to justify their criminally dangerous racket.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1. BT is used often already
2. Then your problem is with making GMO to resist herbicides causing increase herbicides use, then your problem is with herbicides! Simply demand reduced herbicide use.
3. GMO by their vary nature can increase genetic diversity, your argument is against using single strains, for that I ask you to worry about the banana industry which uses clones and occasionally grafted Chimeras, all with conventional agriculture mind you.

50 years??? We could get a handle on it now! People have been proposing and testing lethal opterons in one form or another for decades but GM companies won't insert them into their products because their not regulation requiring them to. Millions of people have been consuming GMO for 15 years with no reports of ill effects and no correlations of disease or illness. If you want more testing and more regulated products, with simple political will you could do it in 5 years not 50.

Yes, you can't organize like minded political groups or hire a lobbyist, your to busy volunteering your free time to much more important things like internet forums.

No shit, so stop complaining about it and do something!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All the more reason not to allow it to be trashed. How about if we specifically allow the victims of BT enervation, if it happens as predicted from this environmental saturation, to collect damages - class action? That would be the last you'd see of it in a GMO setting. The genetic engineers aren't actually fools - they just don't care. Give them a reason to care.

My problem is with the dangerous misuse of genetic engineering techniques for short term profit. Rather than run around trying to anticipate and regulate separately every single side effect of every single corporate scheme, an impossible task and very expensive attempt, I would go to the source of the troubles.

No, you can't. You don't have the knowledge base.

This is the problem with you guys - you really seem to have no comprehension of the nature of what you are doing with this stuff. You really seem to believe its just like breeding new kinds of apples from old kinds of apples.

That's right. The fact that I can't do anything about it doesn't make it sensible behavior, though.

If I can knock down one or two of the jackasses who run around on internet forums spreading corporate propaganda like this:

then I count that as "doing something".

I mean, the people who are spreading that crap obviously find it worth their time - who am I to say they are wrong?

 

Like asking to sue drug companies because certain antibiotics have become useless because of public overuse.

they care, maybe the companies don't care but most of the engineers them selves care.

Then your problem is with corporate abuse of a technology, not with genetic engineering at all.

No reason to anticipate, simple testing is all that is required.

Yep, nothing worse could be done with today GM agriculture unintentionally that hasn't been down with conventional agriculture.

Lets go over it:
1. Created new breads that have been toxic.
2. Created new breads that have been allergenic.
3. Created new breads that have run amuck out in the wild.
4. Created monoculture strains that run the risk of disease due to lack of diversity.

All of the above have been down before, repeatedly with conventional agriculture within the last 60 years even!


Heavy testing on GM reduces the risk of #1 and #2 ever reaching public food supplies, heck we even produced GMOs that have reduced allergenicity! Lethal operons could prevent #3, and GM can make new strains that are more resistant to disease at a faster rate then could be achieved with conventional breeding.

this is why Norman Borlaug found GM to be acceptable, not because he drank any corporate cool-aid but because he weighed the risks with the befits logically. GM has reduced risks for all of the above with the benefit of increase production.

That pathetic. Arguing with people on the internet is at best intellectual masturbation and at worse a pissing contest, if you honestly finds this as "doing something" please go get a life.

 

If we had identified the problem in advance, and one or two particular companies had deliberately and consciously trashed - say - penicillin, for short term profit in defiance of advance warning, you'd have a pretty good case for big bucks - right?

Would behavior like that be forgivable, in your view?

So you say. Evidence?

For the fourth or fifth time now, yeah - and your point? What have I been talking about for pages? You even reading this stuff, or just jacking me around?

Nothing simple about it - as of now, nobody knows what to test for or how to do it.

In the first place, you can't possibly know that - and it's likely to be false. In the second, blunders in conventional agriculture have destroyed entire countries and killed millions, even after hundreds of years of experience, when something even slightly new or different is being introduced. Is that the kind of risk you are accepting, with these radically new and utterly unfamiliar innovations?

The fact that you fools think that is a complete, or even descriptive, list of the possible disasters is proof positive that we need to step on this shit in a hurry.

What he said in your quote there was that he had no clue about the risks - he equated this stuff with ordinary breeding, for chrissake.

Well I ain't talking to myself, am I.

 

How are the companies responsible for the people abusing their products?

Jee, look up how many biotechnicians are trying to end world hunger, we have been talking about Norman Borlaug haven't we?

That is my point, and I will repeat it until you stop misappropriating blame unto GM when your talking about the practices of a few corporations.

Absolute BS, pre-market and post-market industry standard procedures exist for testing everything intended for consumption. antigen tests, feeding lab rats, pilot plots, etc, standard.

why?

First of all I already mention GM can reduce the chances of those disasters, more so these organisms are not radically new or unfamiliar, BT corn for example looks like corn, grows like corn, harvest likes corn and is edible like corn.

I never said that list was complete but if you want please do add more examples, lets cover how likely GM is to cause such examples.

Now I know you did not read/watch any of these links. More so I don't see how he said that in what I quoted of him.

Unlike you I don't consider this meaningful. The internet is not serious business, and I live by that creed mind you.

 

The companies are responsible for their heedless and cavalier use of the techniques, and the inherent dangers (ecological, economic, agricultural, medical, and human) to the public of their products and their waste, their means and their ends alike.

I'm not grading them on their good intentions. We are talking about paving my roads with them, for other people's profit.

And we have not been talking about Norman Borlaug as one of them - he never did any genetic engineering.

Blame? How is pointing out the inherent dangers of genetic engineering "blame"? And how are we going to talk about these dangers without talking about the vast majority of the actual genetic engineering actually going on, now and for the foreseeable future?

This is a new field in a very, very complex reality. Nobody knows how to test its means, waste, or products for hazards, because they don't know how these hazards will manifest or in many cases even what they are. That is assuming due diligence and care, honesty and openness in the testing - we have ample evidence of the contrary.

The naivety of that bullshit is just fucking stunning.

In the first place, hundreds of square miles of a monoculture that makes its own pesticides, internally poisons every part of its own growth, via a genetic alteration not found in any even marginally related organism (let alone human crop), one deliberately designed to be horizontally mobile and transferable across huge taxonomic barriers (in whole or in part), and one patented - legally owned by a large corporate concern - is not a "familiar" situation.

In the second place, BT corn reduces the chances of not one single disaster imminent in the real world, and arguably increases several (especially via economic effects). What is it supposed to be an "example" of? The political power of agribusiness compared with small organic farmers and beekeepers? The lack of actual testing and evaluation in the real world corporate application of GM techniques? The cavalier attitude of genetic engineers in their actual doings, and the dominance of the profit motive in their actual practice?

!? That's why you quoted him, kid. I said I did not believe that Borlaug, even unfamiliar as he was with genetic engineering, would claim that it was equivalent to conventional breeding techniques, and you said he had and provided the persuasive quote. If you want to change your mind about Borlaug, claim the quote was misleading etc, I'd be happy to have my untarnished opinion of him back - doesn't change anything otherwise.

 

The companies are responsible for their heedless and cavalier use of the techniques, and the inherent dangers (ecological, economic, agricultural, medical, and human) to the public of their products and their waste, their means and their ends alike.

I'm not grading them on their good intentions. We are talking about paving my roads with them, for other people's profit.

And we have not been talking about Norman Borlaug as one of them - he never did any genetic engineering, and never produced a patented, economically restricted, for-profit agricultural advance in his life AFAIK.

Blame? How is pointing out the inherent dangers of genetic engineering "blame"? And how are we going to talk about these dangers without talking about the vast majority of the actual genetic engineering actually going on, now and for the foreseeable future?

This is a new field in a very, very complex reality. Nobody knows how to test its means, waste, or products for hazards, because they don't know how these hazards will manifest or in many cases even what they are. That is assuming due diligence and care, honesty and openness in the testing - we have ample evidence of the contrary.

The naivety of that bullshit is just fucking stunning.

In the first place, hundreds of square miles of a monoculture that makes its own pesticides, internally poisons every part of its own growth, via a genetic alteration not found in any even marginally related organism (let alone human crop), one deliberately designed to be horizontally mobile and transferable across huge taxonomic barriers, and one patented - legally owned by a large corporate concern - is not a "familiar" situation.

In the second place, BT corn reduces the chances of not one single disaster imminent in the real world, and arguably increases several (especially via economic effects). What is it supposed to be an "example" of? The political power of agribusiness compared with small organic farmers and beekeepers? The lack of actual testing and evaluation in the real world corporate application of GM techniques? The cavalier attitude of genetic engineers in their actual doings, and the dominance of the profit motive in their actual practice?

!? That's why you quoted him, kid. I said I did not believe that Borlaug, even unfamiliar as he was with genetic engineering, would claim that it was equivalent to conventional breeding techniques, and you said he had and provided the persuasive quote. If you want to change your mind about Borlaug, claim the quote was misleading etc, I'd be happy to have my untarnished opinion of him back - doesn't change anything otherwise.

 

Well gee if these products are as bad as your appeals to emotion state, why then do people use them, why do farmers buy herbicide resistant crops and then spray tons of herbicide around?

Yeah it not like the man wrote dozens of articles in scientific journals advocating GM agriculture, oh wait...

What inherent dangers? you keep waving your hands about but you state no theory or mechanism for these dooms day claims, your just keep stating it evil without any proof.

Yes, yes they do, its easy, the FDA does it all the time, stop saying the same claim over and over again as if it has not be debunked.

Do you ever stop with the appeals to the unknown? Everything man has done to get so far has required taking steps into the unknown.

Gee like we don't have that already with conventional agriculture.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So your telling me there are no plants that produce there own pesticides? http://www.fortfreedom.org/s42.htm

Complete BS, there is no intent for such a function, no deliberate design for that,

and again that is a matter of the corporations and the rights we grant to them. I'm all for curbing their rights.

yeah because it not like crop pestilence has ever caused disasters, or is consider one its self, oh wait...

organic farming is not small business anymore in most cases its a sham using "natural" herbicides and pesticides like rotanone, and after decades of no testing it was finally discover that rotanone likely causes Parkinson disease they quietly delisted it from organic certification list of of "organic" and "natural" pesticides and herbicides, who knows what those could be doing to us without proper testing

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

again there is testing, stop chucking the same myth.

I would not say the attitude is so cavalier, when ever working with a GMO we have to follow protocols in handling and disposal, though I work in academia.

He was very familiar with GE, he wrote many, many papers on its application, his students undertook GM, just because the man was to old and frail to do it physically does not mean he was unfamiliar with GE.

No your interpretation of the quote is off, He said nothing about having "no clue of the risks".

 

I think I'll let that stand as typical of the GMO proponents. That's the perception of reality that is informing the current push for wider use and more rapid employment of genetic engineering techniques in all arenas of agriculture and all aspects of commercial plant or animal breeding, and the universal, widespread deployment of genetically engineered plants and animals in replacement of traditional agriculture.

But this point should not be allowed past:

Well, yes, there is - quite often. It's part of the common basic technique for the horizontal transfer of genetic material between disparate organisms - it is prepped for excision and insertion, targeted at accessible stretches of genome, made more easily transferable in several ways, designed to be removable and insertable for the purpose of making it more easily transferable, because that is what the genetic engineer wants to have happen, you see,

and that makes it more easily transferable - that is not a very profound observation, eh?

As long as the example has come up, you can review the procedure by which BT manufacturing genetics are transferred between the original bacterium featuring them and a maize genome they would normally not inhabit. They are prepped for insertion in various ways, including being fitted out with mobility-enhancing framing stretches of DNA. These often remain and are often damaged or altered in unpredictable ways, especially from the shotgun procedures and the like, and are often reproduced by the corn plant in all of its cells (unlike most naturally evolving pesticides).

That is one way in which the resultant situation is new and unstudied, unfamiliar and unpredictable.

 

Well I would say more in augmentation of traditional breeding, I not say all rather in and when improvements can be gained. If you want traditional agriculture you can go to Africa and starve to death, our agriculture is far from tradition even without GMOs.

And what does that have to do with getting an inserted gene from a GMO into a the wild intentionally? Or are you objecting to the gene transfer all together?

Not anymore so then many native genes in the plant. Try to think how you would get the GMOs genes to transfer in the wild, like say sexual reproduction, The inserted genes aren't going to transfer between plants that aren't reproductively compatible. Ok well you argue its could be inserted on a plasmid based insert so it could transfer into bacteria, true but so are many native plant genes. And if you want its transferance to be reduced GM can easily do that by creating strains that can't breed with other plants and whose inserts were not plasmid based. So GM can correct this possibilities rather its utilization is at fault because companies rarely do this and when they do its for profit to make sure no one tries to grow or breed their products without paying. That could be fixed with legislation aimed and curbing the companies but your to busy whinning with appeals to nature, tradition and the unknown and targeting GM its self to from comprehensive effective legislation ideas to utilized GM for the best.

And is extremely unlikely to lead to anything more sever than the GMO dieing.

 

Somewhat more at least - if only because more widely distributed in active form, not under all of the plant's own evolved higher order regulation, and no longer under its original genome's organization and sequestration either. That's if the transfer protocols and arrangements created no other loopholes and possibilities (such as duplications and other inherently more easily mobilized units, more effective and less easily regulated insertion mechanisms, etc).

So instead of a few - not that many - familiar and long-established plant plasmid genes available for occasional transfer into insects, fungi, bacteria, mycoplasmas, nematodes, earthworms, viruses, and so forth,

we have this stretch of modified, effective, more easily incorporated genetic material, of a kind and from a source not previously available to these beings, set up for horizontal transfer and broadcast into the world's landscapes in billions of copies by the square kilometer.

They can test for the problems with that, you claim.

And this is merely one of the many factors brand new to this planet as of twenty years ago, just one notable aspect among many, of a situation you claim is familiar and understood and routinely regulated by government agency.

That might help, yes. It's not actually that simple to do, but it is an obvious possibility and should be attempted.

But we notice that genetic engineers, as a group, will not behave responsibly like that on their own. They are busy collecting big paychecks from DuPont (Borlaug turned DuPont down) and lending their credentials to support lies about safety and familiarity by Monsanto's marketing and public relations department.

They are lending their political voice to the establishment of legal norms and economic realities that have nothing to contribute, intentionally, to any of the potential community benefits of GM technology - quite the opposite.

Good point. Africa was not starving like this under its former, traditional, agricultural arrangements. Africa, like Haiti, was once prosperous and well fed. We are already in the middle of adjustments to some very new and not well understood innovations in agriculture, and have seen some unexpected side effects - such as plantation slavery, or transcontinental crop disease, or famine from currency fluctuations, or destruction of ocean fisheries from river watershed tillage practices - pop up and prove somewhat difficult to handle. We are still approaching the shoe drop on petroleum dependent fertilization and transport, and we have prepared by destroying local food security for some billion or more people (Let's call Haiti's situation a canary).

So you, like the rest of the sane world, want to avoid reckless endangerment of the ecological, economical, and agricultural systems of major human civilizations for the short term profits and power of a few multinational companies.

And you recognize that this GMO stuff is not equivalent to traditional crop breeding or similar better understood innovations.

And that would be net improvements, right? Something you would need a generation or two, minimum, of real world experience to even begin to evaluate? Something with much wider and more general considerations involved than Monsanto's bottom line?

 

Que?

I would not consider a gene insert seriously changing the genome, such mutations are occur naturally, transposition mutations, gene insertion from a virus, etc. Now if this was a synthetic organism with a synthetic genome you would have made your point.

Plasmids are the most "horizontally mobile" inadvertently, of all other techniques, they have the greatest potential to migrate to a bacteria and then into another plant, all the other techniques less so. Tradition and familiarity has nothing to do with it.

And what can't they test then?

Lots of things were brand new to the planet as of twenty years ago, heck new species and variants of viruses and disease have appear all naturally and all on their own without the aid of GM, and yes government tries to regulate what been created by humans.

Genetic engineers as a group hold no ideologies all in common, like the people they are, some will walk barefoot into hell for money. But working for disreputable companies is certainly not nearly as evil as that. More so just because they work for those companies does not mean they are lieing (Ad hominem) since academics acknowledge GM is reasonably safe and aren't on Monsanto or others pay check one could conclude the general argument is not driven by a pay check from Evil'n'large corp.

No they are contributing and to the communities potential benefit, its only that hte companies will benefit more they they morally should and the communities will benefit less then what could be achieved.

Yeah because it had a fraction of as many people as it has now.

And despite all this we managed to raise the population by 6 times in two centuries, we managed to increase the localized standard of living in first world countries to beyond that of kings and queens just a few centuries ago. Technology has managed to keep pace with the problems, if we keep going we will eventual reach a utopia where no one works, robots do all the labor and we just sit around and live lives so totally leisurely and hedonistic and integrated into the machines that the human race goes extinct as fast as it grow or faster, either that or the robots and transhumans kill us off as quickly as possible in total war, depends on which they decide is better. And then the transhumans and machines will by our rightful successor, just was we were to the Neanderthal and Homo Erects. Not needing food, water, air, etc the transhumans will leave this muddball to explore the wonders of the universe free of talking monkey trappings.

I'm all for curbing the companies, rather I just don't see how GM is how they are causing "reckless endangerment of the ecological, economical, and agricultural systems of major human civilizations"

Making animals or plants fuck is not an innovation, more so the offspring are prone to less understood or predictable outcomes then a single gene insert. Just because its traditional does not mean we understand it, your argument is called an appeal to tradition fallacy.

GM is not a singular thing, that can be evaluated with "real world experience" rather its products are, and each product must be evaluated individually. Since traditional breeding has continued with new breeds and strains introduced onto the market all the time they have not undergone the generational "real world" evaluation either. So your statement is hypocritical.

why can't you separate your loathing for corporations from your loathing of GM?

 

Horizontal whole gene transfer between arbitrary taxa is something you believe happens naturally, and something you believe is (therefore?) not a serious change in a genome.

Understood.

And that is the worldview of the people who are assuring us all that this stuff is safe, under control, no big deal, and nothing new - aside from its unprecedented fantastic new possibilities for benefiting us, of course, possibilities available in no other way.

They're fruit loops. Bughouse. They can't be trusted with sharp objects and flammables, let alone the ability to manipulate our food supply on a fundamental genetic level and control the results for their own financial gain.

I have no loathing of GM.

 

what is a "serious change in the genome" I would consider whole chromosomes being lost or gained a "serious change". I would consider breeding 3 different diploid grasses species together to make today hexaploid wheat a serious change. A single gene insert of a few thousand base pairs in a genome of billions of base pairs is not a serious change, changes like that happen in the wild all the time, Plasmid vectors for gene insertion into plants were based on natural plasmid exchange mechanism between bacteria and plants (thats horizontal transfer between different domains of life, the horror!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

Never said they did not have drawbacks, only that the benefits outway the risks and that proper risk assessment reveals your argument to be nothing but compilation of fallacies.

Your forming hate of them is entertaining.

Well then you have not reason to keep arguing on this thread, no if you want to set up a thread about how to control Monsanto and its ilk I would be glade to provide input.

 

Norman Borlaug, according to your links, regarded the ability to insert gluten protein genes from wheat into rice as one of the hopeful benefits of GM tech. He lobbied for it.

Perhaps you might have some input into the best way to make sure that anyone who actually does that ensures that all the rice and rice product expressing such genetics - including the accidentally contaminated, by unexpected cross-fertilizations or other transfer - discovers, isolates, and labels such product so that those wishing to avoid it can do so without avoiding everything associated with rice.

The genetic modification of soybeans to resist atrazine was so arranged that atrazine is sequestered in all parts of the plant, including the beans and bean product eaten by humans. Recently, it was discovered that the atrazine assumed to have been rendered harmless by the chemical complex of its sequestration is sometimes released into the human small intestine during digestion, where it is a known poison at larger doses. Perhaps we might have your input into how soybean products that contain this possible hazard might be identified and avoided by those who would prefer not to take that risk.

Also, as that particular genetic modification has led to increased use of atrazine, resulting in greater contamination of watersheds and aquifers with this herbicide, and a variety of other problems as predicted by observers, the question comes up: how should we go about seeing to it that the profiting corporations pay for the various cleanups and remediations? Should we, for example, require corporations to post a bond sufficient to cover the cost of remediation of at least the predicted effects of their GM releases? How about the unpredicted ones?

Should the bond cover the losses as valued by the people suffering them - the loss of safe drinking water from a well prized for its quality, and used for excellent home brewing, at its owner's price, say? The loss of especially valued butterfly and other insect populations from the vicinity of country homes at the price for which they would have been sacrificed willingly?

 

Well we can easily engineer it sterile, or we can cross a few chromosome and make it reproductively incompatible with any other species or breed. Food product manufactures can easily test their products for gluten content, and label their products as containing gluten if it test positive for gluten.

Simply test for atazine, or better yet considering all the known environmental and health side-effects of atrazine, simply ban atrazine all together, the EU already did so.

A ban on atazine use could require corporations that produced or promoted atazine use to pay for clean up operations, though I think there would be less pressure against a ban if we simply just banned without retribution: with atazine half-life it will all be gone from the ground water supply in a few years.

If a specific GM product is proven to cause detrimental health or environmental side-effects directly, then that product's producers should be libel to law suits. This is how the law it set up now and requires no change.

As for the drinking water the atazine companies should take the brunt of that burden. As for BT contaminate pollen killing butterflies, at present the evidence is against this theory, but if proven the companies should be susceptible to law suits.

 

With, at great expense, almost - but unfortunately not quite, the real world being what it is - reasonable certainty.

But reasonable certainty in at least one area: Driving "clean" rice prices higher, and significant numbers of relevant small farmers, farmer's markets, small kitchen brewers and jelly makers etc, independent importers and exporters and so forth, out of business.

And that's given a level of regulation and oversight currently found in how many areas, would you guess? A couple of the more advanced countries of Europe? Not the US.

The EU also banned GM of that kind, which means they aren't playing taxpayer-funded and inadequately informed whack-a-mole with every bright idea some genetic engineer can think up - because as the example (and this thread) shows, relying on the good ethics and sensible self-regulation of the experts in the field is a recipe for disaster. With atrazine tolerance, they either didn't know what they were doing, or they didn't care - take your pick.

And the indirect stuff, the long delayed kickback, the difficult to "prove" - too bad for us, we aren't allowed to prevent it?

The law as set up now favors the corporations, to an extreme. Even clear, delimited, specific disasters are almost impossible to get through the courts in the US if they are large enough to actually threaten the corporation - the Exxon Valdez has not yet paid off, even after (technically speaking) "losing" in court, an event that took many years. And the damage from it, easily predicted and easily preventable, will not be "cleaned up" in our lifetimes.

The good side of that, compared with the incoming GM disaster, is that oil isn't exponentially self-reproductive and self-mobilized.

They won't. In practical terms, they can't.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as they say.

 

BS, GMO are often made infertile, specifically to increase the profits of the corporations by forcing the farming to keep buying more seeds every year.

Antigen tests consist of nothing more then a piece of paper with a smaller circle containing antibodies, heck its the same as how many home pregnancy tests work, it would not be to pricey for smaller businesses, and of course if the rice is sterile then this scenario could not occur, unless of course someone purchased the wrong kind of rice.

I think the FDA would disagree, go to any store, look for bags that that say things like "contains peanuts", "contains phenylalanine", etc

The EU ban GM products your of left wingnut fear not out of rational judgement. atrazine tolerance?, that the worse you can cite of atrazine? They ban atrazine because it was an environmental and health hazard, with studies to prove it (unlike GM products combined) not because some plants became tolerant.

If you don't want to feed the world, sure you can prevent the unlikely from happening.

So? Simply lobby for less favorbale laws for the corporations then.

GMOs aren't any more likely to spread than conventional agriculture plants.

Nor should they, just stop production and it will all be gone within 5 years.