Seriously? Do any of you do research or consider future implications when you champion a cause?

There are now articles talking about how the demand for bio-fuel is driving up food prices, causing deforestation and creating conflict in already food starved countries, while there is little to no hard scientific data to explain why GMOs are bad. The reason the Golden Rice argument is so good is because it's the ONLY hard piece of evidence for or against GMOs.

This is why most don't take environmentalists seriously: they claim science is good and then ignore it when it supports something that scares them.

clever adds, but I'm a little tired of hearing about how "something might contain something that might be bad maybe!" I know genetically modifying plants is wrong, but could you give me some facts and not so much vagueness? Then more people might believe you maybe.

Nature has been randomly altering genes for the history of the planet ...

Us trying to make a beneficial change is magnitudes safer then pure randomness.

This is pure FUD.

Where GM is bad is when they alter genes so they can slather on pesticides heavier without killing the plant (like it would normally). Or instituting DRM and IP laws on genes (like we haven't learned our lesson with software patents and software DRM) so that the plant can not be multi-generational (and there for not grow-able in the third world).

I'm not sure what the Greenpeace aims to achieve here. You don't make a scientific point through a misleading ad. You know science is very unique. It's very different from a discipline such as politics. In science, a fact is a fact and there's nothing one can do, including the use of ads, to twist it. On the issue of GMOs, the Greenpeace and other organizations opposed to crop genetic engineering, should be highlighting scientific studies that show GM foods aren't good. Caricaturing a crop and using it in an ad to make a point is the most egregious strategy to employ. Blogger James in his blog, GMO Africa tackles this debate by demanding that any debate on GMOs is scientifically grounded.

"Us trying to make a beneficial change is magnitudes safer then pure randomness."

Wow....just wow. Time has proved again and again that when we try to alter things, it eventually comes back to haunt us.

The planet's "random alterations" have worked effectively to nurture a waste free, cyclical, organic environment for billions of years. Then we came along and screwed everything up.

We will not concur nature without destroying ourselves.

Monsanto have effectively stopped independent research on GM food.
The little that got through their net found:
'Accordingly, the Coordinator of FF 818 SOAEFD commissioned programme is of the opinion that the existing data fully support our suggestion that the consumption by rats of transgenic potatoes expressing GNA has significant effects on organ development, body metabolism and immune function that is fully in line with the significant compositional differences between transgenic and corresponding parent lines of potatoes.'
http://www.rowett.ac.uk/gmo/ajp.htm
Arpad Pusztai's story is interesting and reminds us that finding results that do not support large powerful corporations is not a great career move.
GM food - you can take it or leave it but I don't want it pushed down my throat.

There is genetically modified corn that places an enzyme from a cow's digestive system into the plant. As a result the cellulose can be easily broken down and turned into ethanol. The corn itself can be saved for food so we can grow corn for both food and fuel. The enzyme doesn't do the cow any harm and when people eat cows the enzyme in the cow doesn't do the humans any harm. Greenpeace may need to be a bit more precise in their campaign.

People ought to be aware of what they're eating, but scare tactics really aren't the way to go about it.

Deoxyribonucleic acid is the same chemical no matter where it comes from. It's the coded order of enzymes that makes it unique--without a master genome index, you could look at DNA from a jellyfish and DNA from a carrot, and you'd never be able to the origins of either one.

Greenpeace is essentially exploiting and furthering scientific ignorance. Companies like Monsanto do the same thing when they say that it's great when we GMO corn to be resistant to pestacides.

I'm going to have to chime in with most of these comments.

DNA from animals in plants does *not* make the plant part animal and is *not* as freaky-scary as Greenpeace would have you believe.
DNA itself is not what makes an organism, but the gene products are. Genes encode proteins, and the way these proteins are formed from the genes are different in different organisms. The gene needs to be transcribed to RNA first, for which it needs transcription factors which in turn can be activated or broken down. All this is cell-dependent. Sometimes the location of the gene in relation to other genes determines it's fate. Some cells add sugar molecules to the finished proteins, some don't, or do it in a different way.

If a plant is able to express an animal gene, that does not make it part animal, and hammering on about the origin of these extra genes is purposeless.

However, what *is* important is questioning the long term effects of manipulating this plant DNA, regardless of whether that was done through the introduction of animal genes or by mutating existing genes OR by breeding (because that's genetic modification too!). In *all* these cases you should consider what happens if herbicide-resistant crop cross-pollinates with wild plants, or whether making tomatoes easier to transport doesn't have any other effects on the tomatoes, etc. In all these cases it doesn't matter through which *method* the DNA was manipulated. Greenpeace is just supporting this crazy myth that genetic material that originally came from another organism is something to be scared about, instead of focusing on the *relevant* ethical questions.
Treehugger should know better, but at least many of its readers do.

I find these funny. Especially the carrot-lobster

"This is why most don't take environmentalists seriously: they claim science is good and then ignore it when it supports something that scares them."

Kyle, science is not that easy to understand as you would wish it to be. Sometimes something is so obvious, that you need science only to rigorously prove what is already undisguised to man in the street without any science. Sometimes things are so complex that it takes decades and more for science to clarify.

So, if science says biofuel is bad for food prices and it is correct prediction that doesn't mean that gmo is safe, if science today says so (though it doesn't). It may take time. My mom worked with mercury with bare hands while learning chemistry in school - it was scientifically approved and mercury was shown to possess no harm to health. Yet now things are otherwise.

Just remember that we don't have 100% honest crystal ball, which produces completely unbiased research immediately we are puzzled with some nature's mystery. It takes time. And what is more important, people are behind science. We call them scientists, but not every one of them has scientific honesty and no ties with corporations.

This advert bashes genetically modified food but for the wrong reasons. The good reasons not to grow GM crops are that they will lead to long term reductions in crop yield even if they provide short term benefits. By using a quick workaround today, we make tomorrow's problem even harder to tackle. This is not sustainable. Organic farming is as it promotes biodiversity to ensure healthy crops. And please be aware that science isn't some monolithic entity with one opinion on what can work and what can't. There are many intelligent scientists who see these problems and wouldn't dream of recommending genetically modified anything as a good course of action. I would expect most evolutionary biologists to fall within this camp.

Check out this chapter from Natural Capitalism for a good discussion on agriculture:
http://www.natcap.org/images/other/NCchapter10.pdf

The amount of Americans on this site who are blindly pro-GM continues to amaze me.

Back in the 50's everyone thought asbestos was just awesome! That's just one example of scientific based inventions used by corporations to make some bucks - oops, I mean improve the world. History has shown some of these (like GMO's) take time before showing the negative effects. How much time do we have to fix all of our negative effects against nature on this planet?

"The amount of Americans on this site who are blindly pro-GM continues to amaze me."

Exactly. If you analyze their statements closely - you'll find quite a broad range of arguments- all put very positively, in the "EVERYBODY knows this" fashion.

But in fact, the great majority of their statements are either blind misinformation - or intentional DIS information.

Monsanto et al have paid disinformers at work- with good search engines, so as soon as a new post crops up that trips their search parameters - bingo; 20 paid agents post very sophisticated disinformation.

I am a geneticist- and plant breeder. Old fashioned breeding and genetic engineering are NOTHING alike, technically. Which in fact is what the biotech people first claimed- "new, improved, totally different..."

Yes, putting animal genes into a plant MAY have wildly unexpected consequences.

It's not as simple as the Biotech Boys think- or say. It's worth remembering that as a business- "biotech" has been a huge bust. Billions invested - very few products brought to market. Because- it doesn't work. And particularly, it doesn't work the way they think it does. If it did, they'd all be zillionaires by now. What that means is: THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING. If they did, all their business plans would be bearing fruit. And they don't. Think about that.

The reason there is not much science that backs up anti-GMO claims is that scientists are afraid to do research in this area.

Why?

Because not only will they find such a study difficult to impossible to fund, but they would be roundly shouted down by the rest of the scientific community.

Why?

Because there are intense profit-motives that dominate science, as there are profit motives dominating politics, media, etc.

If you are skeptical, look up the case of Ignacio Chapela, a UC researcher who found that GM maize genes had contaminated 'clean' stocks deep in the heart of Mexico, in Oaxaxa where this crossing of genes had been thought impossible to happen.

These were considered controversial results, and though nothing wrong was found in his methodology, a rare Science magazine retraction occured, and the UC denied him tenure...story goes on in a compelling manner...

The dangers of GMO are not based solely in the potential dangers related to human consumption - there are other "problems" that are hard to discount as well. If you take out the "potential for human harm" factor altogether, and look at the increased use of herbicides needed to maintain GMO crops, the yield increase myth, the emergence of mass monocultures, and the fact that companies like Monsanto and their brethren have poisioned thousands of acres of land and water, not to mention people in this country, then there is more than sufficient evidence to promote the banning of GMOs. This does not even scratch the surface of debating whether a living organism should be allowed to be patented in the first place! Once the ball gets rolling, it is impossible to stop - if you think that in the future if there are impediments to human health resulting from GMO consumption that we can just remove it from the environment, it's time to wake up. Nature doesn't work that way. I for one am an advocate of making labeling a requirement for any products that contain GMOs - whether it be animals consuming GMO feed that end up as meat on grocery shelves, or cereals made from GMO wheat - makes no difference. As an American, who last I checked had the freedom of choice, I think I deserve to have that information available to me so that I can make the choices I feel are right for my family and my body.

The dangers of GMO are not based solely in the potential dangers related to human consumption - there are other "problems" that are hard to discount as well. If you take out the "potential for human harm" factor altogether, and look at the increased use of herbicides needed to maintain GMO crops, the yield increase myth, the emergence of mass monocultures, and the fact that companies like Monsanto and their brethren have poisioned thousands of acres of land and water, not to mention people in this country, then there is more than sufficient evidence to promote the banning of GMOs. This does not even scratch the surface of debating whether a living organism should be allowed to be patented in the first place! Once the ball gets rolling, it is impossible to stop - if you think that in the future if there are impediments to human health resulting from GMO consumption that we can just remove it from the environment, it's time to wake up. Nature doesn't work that way. I for one am an advocate of making labeling a requirement for any products that contain GMOs - whether it be animals consuming GMO feed that end up as meat on grocery shelves, or cereals made from GMO wheat - makes no difference. As an American, who last I checked had the freedom of choice, I think I deserve to have that information available to me so that I can make the choices I feel are right for my family and my body.

While selective breeding and GM are not the same thing, they are both actions taken to alter a plant's normal progression through evolution. Even stepping in to provide extra water and fertilizer is going to alter the way that plants exist.

There are side effects to that action, and they range from causing plants to be less desirable to pollinating insects (or more attractive to pests!) to the creation of plants that could not survive without human intervention due to certain genetic weaknesses. (A similar situation exists with wild animals that move in to urban areas when humans provide what is too scarce in the wild - face it, we feel we get to decide what lives and what dies.)

My only real concern with GM is that it is a science in its infancy. I'm the sort of person that won't even buy a new OS for my computer until it's been available at least a year. I can understand that "look before you leap" mentality, and I agree that caution is warranted.

The harsh (and frequently ignored) reality is that our world is overpopulated and we're not choosing to slow down. Food production and consumption is not going to decrease, and there seems to be a genuine need for the availability of GM foods. I understand the concerns associated with them, but that's mainly what I hear - concerns without any alternate (realistic) suggestions provided.

the reasons GMOs are not good for the earth are that they always use a virus, this is what attacks the DNA of the plant in order to alter the genetic code, this also causes the plant to be incapable of sexual reproduction, which is adding to the ever increasing decline in the honey bee population (our most important plant pollinators)
if you want to sum up the answer to correcting all the problems we've caused the earth since the industrial revolution it's rather simple: leave nature alone, consume only what you need to live (which means to eat to live not live to eat) and always save your seeds for the next year. We are so accustomed to everyone else taking are of us, that we aren't even capable of independent living. We need to go back to growing our own grains, making our own meal from the grain and turning it into bread. We have raped the earth too long, it's time to stop consuming and start producing!!