Evidence mounts on the failures of genetically modified crops

monocrop farming is a dying breed, the future is locally grown, organically grown food. The modern idea that our food needs to be modified in some way to feed us is just ridiculous or we would have starved long before Jesus turned water into wine. The only purpose for modifying our food supply is for total domination and greed.

Link; Report finds genetically modified agriculture incurs more costs than benefits.

Ask farmers who are tied to Monsanto contracts that have to purchase seed (which went up in price last year during a 'food crisis') and the herbicides that go with it every year because they cannot save seed if it is cheaper, especially if their crops are not seeing much more in the way of yields.
Ask a farmer whose organic crops were ruined from transgenic contamination which is more and more frequent if it is cheaper.

Personally, I think the cheaper more yield PR line is a myth that needs to be busted. And modify it at what environmental cost down the line? Again, there has been no definitive scientific evidence dessiminated that can unequivocably state that the genes or bacteria/viruses inserted into these crops follow a set process everytime. Do you really think the bacteria that are blasted into the genes of these plants are not fought off by the genes being inserted? How can anyone tell definitively what mutations even so slight may occur in any batch that could ultimately shut down the crop causing it to fail, or even worse, causing sickness? It is Russian Roulette with our environment and our health, and frankly I don't nead a 'bigger' or 'faster' GM tomato at the expense of biodiversity.

For me, judging my fruits and vegtables is kind of like this in analogy: Bigger isn't always better, or, it isn't quantity but quality that matters. I am more than willing to pay a bit more to get quality and not have to worry that what I am eating may down the line contribute to a health issue I may have since I have no tests backing the 100% safety of these organisms that are clearly out here to make companies profit.

I can understand why people would want their crops to be grown naturally, but then again, how can you consider it environmentally beneficial if it's required to hoe up fields, set-up irrigation systems, drive tractors around to collect the crop, etc. I'm not saying I'd rather buy gm vegetables at the grocery, it's just that gm crop can be modified to grow faster, cheaper, and consume less resources.

This is great I hope these GM's are outlawed and quick. From what I understand not using any chemicals and proper rotation of crops can lead to the best yeild per acre. I other words the natural way is still the best way. This is what I have been told by farmers who have gone to mother nature to raise thier crops.

Yea, well, scientists have known for years fluoride doesn't work and municipal utilities still poison two-thirds of us with it by putting it in the water! Once these things find a market it is hard to convince officials to root them out.

I feel very sorry for all the people who have been duped and in many cases forced into buying these products. They are a disaster and since they are not even able to meet their claims, maybe it's time for everyone to see them as they are, a big con-job.

From first item:

Double-whammy hits genetically modified crops

April 14, 2009 - Exclusive By Emma Ritch, Cleantech Group

Concerned Scientists say GM crops offer little added benefit.

Two declarations released today about genetically modified crops took the industry to task on two fronts: its environmental impact and its lack of significant yield increases to-date.

Germany's Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner today announced a nationwide ban on the only genetically modified crop that was permitted in the country because of concerns of the environmental impact.

The ruling outlaws the MON 810 strain of corn that St. Louis, Mo.-based Monsanto (NYSE: MON) engineered with a gene to protect against the European corn borer butterfly. The move makes Germany the latest in a string of European countries to outlaw Monsanto's GM corn, despite a ruling from an EU regulatory body in favor of the science.

Meanwhile, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a report today that says 13 years of commercialization of GM crops have failed to deliver on industry promises to significantly increase U.S. crop yields, calling for public dollars to be spent on more results-oriented science.

GM crops have been hailed as a way to protect against pests, drought and disease to increase yields for food or biofuel feedstocks (see Monsanto pumps corn for ethanol and Monsanto, Perten team up for ethanol process tools). Advocates say that fewer crop losses also lead to less carbon emissions from decomposing crops (see Biotech crops lower world's carbon emissions, says researcher).

Those benefits have led to significant growth in demand, and dozens of GM crops are still in the pipeline of development (see Global biotech crops up 13% in 2006, driven partly by biofuel).

But the Union of Concerned Scientists disputed the claims of increased production in the "Failure to Yield" report.

"Clearly the industry has been trying as long as it has existed to improve yields, but the record is extremely meager," Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist at UCS and author of the report, told the Cleantech Group."Going forward, we need to be careful about putting too many eggs in the basket of genetic engineering."

The report looks at the two most popular GM uses: herbicide-resistant corn and soybeans, and pest-resistant corn. The report showed that the use of herbicide-tolerant corn and soybeans have had no effect on actual per-acre yields.