| There's a common misconception that GMO is inherently
| toxic. GMO only means that a gene has been changed in
| a laboratory rather than by cross breeding. The bigger
| concern with GMO is the motives, and thereby the results.
| Altering genes to produce toxin tolerance is an idiotic use
| of GMO.
|
| I'm not so sure about that. Cross breeding and grafting involves
| similar plants. Peaches, plums, and the like can be modified that way.
|

Yes, you can't cross breed a sunflower with
a haddock, so I guess GMO is different in that
way. I'm not defending GMO and won't buy
GMO food, for 3 reasons:

1) health concerns
2) patentability
3) nature of the change

I'm concerned about the trend toward
turning the issue into a simple case of whether
or not GMO is healthy. There are tomatoes now
that are altered to be deep red despite being
unripe and tasteless. It's a dumb and sleazy
idea, but not necessarily unhealthy. If it could
be proved that such tomatoes are healthy the
GMO supporters could make their case. But
what the general public is missing are the other
two issues: indefensible alterations and patentability.
There's a problem with supporting deceptive
products. And there's a grave problem with
supporting patentability of life forms. Even if
companies cross-breed peaches they have motivation
to produce the exact same breed via GMO, because
that can then be patented. Monsanto has been
threatening to sue corn farmers for patent
infringement because Monsanto pollen from nearby
farms "might" infect their fields! It's a crazy claim,
but farmers can't afford to fight Monsanto so they
agree to settle by accepting Roundup Ready seeds
rather than go broke trying to fight patent infringement
lawsuits. With the Scalia cartel running the Supreme
Court there's not much hope for humane improvements
in laws like patentability of life forms. It's up to
the public to see through the strategy.