"phil..c" wrote:
>
> Arri London wrote:
> >
> > "modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
> >> Brief descriptions, too.
> >> http://webecoist.com/2009/02/19/gene...ts-vegetables/
> >>
> >> I'd like to taste a lemato, I think.
> >> --
> >>
> >> modom
> >
> >
> > Interesting page.
> > All the foodstuffs we eat are genetically modified. Sometimes that
> > modification took place centuries ago. Other modifications are more
> > modern.
> > Simple hybridisation (pollen transfer by insects, wind or humans) is
> > genetic modification. The insulin gene put into the lettuce required
> > more than pollen transfer
> > Carrots naturally come in many colours; the orange sort has become the
> > most common in parts of the world.
>
> Arri I am still personally a NON GM sort of person
> in some areas but not all I have profound issues with the manner and
> corporate behaviour of the likes of Monsanto just to name one .
> Consider the following:

<snip very good considerations>

BTDT, my PhD is in biotechnology/genetic engineering The work
concerned medical/pharmaceutical uses.

Never did any work with modifiying agricultural products for just those
reasons, but had to attend lectures/read up on those topics. What people
generally miss about agbiotech is that the seeds are *licenced* by the
user rather than being bought outright. That makes them unsuitable for
third-world/poor farmers, who would be at the mercy of brokers who could
actually read and understand the licencing agreements. It is illegal to
save seeds resulting from biotech crops, contrary to practices that have
worked well for millenia. Monsanto and other agbiotech companies have a
bad track record for trying to prosecute farmers whose crops turn out to
be engineered, when no such seed was deliberately planted. The seeds
were 'contaminated' in transit, which is another major issue.

Could also go on at great length but won't