Becca wrote:
>
> Arri London wrote:
> > <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
> >
>
> Aw shucks, just when it was getting good. :-) Feel free to elaborate
> any time, I was enjoying it.
>
> Becca

LOL. Nah...have had enough soapbox time.
What it does come down to is consumer preference. Other biotech crops
(such as tomatoes) have failed in the marketplace simply because people
didn't want to buy them. The FDA is making life difficult by refusing to
require growers and manufacturers to label products as containing GMOs
(direct DNA-manipulated, that is). Labelling is done in other countries.
American farmers who choose *not* to grow GMOs can get a premium for
their crops overseas.