WTO Rule Against non GM stance
Great! Thanks WTO. Perhaps if you could ride over other democratic concerns we might have about.. well about whatever you want! You're the boss *tips hat*
Printable View
WTO Rule Against non GM stance
Great! Thanks WTO. Perhaps if you could ride over other democratic concerns we might have about.. well about whatever you want! You're the boss *tips hat*
If you applied democracy as a litmus test would there be free-trade at all? Wouldn't protectionism rule supreme? Wouldn't minorities everywhere quake in fear?
So you are saying that it is fair enough for a untested technology that the UK neither wants nor needs to be imposed on them (largely for the benefit of a couple of US agro-chemical companies)?
What would WTO do if Britain would refuse?
I am all for it being allowed. Consumers are the ones staunchly against eating the stuff, and that is unlikely to change.
I think that a product that is tradable internationally should be sold here - but that doesn't mean that we have to buy it!!!
~:smoking:
The only concern I have with GM food is that the manipulated genes might end up in the natural gene pool...wich is actually a huge concern.
Agreed, but how many people study product descriptions good enough to discover it's GM?Quote:
I think that a product that is tradable internationally should be sold here - but that doesn't mean that we have to buy it!!!
Due to the size of public backlash against the foods it is often trumpeted by shops that their own brands don't contain any, and often individual items state they are GM free.
Bacteria have these genes in already, and are quite capable of taking raw DNA from the soil or other dead bacteria and incorporating it into their own DNA, so for most organisms there's nothing new.
In higher plants, some might have limited affect, but in nature I believe that evolutionary pressure would be agianst plants with the genes as they require pampering in other ways in a controlled environment to thrive.
~:smoking:
Hmm... Surely this ruling does not allow them to be grown here? And then the EU might prevent anything which allows them to being grown into the EU? And also wouldn't the foods be labelled as GM?
Why do people let their archaic views stand in the way of scientific progress? :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Honestly, this GM food stuff is silly. It's nothing more than fear mongering and agricultural protectionism on the part of those against it.Quote:
Originally Posted by article
Yes I agree, if we get the untested GM food out on the market we get more - and human - subjects to test it on! Long live scientific progress!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
:elephant: :elephant: :elephant: :jumping:
:tomato2:
Perhaps - but ultimately it should be the consumers' decision whether they want to buy/eat GM food or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
The problem is that I doubt that the consumer actually will have the choice as the required labeling will be a bit difficult to enforce in practice (and IIRC the US farmers strictly oppose the labeling)
Perhaps- but I hardly think that government imposed, protectionist bans is really going to allow the consumers to decide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
These GM food scare tactics become even more unconscionable when it comes to 3rd world countries. This scientifically unjustified scare mongering in Europe is spreading to countries where people are litterally dying of starvation. These hardier and more resistant crops would do much better in many of these places, in addition to opening them up to wider food imports. Yet, some would rather see these developing countries ban gm foods to prop up their otherwise uncompetitive agricultural industry.
As long as complete labeling along the chain is ensured I personally wouldn't have a problem with lifting the ban - if that is not possible, a ban seems to reflect the will of a majority of the population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
And the local farmers would have to buy seeds and the pesticides from companies like Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta (which is a Swiss company, BTW - so it's not like it would be only "evil Americans" involved here - also the agrochemicals businesses of the German BASF and Bayer would certainly increase their interest in GM crops as soon as they are acceted in the EU)Quote:
These hardier and more resistant crops would do much better in many of these places, in addition to opening them up to wider food imports. Yet, some would rather see these developing countries ban gm foods to prop up their otherwise uncompetitive agricultural industry.
Well, that was easy. Yet another international dispute sorted out via the Backroom. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Canada has acted shamefully regarding GM foods. A few years back, our government lobbied to make it illegal (in the EU and here) to say on prepared food packaging that there are GM products contained within.
They said it would just confuse the consumer. :dizzy2:
:deal2: "Just sign this, say that, and you gets yer money. Repeat after me - 'GM foods are good for kids'"
:greedy: "GM - foods - are - good - for - kids. Now where's my check?"
To say GM foods are untested is melodramatic. They are tested, and continue to be tested. Is the data compiled as large as you would like? Obviously not in your case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Things like this happen, e.g: I don't like Siemans linear accelerators. Their target design is inferior, their reliability inferior yet they refuse to change it. The US neither needs nor wants them, but due to fair trade practices and price breaks some Therapy centers buy them. I could get melodramatic and say "off-line accelerators kill cancer patients every day!" Doesn't make it true....tough the validate
Yes. It is called the free market. Generations of Brits voted for it, so it is little use complaining now, is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
It would authorise the US or whoever else was trying to sell GM products in the UK to ban or apply tarrifs to selected UK products. It is not anti-democratic. The UK government could still ban imports, but we would have to accept restrictions on our exports to the countries affected. The job of the WTO would be to make sure that any retaliation was proportionate.Quote:
What would WTO do if Britain would refuse?
Idaho, doesn't Communism extole a free market as an extremely good thing? I don't think it's possible to profess to want some aspects and not others. All or nothing and I think that all is a far more socialist solution...
~:smoking:
What exactly is going to happen? I personally think GM might be ok if there are laws forcing you to mark the packages cointaining the food so that the consumer knows it's GM food. If not, then it's pretty evil to allow people to sell untested, potentially harmful food to people against their will, giving people no way at all to know how they can avoid the products if they want to.
I have difficulties understanding why some politicians are removing many different product information requirements laws. For example the EU can now sell fruit drinks without a signle percent of real fruit contents as juice, while previously only drinks mostly consisting of fruit contents were only allowed to be called juice, making it really difficult to find what I really want to find. Hopefully they'll at least keep laws that forbid producers to mark goods as non-GM or 100% fruit content if that isn't the case. If GM food becomes legal and the producers aren't compelled to mark the products as GM food, then I'll certainly buy from the first producer who clearly marks his/her goods with a little non-GM label. While breeding of wheat, corn etc. during the millenia behind us is genetical manipulation, it's been a slow rate process very close to the natural processes, and has been tested thoroughly. We know from many different plants that it IS possible for certain genetical combinations to cause a plant to produce very poisonous substances. Therefore any GM food produced by quick alteration of DNA of the plant in a way that doesn't resemble the normal "breeding" of plants could potentially create any of the poisonous substances existing in any of the today existing herbs, and possibly also a few not yet known substances. Any GM food produced therefore should be chemically analysed thoroughly to prove none of these substances exist in it, before being sold on the market - something I doubt law, or the economical competition climate in the area, enforces today.
Finally genetically manipulating plants has two potential and very dangerous side-effects:
- short-term: the ecosystems around the plants adapt, so if the plants get more resistive to parasites, the parasites get stronger. Such parasites can then spread to normal, non-GM plants, and destroy them
- long-term: if people start using GM plants on a larger scale, i.e. say 90% of all plants are GM, we could get problems with genetical variety and it's possible that we all end up with a plant that is a potential time bomb that'll stop working after a while, due to fairly deterministic genetical degradation patterns, or because ecosystem changes will make that particular configuration weak in a future ecosystem. That would cause global starvation on a VERY massive scale. Agriculture over the world should be so varied that the largest possible crisis we could think of would only hurt, say, 10% of all plants at the most. Thus genetical variety and plants who have evolved naturally or by breeding during a longer period are important to assure we don't run into a genetical dead end with our plants. If ONE GM alteration is significantly more successful on the market than others, there's a risk ALL growers will start using it, creating this horror scenario. Thus, GM food is only a good thing if it undergoes heavy testing, and only targets the luxurous part of the market.
First: they have all undergone one hell of a lot of testing. You make it sound like some scientists got drunk, stuck in some genes and then started flogging it to the market.
The genes added are pretty specific, and the ones that people seem to be most worried about are either antibiotic resistance (which invariably came from bacteria) or pesticide resistance which I feel is more of a relevant issue, except that the evolutionary pressure for the genes drops considerably when the pesticide is not present.
Humans have accelerated evolution of plants drastically. OK, by tried and tested methods, but to say at the same speed of nature is frankly complete twaddle.
The loss of genetic variability is a very large problem. Although not a pancea one counter argument would be that if several different companies achieve similar goals using different techniques it is extremely unlikely that all will be affected at once - although the world would suffer if wheat was destroyed en mass for example.
Parasites would develop resistance to the man made pesticides, and may become more suseptable to pressures such as drought or the weather. As non GM plants do not use pesticides the parasites would be less able to cope, not more.
~:smoking:
Product Labeling.
Have a big label on it saying GM food.
Have it also include it is plant to plant, animal to plant, human to plant DNA etc.
Heh. You must not have eat any wheat products then. Wheat is a genetically modified food, after all. Genes from several different plants were combined into one. The only thing different is how humans genetically modified wheat.
If you're not angry about wheat (which I sense you aren't), getting irate at selected GM foods because you don't like how they were modified is silly.
Oh, and there is the whole matter of free trade agreements.
Crazed Rabbit
1) Transgenic DNA insertion is a whole different scenario to that of cross breeding a plant.
2) Free Trade should never be put above democracy or peoples health. If people vote for pesticide free food, or buy only organic food... then the government should not be forced to feed them food that has pesticides.
3) Free Trade agreements... are a really good thing. They should also only apply when the labour force has equal or better rights to the country they ar exporting to. Why should local markets suffer because overseas manufacturers flout labour laws...
Different (faster) procedure for the same results. Arguing that one is some sort of frankenstienish bogeyman when both achieve the same results-genetic modification of a plant-is illogical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Nobody is forcing the people to buy GM food, and there is no scientific proof of it being unhealthy.
Overseas manufacturers do not 'flout' labor laws. Often, all third world countries have going for them is cheap labor. Free trade, even with cheap labor countries, is good, as it enables the workers in those poor countries to get a job, and the people in rich western countries to get stuff for cheaper.
Crazed Rabbit
That sounds suspiciously like the logic that presents child labor in Third World as a basically positive thing, you know...
What a daring tilt you had at that strawman! Bravo!
I'm not surprised that you've resorted to accusing me of supporting child labor, which I abhor.
Crazed Rabbit
Straw man my ass. Just pointing out the "it enables the workers in those poor countries to get a job, and the people in rich western countries to get stuff for cheaper" sounds suspiciously similar.
Transgenic describes things that you cannot normally achieve through cross-breeding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
For instance scorpion DNA in a plant is not normal. No matter how many times a scorpion humps a flower it could not create a scorpion-plant combination.
Considering all the problems we have with heavily processed foods, I am not willing to bet that there will not be problems with food that has been GMed. Look at the problems that sugar from Corn produces. A hi calorie, sweet food that does not turn off hunger pangs leading the consumer to eat more sweetened food then if they ate the equivalent Cane sugar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
If you notice my first post I said that it should be clearly labled that it is GM food. And that governments should not be pressured if their citizens do not wish to eat GM food.
They do. They have saftey and environmental practices that would be illegal in the country they are exporting to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Things like over long shifts, company shops, welded emergency exits, little worker rights, lack of safety mechanisms on mechanical apparutus, etc etc.
If free trade is to be just that then the labour component should be up to standard. It should not just be a matter of capital exploitation. It can and should be a win win scenario.
The problem I refer to is that the current system of laws doesn't even address this problem. It's actually more likely to find a GM manipulation that increases cost efficiency dramatically than it is by breeding to achieve such a significant improvement. That's why this technique is more endangered to removing genetical variety - if such a significantly improving manipulation is found, almost everyone will adopt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Unfortunately it's not that simple - it's just as easy for parasites to adapt to pesticides as changed DNA of plants. It's the same principle that has caused predators to get faster and better hunters when their preys got faster. Any increased difficulties that doesn't kill the species only makes it stronger. In this case this also creates two problems - 1. the GM food will not be as resistible as people expected it to be. Can cause miscalculations which could cause at best economical problems for a few producers, at worst starvation problems. 2. if parasites evolve to become more dangerous to plants in the ecosystems around GM plants, they may spread and cause much more damage to non-GM plants, forcing most growers to either adopt GM plants, or be able to produce nothing. This will most likely cause the loss of genetical variety that is so dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
The problem with these problems is that they resemble all other environmental problems - acting in a problem-causing way gives you a benefit on the market, so nobody will start acting in a non-problem-causing way first, which means nobody really addresses the problem. That's why regulations are needed at this early stage. For environmental problems people have gotten so used to being able to destroy as much as they want for economical benefit that it's very difficult to teach them anything else.
In any case my conclusions are:
1. the current regulation mechanisms are inadequate for avoiding these problems
2. GM food can only be perfectly harmless if it remains a luxurous product and not a common market product
3. it's our right to know what's in the products we buy, so product labelling is a must
I'm afraid I'm never going to understand the European opposition to genetically modified foods. If you were consistent, maybe... but according to Europe, it's okay to clone and mutate humans, heck, even to fuse their DNA with other animals: make a man-worm, a man-rat, a man -slug whatever you care to. Any abomination under the sun, so long as human DNA is involved at some level. AAH!!!:idea2: I know how Archer Daniel Midland can start selling GM corn in Europe: splice human DNA into it...
All us Europeans aren't the same. The Mindless Masses tend to get fixated on an idea, and then nothing will shift them from it. "Frankenstein Foods" hit a chord and from that moment on it was doomed.
~:smoking:
I can't vouch for the Great Unwashed, but one thing that puts me off the stuff is the suspiciously techno-positivist attitude of the pro-GM crowd. Thus far the track record of excessive technological optimism has been rather poor, even if you don't count the crazy Soviet and Chinese projects ("hey, letshs change th' direkshun thishs river flowsh sho we c'n grow mo' cotton!" "Good *hic* idea com-rade! Cheersh fo' th't!" :medievalcheers: ).
Well what took them so long to breed glowing in the dark pigs? I mean the market is huge for gloewing in the dark hotdogs :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Well, we aren't planning on eating that human-thingy... :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Two different markets and thus two different approches in the media.
My own oppinion on GMO in general is that we've already opened the can of worms, so tread carefully, the sky is the limit, but the colour the sky isn't decided yet.
food prodution in the world is adequate, the problem is wealth distribution. making genetics companys richer and giving them a monopoly on agriculture will only make things worse. What we need is effective distribution and more respect for quality foods that provide the variety of nutrients and vitamins that we need. The US farmers don't care about this all they care about is crop yields.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Yeah right DC. Come back when the crack wears off.
Completely meaningless tabloid-esque nonsense.
OK then.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Black Ship
What justification is there for GM foods other than the share price of certain agro-chemical giants?
Can you tell me the 3 main GM crops?
Are these crops in short supply?
Do these crops attract a subsidy for US farmers?
So while manipulating plants is ok, splicing human genes into other organisms is not?
I hope Don Corleone and Crazed Rabit never develop a form of diabetes. Afterall, it would go against their conscience to take insulin shots. Insulin that is made by modified e.coli bacteria, wich contain human genes so that they're able to produce compatible insulin.
There's more than one source of Isulin. The other two common ones are porcine and bovine. So the lil' bacteria are safe...
~:smoking:
That's true, but insulin from animals is not identical to human insulin and could trigger alergic reactions. It's safer to take human insulin.
The main argument pro GM-food that I always hear is:
"It hasn't shown any negative side effects yet"
I'd argue that's natural because the time span is simply too short.
None of this stuff has entered the natural food chain to a degree that its effects are observable.
But my main argument against the seeding of GM crops is simply that they can't keep it contained. Seeing that GM-free food is to become a strong brand in the future (when GM food enters the market in a large scale) it's irresponsible to contaminate the "clean" crop with GM spurs. Unless there's a method to keep those spurs out of the atmosphere I'm against it.
Well, the original post seems a bit lathered over too little. As Rory noted, this decisionn cannot reverse free market decisions by comsumers. As long as those consumers are made appropriately aware of the nature of the products on their list of choices, it should be up to them.
ADM and others have won the right to have their product marketed in an area where the clear majority of potential consumers think their product hideous. Seems about as useful as my securing/paying for the rights to start up an American Football franchise in Lyons.
If any nation seeks to continue a ban on such products -- usually as a reflection of the political majority of their country -- nothing is preventing them from doing so. The WTO would simply support a similar level of "vengeance" protectionism by the other party, IF THE OTHER NATION DID SO. There are numerous reasons why the other nation (USA in this case) might not want to do that anyway.
As to Genmod foods and their level of safety, it is important to remember many things can't be fully tested until tested in practice. Yes, you should test as fully as practicable before loosing it upon consumers, but progress without risk in any form is not possible.
Both Penecillin and Thalidimide went "on the market" before their 30-years down the road impacts could be known. We vaccinated against Diptheria, Pertussis, Tetanus, Polio, Smallpox, etc. without conducting studies to estimate the health problems they might or might not create for people down the road. DDT drastically reduced the occurrence of malaria.
Test away, yes -- its a good thing. I am not saying that we should all just play craps with our futures. Assuming you can eliminate risk while seeking progress, however, is likely to be self defeating.
BTW, Pappy, I will be sending you the bill for my therapy sessions. I have a rather disturbing set of images involving a brown scorpion and a bright yellow sunflower in my head that I will have to get rid of. :dizzy2:
There were researches in GM vegetables that in the end caused bad reactions to the test animals. Luckily the research halted once that was discovered. So it's definitely not all free of negative side effects.Quote:
"It hasn't shown any negative side effects yet"
GM food is the great answer to a problem no-one has.
"Oh what we really need" say the scientists in Monsanto "is a way to produce more milk, corn and soya. Because we already have massive surplusses of these products and er.. the US government gives big subsidies for growing more..er..."
"I agree" says Industrial farmer "Also with GM crops I can blast the shi*t out of the land with pesticides and absolutely everything on the land except my crop is toast! This means I can er.. use less pesticides.. er.. somehow".
"Excellent news guys" chips in the Monsanto sales exec. "I'm glad you are coming round to the revolution that is GM food. Most importantly of all you'll be pleased to know, is that you must come back to us, and only us, for seeds each year (as well as the pesticide) as we have fixed the crop so it doesn't produce viable seed. This way the troublesome development of varieties of food and crops can be quickly done away with".
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Like we did with potatoes. I'm so happy that we only have a dozenQuote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
varieties left. To think that the Inka had several hundreds is
mind-boggling and dangerous to any modern food company to boot.
I mean, how would you control the market without a patent secured monopoly?
:wall:
GM foodstuffs are unecessary and the long term effects are not clear enough. Any comparison between planting fields of GM crops and gene-splicing in a lab are flawed. The latter is controlled, the former is not. I have no great confidence in the honesty or ethics of corporations.
I'm not pro-GM food. I'm not anti-GM food. I don't know enough on the subject to have a qualified opinion and I'm the first to admit that.
I find it incredibly ironic that in Europe, you look back at us and call us religious neanderthals for limiting cloning and mutating human DNA. You call us the Taleban for limiting cloned & mutated stem cells. Yet, at at the end of the day, making the slightest change to one gene of wheat to make that wheat more productive or more insect repellant sends you into a girly hissy fit.
I'm waiting for the overview as to why it's okay to screw with human genes but it's so terrible to screw with corn's or wheat's.
Well, the human gene things aren't meant to be eaten for one. Neither are they going to be covering acres of fields cross-pollinating or whatever with God knows how many things they shouldn't.
And that's not yet even starting on the dodgy monopoly issues.
Aha! Now we have an answer I can understand! Thank you for your honesty, Watchman. At the end of the day, this is all about the fact that America leads on GM enhanced food, and this is a way around WTO regulations on open trade doors on food, one more way to ban American imports.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
:inquisitive:
...
...is it just me or are you jumping to conclusions more than a little ?
That aside, I don't think Europeans need any particular reason to dislike GM food. They're under no obligation to, anyway. Matter of taste, when you come down to the "baseline public opinion" level.
Sorry Watchman, I may have leaped a little early. But I really do think (and have thought) that the big opposition in Europe to GM food is it's a way to ban imports without coming and saying you're banning imports to protect local farmers. You personally of course may not have that as unlterior motive, but I guarantee the thought has occurred to the EU leadership.
Given the massive subsidies EU agriculture draws, and the resulting gross surplus of materiél (much of which has top be either destroyed or dumped at severely lowered going rates into the Third World, neither a terribly good solution), I don't think that's really an issue. AFAIK the EU leadership on the whole would actually rather like to be able to cut down on the sky-high subvention level, but domestic political realities sort of get in the way.
More importantly, it's that it is difficult to perceive any particular need for GM food. Human genetics research has a lot of positive medical applications; genemanipulating foodstuffs mostly smacks of sheer profiteering which is tried to hide under the very small and 95% of the time false fig leaf of supposed benefits like famine reduction (which is in any case a question of redistribution, not gross production tonnage which is already quite sufficient). Sort of like the altogehter too widespread practice of cramming every conceivable industrial additive and replacement chemical into foodstuffs to increase the profit margin, save without the unpretentiously honest greed.
We do? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I think Don may be playing the fool.~:joker:
GM food is the future. Everything will be modified to an extent soon enough. I don't really think it's that useful at the moment - the technology and vision isn't there. But one day.
Could anyone pro-GM food give a decent reason of why we would have to buy something we don't need, that will make us dependent of some greedy 'we-don't-care-about-anything-but-profit' US industries and, the last but not the least, that may potentially have weird effects onto our health ?
Mind you, they're not all big nasty US agri-corps. It's not like we had any particular shortage of unscrupulous businesses here either, it's mainly a structural thing they're mostly outside the food-production industry.
Actually I disagree. I think it marks the high water mark for industrialisation of food. I think (pray/hope) that there will be a move away from allowing control of the existence, production, preparation and sale of food by a limited number of corporations.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDC
They have a vision of us all eating plastic sealed microwave ready-meals produced from GM veg and factory farmed meat bought from one of the 4 major food retailers.
There is a growth of the purchase of biological produced foods as people want know where their food comes from and that the industrializing of food production is not always a good thing. So if anything it appears that people do not see GM food as the future.
Many people in the UK tend to actually worry about where their food comes from. They do worry if it was produced using child labour, or similar low paid / unpaid workers that often sleep on the job. This is why Organic and fair trade food has become more popular but has a very long way to go yet. The majority still don't seem to care what they eat or where it comes from. GM food flopped in the Uk because of the Frankenstein food scaremongering, not for any other 'ethical' reasons. BSE was similar, many people stopped eating beef, then when it all died down, they started eating it again. They themselves were not sure if the risk was gone or even lesssened, it just disappeared from the media so "beef must be ok again".
There are many other food production ethics issues such as chicken batteries, growth hormones, antibiotics and hygiene. GM is just one of many. The basic conclusion though, from those in the catering industry, is that "real food", that which is grown/reared correctly, such as organic, is better. Better for you and tastes better. I'm sure most chefs would agree.
The main issue is education. Educate people to actually think about and care about what they eat and such products will begin to lose ground against 'real' food. As things are we will probably be seeing the same builders in cheap cafes tucking into sausage sandwiches (salt, fat, chicken, soya, fish, pork: (eyeball, testacle, penis, nose, ear, vagina etc etc))...
The ingredients you mention the only ones I have a problem with are salt and fat. As long as the rest is presentable, I'll eat it. :2thumbsup:
Trying to educate the masses to caring what they eat is throwing pearls to swine. If you really expect the smoking, drinking mob we call the general populace to care I feel you expect far too much of them. As you said, their point of view is basically cut and pasted off the front of a tabloid on virtually a daily basis with no undertanding of consistency. :no:
~:smoking:
I'm all for mandated clear labeling, but in the end, it won't matter. The GM food will be cheaper, it will be popular, and the stores will eventually stop stocking non-GM food.
As with global warming, the wise people are promoting caution. If they are right, the GM foods will permanently alter our world, maybe with disasterous results. And it may be irreversible. Other issues, like global warming are the same. It's long-term thinking over short-term profits. If they are wrong, then we live another generation or two with GM food. That won't hurt us.
There is nothing wrong with caution. We have survived for thousands of years with GM food, and we don't need it now.
Some people, like Crazed Rabbit and others, need to research GM foods before thay start comparing it to hybridization. Many of the supporters of GM are really uninformed.