scombrid

Then there's the round-up-ready cartel. But that's an economic failing and not an issue directly related to GM technology.

nessa20x

By creating round-up ready crops the use of much more toxic herbicides is foregone. I've used round-up and actually gotten to look at several of the studies from proponents and opponents an d the stuff is less harmful than environmentally safe soap. It acts only when it contacts leafy plant matter. It breaks down really fast even in dry environments. So I don't have a problem with the use of the stuff at all. Here in Fla we have a much greater problem with eutrophication than herbicide contmination. Agricultural supplements, ie N, P, S etc destroy coral,lakes, river, by increasing algae blooms. Dinoflaggelate blooms in the gulf follow these ridiculously large blooms and cause marine mammals such as manatees and dolphins, and marine reptiles such as turtles to die when they inhale poisonous toxins from dinos like Gymnodinium breve. I am definently in favor of GM b/c of the possibility of reducing the use of fertilizers, incr crop yeild/acre etc

Meatros

It seems as though you are arguing with a theist (am I correct?) what is the position they have. This might give us a little more insight as to what you are asking.

scombrid

I have zero problem with round-up or round-up ready crops from an environmental standpoint. My neighbor uses no-till farming for soybeans and corn. Herbicide resistant crops make no-till a lot more reliable than it otherwise would be. No-till means less fertilizer lost from the site, less soil lost from the site, and round-up is a pretty benign chemical compared to some others. No it's not the chemical with which I have a problem. It's Monsanto's business practices that I have a problem with.

Oolon Colluphid

Yep, that�s me...
Other than that? None at all.

We are all genetically modified: we are GM primates, GM fish, GM worms and GM RNA strands. It�s just that the genetic modification has taken three billion years of trial and error. So now that we can do it ourselves, we need trials to avoid errors.

Dawkins has some interesting thoughts on the knee-jerk stupidity of the anti-GM crowd in one or other essays in Devil�s Chaplain. I like his line about a fish antifreeze gene being used in tomatoes: a gene is a gene is a gene, and it coming from a fish does not give the tomato any added fishiness (mmm, anchovy pizza...). See www.futurepundit.com/archives/000923.html for a snippet.

Cheers, Oolon

pz

Perhaps a different twist on the question is to ask how a theistic creationist's beliefs would influence their opinion of GM foods. I don't know anything about it.

While I am an atheist and an evolutionist in good standing, and I do have strong opinions about genetic manipulation, I can't say that atheism has much to do with them.

Steinsky

I wrote an article on GM for the Syndicate of London Journal (aimed at lay people), archived at: http://www.cotch.net/show.php/pid/85.php

My opinion of GM would depend on the outcome of studies into safety and effect on biodiversity. So far there's little, if anything, to suggest that GM foods are dangerous, and some studies suggest that GM crops are good for biodiversity because of reduced leeching of fertilisers & pesticides. Therefore, presuming the forthcoming results of trials continue to support the current evidence, it's all good.

rlogan

Steinsky, you wrote about tests for "safety".

I still do not see how conventional genetic modification is any different. Seed hybrids in the past have never had to go through some kind of "safety" or "health" trials. But you can invent all kinds of frankenstein scenarios with those too:

"Killer soybean hybrid threatens Des Moines". "Rogue wheat strain leaves six dead in Kansas attack".

In fact, any field on earth might be the source of a random mutation that "escapes" into the "wild" or turns people into vampires.

What is so different? It's just hysteria.

impious

The question was simple enough.
But since you ask, why would I presume to question the atheist evolutionist over for instance the but not exclusive to the Christian evolutionist or the Buddhist evolutionist?
The obvious reason being ON WHAT GROUNDS do YOU as an atheist discount GM foods that have been appropriately tested . My point is you can not on any other grounds then VALUE

impious

Good standing works for me
But you as both an atheist and evolutionist can have no problem with GM food apart from either personal preference or you are not satisfied with the testing.
Atheism is the point