Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: Foxy on February 12, 2013, 03:04 am
-
http://www.cornucopia.org/2013/01/action-alert-genetically-engineered-salmon/
--copy pasted for you---
FDA Seeks Public Comment
Comments due February 25, 2013
FDA poised to approve genetically engineered salmon despite unknown risks to human health.
Inevitable accidental release of transgenic fish into the wild could devastate native fish populations and ecosystems!
---image---
The DNA of the top fish has been genetically engineered to produce growth hormones all the time for its entire life. People who eat this fish will be eating this DNA, along with the growth hormones.
Despite overwhelming opposition from citizens and public interest groups to genetically engineered (GE) food, including 400,000 public comments opposing GE salmon, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced December 26, 2012 that it is prepared to give transgenic salmon its final stamp of approval.
The FDA failed to address serious concerns about the safety of consuming salmon that has been genetically engineered to produce growth hormones at all times, allowing it to grow faster and bigger than natural salmon. The FDA has not conducted any safety testing, and merely assumes that the genetically engineered salmon is safe to eat.
The FDA has also not considered the potential ecological and economic impacts of approving genetically engineered salmon. Salmon is an integral part of the ecosystem, and the accidental escape of genetically engineered salmon could devastate populations of native salmon, as well as the fish and marine mammals that depend on salmon for their food. Scientists have predicted that escaped GE salmon would likely wipe out wild salmon populations, which will destroy the livelihood of coastal communities that depend on fishing.
Despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans do not want to eat genetically modified organisms, this salmon will not be labeled as such. Yet the Obama administration is willing to gamble with our health for the financial benefit of one biotechnology company.
US citizens have the opportunity to comment to the FDA, expressing support or opposition to genetically engineered salmon.
Full Instructions for Submitting Public Comment:
To submit your comment electronically:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FDA-2011-N-0899-0001
For the required field “Organization Name,” please enter “Citizen.”
To mail your comment:
Division of Dockets Management (HFA- 305)
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061
Rockville, MD 20852
Include the following docket number in your mailed comment: FDA-2011-N-0899
Comments must be received by the FDA no later than February 25, 2013.
Sample Letter
(Please note that your personalization of this sample letter will increase its impact)
To the FDA:
Please do not approve genetically engineered salmon. The health risks of consuming salmon that has been genetically altered to produce growth hormones at all times are unknown. Your claim that genetically engineered salmon is safe to eat is based on an assumption, not on rigorous scientific investigation.
The accidental release of transgenic salmon could be devastating to marine ecosystems and wild salmon populations. It is naïve to assume that no transgenic fish will escape into the wild. The National Academy of Sciences wrote that release of transgenic fish is “of immediate concern” and “might pose environmental hazards.” These impacts would likely be irreversible.
I urge you to put human health, the environment, and the economic well-being of coastal fishing communities first. The FDA should rely on independent and credible science, not on science supplied by the corporation that stands to profit from your approval.
Please delay approval of genetically engineered salmon until the results of independent scientific studies show that genetically engineered fish is safe to eat and harmless to the environment.
Please also require the labeling of GE foods, to allow consumers to make an informed choice.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Additional Action
If you would like to do more, please contact your legislators, asking them to block the approval of GE salmon.
To find contact information for your representative and two senators:
House of Representatives http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
Senate http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
-
I fear you may be fighting a losing battle. BIG Corporations with unlimited funds to pull from have the upper hand. I stopped eating all fish after reading about how most of the fish that I would get to eat at a restaurant was farmed fish. Also most of the salmon they serve at restaurants has been died to give it a more pink appearance.... What is Americans fucking deal with caring about what color your food is? Taste, texture and health factor is what really matters.
I used to enjoy a good salmon filet, but its really hard to these days knowing that the fish I am about to eat is pretty far from "natural"
-
yuuuuuuup. Just wanna be able to tell my offspring that "I tried".
I think the same sometimes. How could they risk doing something irreversible like that? I mean even if it was thought to be 99.9% safe how could they risk it? And for that fact how the hell are these reprobates to think they have the right to choose. In my opinion is close whether the monetary debt or this environmental debt is the worse prize for future generations. I mean really we are going to look stupid to them
-
....whether the monetary debt or this environmental debt is the worse prize for future generations. I mean really we are going to look stupid to them
Seriously, Money is virtual. The debt is built into the system and can NEVER be repaid, it's a mere tool of pressure that's put on the population as a whole.
The damage made in the real world is as real as it can get.
It all boils down to being a power trip of those who have/print the money.
When we can fix the money system, everything else will sort itself out.
-
I like genetically engineered food, it reduces hunger. All food is genetically engineered anyway, it is just before humans directly influenced natural selection to engineer our food, and now we are more advanced and we use advanced genetic modification techniques to engineer our food.
yuuuuuuup. Just wanna be able to tell my offspring that "I tried".
You tried to limit the amount of food available to the world because you are afraid of science ?
-
I like genetically engineered food, it reduces hunger. All food is genetically engineered anyway, it is just before humans directly influenced natural selection to engineer our food, and now we are more advanced and we use advanced genetic modification techniques to engineer our food.
yuuuuuuup. Just wanna be able to tell my offspring that "I tried".
You tried to limit the amount of food available to the world because you are afraid of science ?
Science is not something to be feared.
However.
Rampant, uncontrolled development and experimentation with no concern for the impact is to be feared. I recently wrote a research paper for a humanities class discussing how science fiction can teach us lessons on developing technologies and how to avoid disasters. Genetic engineering is a relatively recent area, and I would want to see long term experiments done with these salmon to see how they affect their environment before a decision is made.
That being said, I do believe that the solution to many issues in the world is genetic engineering. Microbes that excrete fuel, food with enormous yields and resistance to diseases, etc. There is a lot of good that could be done in the world with genetically modified organisms but also a lot of harm, either deliberately or accidentally.
-
There is a lot of good that could be done in the world with genetically modified organisms but also a lot of harm, either deliberately or accidentally.
Well said.
-
so we get free HGH in the foods? thats awesome..
but no, i love salmon.. fuck GMO
-
What a sad state of affairs....think Food Inc and Monsanto's disheveled soybean . GMO Salmon with a patent ? Let's hope not.This would be impossible to reverse once implemented Wild Alaskan Salmon is a Superfood, loaded with DHA/EPA and astaxanthin. I buy tins of the stuff none of that farmed crap from Tasmania or Norway.
Case in Point ..Google Monsanto GM Corn and Cancer in Rats.. Being a realist I'm sure in 20years front page of the news could be Monsanto GM Salmon and Cancer in Humans.
-
I will definitely be sending a comment. As my life revolves around the culinary world I feel obligated to sell my customers the healthiest and more nutritious foods possible. This will send bad vibes my way that I must transfer into positive energy. We will bring down the corporations. It's fighting the system like with SR that gives us hope.
-
The whole point of GMO is to control the food supply. It's not about feeding people, GMO monocultures of crops and food supply is destined to fail because there is no genetic variation; there is no greater genetic modifier than nature itself.. At the end of the day, it's war on the people, for total control of the population. Modifying genes with unknown variants is a cancer on whatever is modified.
There GMO is a gender bender too... I don't want my sons growing tits, its happening and has happened everywhere in the usa now. And truth be told, anyone who invested in a lifetime of eating gmo has already been altered in some way.
-
I like genetically engineered food, it reduces hunger. All food is genetically engineered anyway, it is just before humans directly influenced natural selection to engineer our food, and now we are more advanced and we use advanced genetic modification techniques to engineer our food.
And here I thought you were propaganda proof kmf. You know that GMO yields have been steadily declining over the past 10 years while organic farming has maintained consistent yields since the introduction of machinery capable of handling the tough weed problems that caused the need for GMO crops in the first place.
I am all for genetics to bring new traits to boost yields, but the GMO industry is not interested in that, they are interested in selling their patented gene crops and their wildly expensive chemicals to maintain similar yields but locking the producers into a perpetual cycle of needing to buy the newest chemicals and genes because nothing else will grow once they have started.
-
I like genetically engineered food, it reduces hunger. All food is genetically engineered anyway
You, sir, are a fucking idiot. Ignorance like this and widespread corruption is the reason companies like Monsanto continue to taint all of our seedbanks and ruin all of our food. Natural selection is NOT genetic engineering.
Injecting genetic material from different organisms into new ones, and mutating DNA with cancerous chemicals, has never been proven safe and, in fact, has been proven to cause adverse health reactions in almost every single scientific study done to date.
The companies are permanently ruining our food supply to increase their profits and have convinced the governments of the world that their products never need to be tested for safety. The whole situation is fucked.
I hope that you continue to eat your GMO food and die of a nice stomach (or worse) cancer in a few years. At least the sterility effects it has been proven to have on future generations will ensure that any offspring of yours won't be able to spread your moronic, uneducated genes any further.
-
I like genetically engineered food, it reduces hunger. All food is genetically engineered anyway
You, sir, are a fucking idiot. Ignorance like this and widespread corruption is the reason companies like Monsanto continue to taint all of our seedbanks and ruin all of our food. Natural selection is NOT genetic engineering.
Injecting genetic material from different organisms into new ones, and mutating DNA with cancerous chemicals, has never been proven safe and, in fact, has been proven to cause adverse health reactions in almost every single scientific study done to date.
The companies are permanently ruining our food supply to increase their profits and have convinced the governments of the world that their products never need to be tested for safety. The whole situation is fucked.
I hope that you continue to eat your GMO food and die of a nice stomach (or worse) cancer in a few years. At least the sterility effects it has been proven to have on future generations will ensure that any offspring of yours won't be able to spread your moronic, uneducated genes any further.
I don't believe it's as simple as you're making it out to be. Organic farming can only produce enough food on its own to sustain about two-thirds of the global population. We would have to kill off over two billion people worldwide if we wanted to permanently end all non-organic farming methods.
Are you willing to tell these people that they don't deserve to eat even though there's no scientific evidence at this time that demonstrates increased heath risks from eating GMO?
This is the current statement from the AAAS on GMO foods:
"Moreover, the AAAS Board said, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and “every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”
I'm not drawing any conclusions about the long term risks of eating GMO salmon. I just think the cautious and rational approach at this time would be to properly label it so people have a choice as to what they consume. For instance, almost all corn and corn-products sold now are GM'd and unlabeled. 70% of processed foods in this country have GMOs in them. Unless you prepare everything at home, you're likely eating GMOs every day.
IMO that's fucked up.
-
“every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”
Point me to the studies that have proved any of this that were NOT funded by Monsanto or their cohorts. Almost every valid scientific study done to date NOT funded by them has proven the opposite. NONE of this food is tested before being put on the market. Monsanto and other companies have convinced the US government through lobbying (bribing) efforts that GMO foods are sufficiently unique from real food to be patented but sufficiently similar to NOT require safety testing so the studies that could prove them safe HAVE NEVER BEEN DONE. Almost every single legitimate study done has raised major concerns. I am not blowing it up. You are taking some statement which I have no idea where you obtained and making it fact and spreading lies.
The worst part of all though is that the goal of these companies has absolutely NOTHING to do with feeding the world population - it is simply about profit. Just look at the terminator seed Monsanto has created. The first invention by Man capable of utterly destroying the cycle of life this planet has known since the beginning of life itself, just to ensure they make more profits each year. Please explain how a terminator seed has anything to do with feeding people and not about profit and maybe I will listen.
Otherwise, I recommend you read the Seeds of Destruction or any one of the other hundreds of books out there dissecting this industry for what it is - corruption at the highest levels of all governments used to ensure companies like Monsanto continue making high profits and in turn keep the cash flowing to their political bed fellows.
-
Monsanto and other companies have convinced the US government through lobbying (bribing) efforts that GMO foods are sufficiently unique from real food to be patented but sufficiently similar to NOT require safety testing so the studies that could prove them safe HAVE NEVER BEEN DONE.
I am too gone to remember my source right now, but wasn't someone just appointed to the USDA that came from Monsanto (and are still getting paid by Monsanto) I will look into it when I can see straight again. So it's a bit more than just bribing, They are running the organization that is supposed to be keeping theim in check.
I must reiterate that I don't disagree with the genetic modifying (i.e. selective breeding) It is the devestating chemicals they are making the framers depedendet onand destroying other ecosystems that are important to sustain yields over the long term instead of the quick weed (and everything else) killer they are peddling nown
-
Monsanto and other companies have convinced the US government through lobbying (bribing) efforts that GMO foods are sufficiently unique from real food to be patented but sufficiently similar to NOT require safety testing so the studies that could prove them safe HAVE NEVER BEEN DONE. Almost every single legitimate study done has raised major concerns. I am not blowing it up. You are taking some statement which I have no idea where you obtained and making it fact and spreading lies.
http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf
The quote I provided was from the AAAS archives on GMO labeling as I implied. I agree that FDA approval based on "research" is problematic because it's funded by the companies trying to win FDA approval. Conflict of interest if I ever saw one. But the EU research is supposedly independent, although if you know differently I'm open to hearing your take. You seem to have spent more time immersed in this subject than I have. I'm going by cursory information that I gleaned from the Slate investigative article that I'm sure you're aware of, as this is obviously a very controversial subject.
I think you're hyperventilating a bit unnecessarily here. I'm not your enemy and I'm not disagreeing with you that more long term independent research should be conducted. I'm just agnostic about harmful affects of eating GMO salmon until a link can be established. :-\
-
Regardless of whether or not the individual companies making the products are corrupt, that is NOT an issue with GM overall, that is an issue that rests solely with the corporations and their oversight. GM has incredible potential, similar to that of nuclear tech. Just because someone decided to go off and make a bomb out of it does NOT mean that the area as a whole is a bad idea.
Without GMO, there is no hope of sustaining the worlds population. GMO may also provide solutions to the energy crisis and pollution issues. All the uproar over needing GM food to be labeled is just like the uproar over the banning of civilian assault weapons. Do not forget that the more dramatic the media makes something seem, the more money they get.
Regardless of the genetic status of a food item, if it is literally the exact same as non GM food with regards to nutritional content it is not going to cause any damage. Just because it is resistant to disease does not mean it is going to make your face melt off. In 10 years, probably every crop and food animal will be GM in some way, and it will be perfectly accepted.
-
I am too gone to remember my source right now, but wasn't someone just appointed to the USDA that came from Monsanto (and are still getting paid by Monsanto) I will look into it when I can see straight again. So it's a bit more than just bribing, They are running the organization that is supposed to be keeping theim in check.
Agreed here. I just didn't want to get into the specifics and away from the main point. Many of the people at the higher levels in the US government regulating these companies have worked for these companies in the past. Monsanto bribes more people to ensure that they can control the hiring of the individuals who do the research.
I must reiterate that I don't disagree with the genetic modifying (i.e. selective breeding)
This statement here showcases exactly what Monsanto has done to the world that is one of the larger problems. Genetic Modification IS NOT selective breeding. Selective breeding, while not natural selection, is completely natural and has been going on for millions of years since humans developed brains and farming capabilities. I have no problem with this either.
People constantly are misled that GMO is somehow the same thing as people trying to grow bigger fruit by using seeds from plants that made bigger fruit. But nothing could be further from the truth.
Genetic Modification is exactly that - modifying organisms at the genetic level. Let's look at the ways that this can happen:
Bacterial carriers, Biolistics, Electroporation, Gene silencing, Gene splicing, Microinjection, Viral carriers.
Once the scientists successfully create a new organism that appears similar enough to the old one - it is deemed safe. Yes that is right - viruses and bacteria, along with radiation can be used to alter species and GMO crops made using these techniques are then sold to the public without any health checks at all because they LOOK similar enough.
Tell me that is NOT fucked up!
-
Regardless of whether or not the individual companies making the products are corrupt, that is NOT an issue with GM overall, that is an issue that rests solely with the corporations and their oversight. GM has incredible potential, similar to that of nuclear tech. Just because someone decided to go off and make a bomb out of it does NOT mean that the area as a whole is a bad idea.
Let's continue with your analogy of GM to Nuclear power. Let's say that Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and Japan never happened. Because of this, the fear of the dangers of nuclear power never were exposed to the public. Everyone thinks it's just as safe as solar power. It is the year 2013 and all of the nuclear power companies now own and control most of the top levels of government since nuclear power has proliferated so deeply within our country that it provides over 90% of the energy in the country. No more safety checks are being done on any of the nuclear sites. Would you think this is a good position to be in? This is EXACTLY the problem with GM. Yes the technology has potentially far reaching benefits. However, it also has MANY potential risks, some of which have been linked in several studies. These risks should be followed up on before destroying all of the natural food sources that humanity has subsisted on for millions of years to turn more profits for rich companies.
Without GMO, there is no hope of sustaining the worlds population. GMO may also provide solutions to the energy crisis and pollution issues.
This is exactly what Monsanto wants you to think. Sheep.
Regardless of the genetic status of a food item, if it is literally the exact same as non GM food with regards to nutritional content it is not going to cause any damage.
That is ABSOLUTELY AND COMPLETELY UNTRUE. SHEEP
Just because it is resistant to disease does not mean it is going to make your face melt off.
No, but who knows what other effects it might have. Don't you think we should check and see first instead of shoving it in our mouths and hoping for the best? Do you eat everything in front of your face without knowledge of what it is? How about drugs? Are you on SR because you want know what you're ingesting or do you just enter random lottery drawings constantly and consume everything that ships to you in the mail?
In 10 years, probably every crop and food animal will be GM in some way, and it will be perfectly accepted.
That will be the beginning of the end of humanity. The sterility linked to GMO and pesticides along with the terminator seeds will destroy the human race and potentially the cycle of life on this planet. But hey, anything to make a buck.
-
A.
Two of those were due to human error, not technical. Chernobyl was the result of a technician deciding to run a test and overriding several safety protocols, Fukushima was actually not a nuclear containment related failure (and why would anyone in their right mind put a nuke plant in a natural disaster prone area in the first place?), and Three Mile Island is the only one where the issue was solely and specifically the design of the cooling system (which is still technically human error for improperly design). Also, I believe the net damage caused by nuclear power is actually less than the net damage caused by accidents related to the use of fossil fuels, they have just been publicized and dramatized a LOT more, because "science gone rogue" gets ratings. I wrote a paper that touched on that topic last year. I do agree that more impartial studies need to be done into the GM products being released, but most of the uproar is just media dramatization. In the US (I am assuming that is the country you are referring to), as of 2008 it is only 20% of the power generation capacity of the US. Also, the nuclear program has gone for quite some time with a cut in funding and has only recently seen an increase in federal support. Globally, the interest in nuclear power has been and is down precisely because of the media demonizing it.
B.
Also, right now we do not have enough food production to sustain the whole world, and not in the areas it is most needed, such as large parts of Africa. The biofuels boom is also taking up large amounts of corn that would otherwise be used as fuel.
C.
If corn A and corn B share the exact same characteristics except that B happens to have a natural immunity to a certain disease that is not caused by the production of any toxic chemicals, please tell me which part of B is going to cause the damage and how.
D.
The only effects that would be different from non-GM would be those caused by modified parts of the organism. If those parts do not cause the addition of any other chemicals to the final, processed and ready to eat food, then what effects could they possibly have? If making the corn resistant to disease meant that all food made with that corn would contain several grams of cyanide, then yes that would be bad. But it does not. Again, which parts specifically are going to cause this damage?
E.
That sounded a bit technophobic. If you could provide a link to a reputable study done that conclusively proves sterility is caused by commercially available GM food that would be nice. Also, one of the main objectives of GM food is I believe to abolish the need for pesticides...so I do not really see how those two are going to work together to destroy all life. The terminator seeds are something I disagree with, but that is due only to my personal beliefs regarding freedom of information and the copyright monopoly.
-
I like genetically engineered food, it reduces hunger. All food is genetically engineered anyway, it is just before humans directly influenced natural selection to engineer our food, and now we are more advanced and we use advanced genetic modification techniques to engineer our food.
And here I thought you were propaganda proof kmf. You know that GMO yields have been steadily declining over the past 10 years while organic farming has maintained consistent yields since the introduction of machinery capable of handling the tough weed problems that caused the need for GMO crops in the first place.
I am all for genetics to bring new traits to boost yields, but the GMO industry is not interested in that, they are interested in selling their patented gene crops and their wildly expensive chemicals to maintain similar yields but locking the producers into a perpetual cycle of needing to buy the newest chemicals and genes because nothing else will grow once they have started.
I will say that I am by no means an expert in regards to genetically engineered food versus 'natural organic' food. But I find your claim to be highly suspect. The best example of GMO I know of follows this pattern: invent a highly effective pesticide, oh noez it kills the plant as well, genetically modify the plant to resist the pesticide, now you can use highly effective pesticide without killing the crop. This means that the genetically modified crop is able to be used concurrently with a highly effective pesticide, the organic crop that hasn't been genetically modified cannot be used with that pesticide because it will kill it, and due to using less effective pesticides the natural organic crop is going to get eaten by pests. This means that by using the genetically engineered crop, you can produce more food. Now when everybody starts using this genetically modified crop, there is going to be a significant increase in the amount of food available, and starvation is going to go down and food prices are going to go down due to supply and demand economics.
Now I do know that the genetic engineering corporations do lock farmers into needing to purchase seeds from them for every cycle, and that is more a debate regarding property rights than it is a debate about the benefits of genetically modified foods.
Also, genetic engineering does mimic human controlled selection, in my view it is like an increased speed natural selection. Instead of the farmers using the pesticide on the 'organic' crops and having them all die save for a few, and then breeding the few survivors, for many cycles until they coerce the crops to be naturally resistant to the pesticide, they cut to the chase with genetic engineering.
Also it is not just creating plants that are immune to certain effective pesticides, they also engineer them to produce more. And again it is just enhanced natural selection, rather than getting the end result of higher yields by the farmers interfering with natural selection in an attempt to coerce certain desirable properties over many generations, they directly interfere with the genetics of the plant or of the salmon or whatever to get the desired result immediately and precisely.
You, sir, are a fucking idiot. Ignorance like this and widespread corruption is the reason companies like Monsanto continue to taint all of our seedbanks and ruin all of our food. Natural selection is NOT genetic engineering.
Human controlled selection is indeed genetic engineering, it just isn't the most efficient route. If I have a population of organisms and I select which ones are allowed to breed based on characteristics I find desirable, I am in effect changing the genetic make up of future generations of the organism to be more similar to what I desire. This is a time consuming process though, and it is more efficient and precise if I directly genetically modify the organisms to be how I desire, rather than try to indirectly change their genetic makeup via controlling the mating / reproduction.
-
If they were modifying the plants to actually yield more or grow in climates that are not normally able to produce crop, I have no problem with that. But that is not the case (I am specifically speaking of roundup herbicide). The first year yields of roundup crops are indeed a small percentage higher than the average on non roundup crops. The difference is that the roundup crop yields get lower every year to the point where they are producing consistently lower yields than farms that remained organic. Couple that with the fact that non-monsanto crops will no longer grow in a field where roundup was used for nearly a decade and you have recipe for LESS food.
Monsanto techs are geniuses with their genetics, and I don't disagree with using genetics to produce more food. I don't think that GMO's cause cancer any more than cool breeze does.
But the thing I don't understand about the geniuses making these crops is why they tabled the 2007 project that produced drought resistant corn. The project was to create a plant that could grow in arid climates, and it fucking worked. There was an indoor test plot that produced a crop of corn with absolutely ZERO moisture after germination. Granted the crop was not high yielding, but with zero precipitation you can't expect bumper crops. This project was tabled after the first test that actually worked. Turns out, the areas that this crop would be grown don't have pest or weed issues, so they didn't stand to profit from any massive chemical requirements. So they could have been crowing corn in near desert conditions without irrigation, but instead, they opted to come out with more aggressive herbicides and more expensive genetics for the areas that are already producing crops and could have handled their weed problems with larger, more accurate, and more efficient equipment.
And I guess I'll just throw out their sweet potato blunder also. That GMO tuber was supposed to help bring parts of Africa out of the third world, but instead pushed them further into famine.
So my point is that GMO is not the devil if it is used to produce more food. The industry seems to be set on producing the same or lower crops while lining their pockets and writing their own laws and testing standards for safety. I think they could make the same profits (or more) if they used their genetic engineering capabilities to actually fix the problem instead of perpetuate it.
I will be thoroughly impressed though when they engineer a new grain or vegetable. selective breeding brought us broccoli, Monsanto has brought us chemical resistant weeds. I use broccoli as my example because I really like broccoli.