http://www.foodrenegade.com/peru-bans-monsanto-gmos/
Just google GMO and this blog: https://www.google.com/search?q=GMO+site%3Afoodrenegade.com
http://www.foodrenegade.com/peru-bans-monsanto-gmos/
Just google GMO and this blog: https://www.google.com/search?q=GMO+site%3Afoodrenegade.com
The dangers of GMO from a economic perspective are worthy of worry on their own. If you haven't seen Food Inc, then I would recommend that as a starting point to learn how dangerous the monopolisation of the food industry can be to society. The farmers in Peru want to protect their existing biodiversity, something North America has lost thanks to Monsanto, where you cannot legally grow a heirloom corn crop without paying patent fees to monsanto because of the inevitable wind-born cross pollination, thereby violating monsanto patent rights.
Unfortunately the biggest GMO companies in the world have given GMO foods a bad name.
While GM technology does have hope for the future, like AI, it also poses risks. We need to take those risks seriously, and dismissing people anti-GM as being anti-science is FUD on your part.
There are dangers of eating GM food, but that doesn't mean the dangers come from the genes themselves. GM food such as roundup ready crops can have increased herbicide residue compared to non-GM crops.
We live in a world of corporate funded "science", so being skeptical of claims of 100% safety for GM organisms released into the wild isn't anti-science, it's just using the Precautionary Principle.
The Precautionary Principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.
I think that is the correct approach to GM. The potential risks if things go wrong are huge and irreversible, wheres the need for GM food (if any) doesn't justify that risk until we have better scientific consensus.
Also nobody forced farmers to by the GMO crops, they're buying it for a reason. They're buying it because it's good.
[1] - https://www.google.com/search?q=monsanto%20wind%20blown%20se...
Monsanto actually has a page "busting" the myth, but I'm going to link to it because it clearly states that monsanto has the right to enforce patent fees in this case.
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/gm-seed-accidentally...
Here is the quote: Monsanto has a long-standing public commitment that “it has never been, nor will it be, Monsanto’s policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in a farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means.”
So they are saying that, yes they own those patent rights, but no they won't enforce them. It's pretty clear cut that one has a legal obligation to pay monsanto, but they're being nice by not enforcing their rights. ( If you watch Food Inc, you'll see how nice they are about non-enforcement in reality ).
HuffPo (complete with a letter from a OJ Industry Group PR Rep that does not refute anything in the article, just tries to reframe) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/29/100-percent-orange-...
The New Yorker http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/ask-an-academic-o...
The Consumerist http://consumerist.com/2011/07/29/oj-flavor-packs/
Gizmodo http://gizmodo.com/5825909/orange-juice-is-artificially-flav...
But are you okay with Montsanto's practices?
There's good science that basically explains that their business model is not doing the best for the planet or the people living in it. It is, indeed reducing bio-diversity as far as I know. Also, their practices are super shady, having lived in latam all my life, I saw the way they got into several countries there and it's disgusting.
There's much, much more than meets the eye about GMOs, how Montsanto is using the seeds and the actual repercussions of it. The debate, is not around 'GMOs being more harmful', at all.
From a purely scientific standpoint, I'm for GMO, but I have to admit that I don't really know what's in the industrial food I buy. Worse, it's in the food industry's best interest to obfuscate, and it would be foolish to think that the GMO industry is any different.