ing process itself brings risk, no matter the potential benefit or desired outcome. For instance I know that some genetic engineered crops include an antibiotic resistant gene. Does one need a science degree to recognize that this is not an intelligent thing to introduce into our population? Already, doctors struggle with the increasing antibiotic resistance that is making deadly again bacteria that were once killed by antibiotics. Do we want to assist this? Same thing with putting toxins in plants. There are risks in making plants more herbicide tolerant. It will result in increased use of herbicides, and thus increase harm to health and the environment, and increased resistance. Plus the economic, social, and sociological cost of having to return the seeds to the corporation, cutting us off from our own birthright of saving seeds, of having a direct relationship to the natural process, and instead having that replaced by corporate products and corporate objectives, and much more money spent along the way.If you think these corporations can be trusted with our genetic heritage, our economic system, our farming social structures, and our food supply, and they will think only of the community's best interest, I think you are nave. We must recognize their interests are not always what is best for the community. They want to charge for products, and a high market share. I feel there are fundamental flaws with the genetic engineering approach, and am highly skeptical of those who would be driving its direction. I affirm our rights as individuals and as a community to make a choice about the direction we take, for if we do not have that, then why put up with all the messy aspects of having free will? So, as we approach the twenty-first century, we go into the realm of the unknown. However, it is assuredly a future that will be blessed and cursed with genetic engineering, and one that will look back at the nineteenth century and...
