t would be better to concentrate on sustainable techniques that can double or triple the yields from the traditional farming systems. England has been pushing for labeling requirements to inform the consumer that food is genetically altered, so that they can make their own decision as to whether they want to eat it or not. The questions raised by opponents are "Is it safe?" so farthere is nothing showing that it is not, but there is also not much data showing that it is either. "Why are the rules for approving GM foods less stringent than those for new medicines produced using the exact same technology?" If GM food is going into our bodies just as medications do, it should be subject to the same testing. "What is the effects on the environment?" Laboratory test have already shown in the U.S. that the pollen from GM corn has damaged the caterpillars that turn into the Monarch butterflies, if it can hurt them what is it doing to other species? They are not even testing the corn it is in widespread production and this should have been caught if testing had been done. It should have been caught by the company that makes the seeds or by the regulatory authorities that let the seeds be sold on the market. It would make sense to plant a small test section of a crop and see what will happen. "If something goes wrong with a GM crop, who will be held responsible?" This is a "big one" who is going to be legally liable for the damage, whether it is to human health, the environment, or both. Will it be the company who produced and sold the seeds, the farmer who grew it based on being told it is safe, or will it be everyone which is the case with BGH. There has been a statement put out by a group of scientists from 13 countries all over the world calling for a moratorium on GM crops and an outright ban on patents of GM seeds. They put out to all the governments of the world this statement and have asked the governments to do the following: Impose an...
