>The issue of GMO is very complicated, and many of the folks who vehemently
oppose it, also don't really understand it.

 I must agree--I have yet to meet a single anti-GM advocate who had done
enough homework to knowledgeably discuss the issues.

>Are you saying the people which think we ought to be able to choose when
we shop between GMO and non GMO really don't understand GMO.

That was a big step, Bob! Who was talking about the right to choose?
 Everyone should have the right to choose--as it is, any manufacturer or
grower is free to give consumers a choice by labeling their products as non
GM.  The problem with mandatory labeling is that such labeling implies that
GM food is harmful to you.  Since there is no good reason to believe that
GM crops are inherently harmful to consumers, mandatory labeling is a
disingenuous attempt to shut down GM breeding completely.

> There are plenty of very well known researchers which bring up *real
questions* about GMO.

I also would assume that any reasonable scientist would favor the
regulation and testing of every new food cultivar.  There are indeed issues
to keep in mind as far as potential allergens and gene transfer to the
wild.  But the cat is out of the bag, so we are better off regulating
rather than thinking that GM can be killed.

> Farmers are not happy in my area with roundup ready.

This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

> Whole countries have looked at GMO and banned even the import of GMO
products.

Actually, a few decision makers bowed to public pressure fomented by a few
activists.

> Did Monsanto proof read the article?

Give me a break--I resent the implication.  I don't know if "Monsanto"
realizes that the article has been published.  Jerry Hayes read once he got
his copy of ABJ.

> There IS another set of talking points on GMO for those interested. I
suggest those interested do as Eugene M. suggested and research for
yourself as *IN MY OPINION* the article stuck to the big ag talking points.

I stuck to a brief summary of points that I thought would be of interest to
beekeepers.  An expanded version of my article will soon be up at my
website, with far more resources for those who wish to investigate other
talking points.  For starters, may I suggest AcademicsReviewed.org, a
website that tests popular claims against peer-reviewed science.
http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/

> Lets get articles in bee magazines back to beekeeping subjects and not a
place chemical companies use to promote their PR.

Bob, I really try to be patient with you.  Implying that the article had
anything to do with a chemical company promoting PR is simply trolling.
 I'm not going to take the stink bait.

--
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm