Do the inserted genes start running around eating all the other genes or something?

Figuratively, yes.  You don’t seem to really know enough about genetics to be a smartass about it.

I made a New Years resolution about ignoring whingy passive aggressive demands.  If you can’t keep up, go home.

Pretty fucking passive aggressive for someone with a problem with passive aggression.

. Farmers seeding from GMO’d crop.
. Farmers seeding from contaminated crop.
My questions would therefore be: do we want companies to own, in perpetuity, the rights to subsequent generations of seed? If a company were to fix a birth defect in humans, should they get to charge for every following birth? Do we want to give corporations the right to sue over that?
Genetic modifications still have lots of legal implications that seem unclear. People have not done well versus corporations as of late, I’d really rather not cede ( ouch, bad pun ) them anymore power at the gate.

“Of course natural isn’t a synonym for safe to eat, but it loosely correlates with safe as in not overly disruptive of the ecological balance”

I just want to point out that this is not the interpretation most folks use when discussing GM food safety. 

I must admit, that’s not something I’d considered. You’ve given me food for thought!

The other thing that we might see is the use of robots for weeding.  After all, we mechanized planting, harvesting, and processing.  Weeding would seem to be exactly the sort of process suitable for robotics. 

Step one –  Feigned stupidity or ignorance
Step two – Demand a book report or similar assignment
Step three – Be ignored
Step four – Victory dance

Is this something that developed as an extension of internet troll culture or is it just one of those hardwired verbal tics like saying “You think…”  or “I just think it’s strange that….”

The invasive species analogy is straightforward: rapid spread of genes in some circumstance makes it harder to control where you put them. That doesn’t mean they’re dangerous, but it means it’s silly to point to HGT as proof they’re safe.

I said below that I’m usually not too worried about GM, but seeing the lines its supporters here are offering really makes me feel like that’s a mistake.

Yeah, a good question. The other thing I would want to know, is what happens to the test data? Can the public see it? I believe that any publicly available food or drug that’s undergone testing should have it’s test-data released.

“One thing I know, Monsanto is concerned about profits and not my health.”
That is absolutely true. But… argumentum monsantium. You’re conflating their motives with those of everyone else involved in GM.

There is no ‘best’ way, since that implies that there is some single solution to be found. GMOs do however have an important part to play. Considering the number of people suffer basic deficiencies in their diets, modifications to staple crops can make a _huge_ difference to health and quality of life. Best example to hand is vitamin A deficiency and  golden rice.

The article is facile in the sense that it offers seemingly simple solutions — better roads, food storage etc — but misses the point. All of those things are important, but in poor communities are non-trivial. In the meantime, people are going blind or dying or suffering in any number of other ways because of malnutrition. There are millions of people who need help now. 

Engineering the crops which people already grow and eat is much simpler in the short term than trying to change the material conditions they live in. That is non-trivial, but something which the article glosses over.

In other words; lets help people pull themselves out of poverty, but in the meantime let’s help them eat properly as well.”and you can basically roll your eyes at anybody claiming GM crops are environmentally sustainable. ”

This is an unworthy sentiment. If they’re really not sustainable as you say, surely you have enough respect for people to at least explain it to them?

That aside, I disagree with you. There are some good arguments for how GM could/does create sustainable crops. The open question is if these things make a long term impact. Dismissing them out of hand is… silly.

Some examples:

* Higher yields, meaning smaller land use
* Pest resistance, leading to less pesticide use
* Introduction of genetic diversity leading to disease resistance

Consider clonal crops like bananas. Little diversity, vulnerable to disease. A common strategy to deal with disease is to burn diseased crops and move to virgin land i.e. chop down some trees, displace animals etc. Papaya crops are another good example of this crude strategy. Introducing genetic diversity means less need to move crops.

The problem with these kinds of discussions is the construction of a false dichotomy. GM is neither entirely benign in all circumstances, nor is it malign in all circumstances. Humans worldwide grow a huge variety of crops in different circumstances. The application of GM is not uniform, it’s advantages and disadvantages across contexts is not uniform. Different circumstances demand different solutions. Cherry picking examples from the failures of western industrialised farming ignores all the other potential applications of GM.

Glyphosate resistance in pest-plants is a good example of how GM in it’s application can fail and actually result in a worse outcome. But it’s just one example. A counter example is BT cotton, which is quite successful.

It’s not the ultimate solution for all problems in agriculture, but it is very important.

There are no publicly grown and commercially available foods engineered in this way. Currently regulation often requires modifications to be described in terms of the plant or animal they _appear_ to come from. For example, BT wheat is described as having cow genes in it, but in fact this is not the case. The modifications were produced directly; no gene transfer from animal to plant.

Ye olde fishy strawberry trope is overplayed and doesn’t reflect reality.

“the mutations made in the organism were far more within the bounds of what could be reasonably expected to happen “in nature”. ”

Nature has repeatedly found a way to produce plants which are toxic to humans. Nature is indifferent to us. You cannot use natural as a synonym for safe.

If you object to the use of GE, you should investigate current methods for manipulating crops. In particular mutagenesis via exposure to radiation. They’re widespread and with little to no regulation compared to GE and yet are much cruder and IMO more risky methods.

I completely agree that it matters what genes get transfered and which proteins are produced but that is specific to the proteins not the biological machine that provided the instructions that then were inserted. The source is irrelevant. The process of modification is safe. That does not mean that every modification will turn out to be safe. But then there have been conventionally bred potatoes that produced dangerous levels of glycoalkaloids.

Several things are clear:
1) Farmers consider the seed valuable enough to pirate.
2) People who are convinced they are avoiding GMO products aren’t 
3) An official ban on GMO seed had merely created conditions for a thriving black market.

>but I don’t know if you’d consider the study “reliable”, 
>since I don’t know your definition of the word.

I’m too lazy to make an appropriately snarky retort, so let’s just move on…..