There isn't really a "push" now - this has been happening for some years. The difference is that now the particular GM crop concerned has passed all tests and is being considered for use, after a great deal of testing.

Re BWL's comment about monocultures, I'm afraid if that's your worry then the battle was lost before your great-grandfather was born! ;-) Agriculture is *already* monocultures, and has been for close to 200 years. In the best example of the problems with monocultures, it caused the Irish Potato Famine. However, modern agriculture is still using monocultures for money reasons, and fire-fighting every time a new problem comes along. And as far as environmental issues go, American farmland is basically an environmental desert already, with nothing growing there except the corn or whatever else. Whether monocultures are right or wrong has no place in the argument over GM crops.

That's where the British study is so interesting. Turns out that no-one previously had ever checked to see how good "normal" crops are for wildlife, so the environmental difference between GM and non-GM is less significant than the difference between sugar beet or wheat. Of the three crops where GM vs non-GM were compared, only one showed GM to give any benefit for the environment, in conjunction with a specific new weedkiller. That's the crop which has received preliminary licensing; the others have been rejected. And note that it's still not free to be used everywhere - it will still be under very close examination, and the specific weedkiller has still to be investigated and licensed for use.

I certainly object to the actions of Monsanto and other big agribusinesses. However I also object to the attitudes of some objectors, particularly those who tried to ruin this study and who abused and threatened the people carrying it out. As it turned out, the people running the study were 100% incorruptible and did a thoroughly excellent job.

My other concern with objectors is that of shifting standards. The original intention with GM crops was to make them sterile - the pollen or seeds would then be of no concern. That was the original intention of the companies, and it certainly wouldn't have hurt their profits if everyone had to buy new seed each year. But then the protestors said "But what about people (especially in the Third World) who save seed from year to year? You'll be grinding them down by making them buy from you every time." So the protestors *forced* the GM companies to change to producing GM crops with viable seeds. And now there's complaints about the seeds and pollen staying around and "contaminating" the surrounding area. Personally I can only say that objectors taking that line are intellectually dishonest.

On that line, plants bred by "normal" methods (which may involve interbreeding of multiple species which normally can't, in labs under other-worldly conditions) have been used for decades. Many of those plants are sterile and don't produce viable seed, due to chronic inbreeding (the best examples being domestic flowers such as roses). With these new varieties, field trials are conducted to see how they shape up in the real world before they're sold. Resistance (or lack of resistance) to pests is one trait for which crops have been bred for years, and no-one has claimed before that resistance bred by those methods (most of which are decidedly unnatural) is a problem, despite the fact that fields full of "regular" wheat may be directly alongside the test plots. The use of direct genetic modification therefore isn't as big a change as claimed - the main thing as with other new varieties is to make sure that plants are tested in the labs first to make sure as much as possible is known before they get outside, AND to make sure that the results of testing are known.

As far as the "waiting for more info" side goes, there literally is *nothing* else that can be done in the lab for this particular crop. The scientists have opened these things up to the limits of current genetics knowledge (which is pretty damn good these days). What's left is field trials to see what happens in the real world. Note the difference between the UK and the US. In the US, there were no regulations, and there are now quite a few GM crops going around. In the UK, it's gone through seriously tight regulations with some serious scrutiny (serious enough to prompt the study I mentioned). I am absolutely in favour of putting GM crops through as much scrutiny as possible, but if they pass every test then again it is intellectually dishonest of objectors to continue complaining.

If the objectors wish to suggest further tests or conditions to make extra sure, that's fine by me - the more scrutiny, the better. What would be totally wrong though would be to impose some arbitrary restriction on GM crops, such as "no crops to be grown for the next 5 years" or "we need more research in the lab", which makes no sense from a scientific point of view. The only intention of the former is to force agri-companies out of business (or at least to force them to halt research) by putting the pay-off too far away, and the only intention of the latter is to frighten people (possibly like yourself) who don't realise the scrutiny which these things have already been through. By all means have 5 generations of field trials if you think that's necessary, but if they pass that then at some point we have to say that enough is enough.

I can't say whether this particular crop is safe enough or not. But there has to be an acceptance that GM organisms are not inherently any more dangerous than any other organism, that is, they are only as dangerous as their particular function dictates in their particular environment. My problem with the objectors is that a fair proportion are arguing that GM organisms can *never* be safe, and that is an invalid belief.

Graham.

PS. Brucie, Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe" in response to Heisenberg's theories of quantum mechanics. He was proved wrong.