"Genetic Modification -- science vs belief"

[JDDavis]

25. "developing crops that can survive heavy applications of deadly herbicides"

Please see post #20 in this thread, the one that starts with "GMO Myth: Farmers “drown” crops in “dangerous” glyphosate. Fact: They useeye droppers", written by a GMO and non GMO farmer in Iowa. His paper explains how they have been able to reduce herbicide use with GMO crops.

"The potential effect on genetic diversity of food crops": Any GMO crop is, by definition, an expansion of diversity of food crops.

"Unintended consequences" happen often in hybridization. They are controlled only in the farm field, or in the laboratory first. By contrast GMO processes are, by the nature of their procedure, and by strict use controls with the beta, (experimental variant), a more effective way to limit "unintended consequences", first in a laboratory, with a cross-matrix of studies of possible adverse consequences before they are ever introduced to the farm field.

As to the nature of ""patenting life forms", those are legal questions, and do have some ethical implications, who benefits from research, etc. But as with any research and production, systems of patents are intended to protect inventors and encourage and reward technological advancement, not to stifle it nor to pollute advancement in a morass of non-regulation and cut-throat free markets.

Of course, there is never a guarantee in real life, so I agree with you "... a serious public discussion about the wisdom of new technology is a sane and rational thing to do".

However, it's a little too late to "pause" unfortunately, since the cat is already out of the bag in a number of food and animal crops around the world. So what next? The GMO "cat" cannot go "back in the bag", really, can it?