The main problems with GM foods are that no one knows their long-term effects, the PR about better yields and fewer pesticides has turned out to be hype, and too many serious problems have arisen already. The worst mistake I've heard about was a GM Klebsiella bacterium intended to help compost wood waste and produce ethanol. But when it was added to soil in the laboratory, all the seeds that were planted died because the GM Klebsiella killed off the mycorrhizae in the soil. http://infochangeindia.org/fetaures11.jsp Other mistakes include a brazil nut gene inserted into soy that triggered allergies in people allergic to brazil nuts; StarLink corn used in corn chips, although the StarLink GM strain was not approved by the EPA for use in human food; and GM potatoes that affected the growth of internal organs in rats. These products were removed from the food supply because they showed immediate effects, but no one knows what long-term effects may arise, or what synergistic effects may turn up. Practically speaking, whenever you eat any processed foods, you are participating in a massive unprecidented experiment on the effects of GM foods on human health. That's because there are 5 main GM crops in North America (corn, soy, canola, cotton, and I forgot the 5th) and dozens of other crops using GM strains. Practically speaking, all of the big 5 that were not organically grown (or even wind-pollinated crops that were OG) are GM or have been contaminated with GM genes. The other worrisome thing about GM crops is that it is impossible to avoid (or to know whether you are eating) GM crops, because GM ingredients are not required to be identified. The industry has spent millions of dollars to defeat GM-labeling bills every time they have been proposed. So if you want to avoid GM crops, you need to avoid crops grown in North America, avoid the big 5 altogether, or grow all your own food and be miles away from any possible GM field (because the pollen from GM corn in particular has contaminated the entire North American crop, including possibly all organically grown corn, according to some sources).

Billme, you made an excellent point that supporting gm in any way makes you complicit in it's continuation. It is my understanding that the word "may" is used because the research is ongoing. Here are some samples of ongoing research from PubMed, each concluding that more research is needed: "1: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Nov;71(11):6719-29.Click here to read Click here to read Links Impact of Bt corn on rhizospheric and soil eubacterial communities and on beneficial mycorrhizal symbiosis in experimental microcosms. * Castaldini M, * Turrini A, * Sbrana C, * Benedetti A, * Marchionni M, * Mocali S, * Fabiani A, * Landi S, * Santomassimo F, * Pietrangeli B, * Nuti MP, * Miclaus N, * Giovannetti M. Istituto Sperimentale per lo Studio e la Difesa del Suolo, CRA, Florence, Italy. A polyphasic approach has been developed to gain knowledge of suitable key indicators for the evaluation of environmental impact of genetically modified Bt 11 and Bt 176 corn lines on soil ecosystems. We assessed the effects of Bt corn (which constitutively expresses the insecticidal toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis, encoded by the truncated Cry1Ab gene) and non-Bt corn plants and their residues on rhizospheric and bulk soil eubacterial communities by means of denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analyses of 16S rRNA genes, on the nontarget mycorrhizal symbiont Glomus mosseae, and on soil respiration. Microcosm experiments showed differences in rhizospheric eubacterial communities associated with the three corn lines and a significantly lower level of mycorrhizal colonization in Bt 176 corn roots. In greenhouse experiments, differences between Bt and non-Bt corn plants were detected in rhizospheric eubacterial communities (both total and active), in culturable rhizospheric heterotrophic bacteria, and in mycorrhizal colonization. Plant residues of transgenic plants, plowed under at harvest and kept mixed with soil for up to 4 months, affected soil respiration, bacterial communities, and mycorrhizal establishment by indigenous endophytes. The multimodal approach utilized in our work may be applied in long-term field studies aimed at monitoring the real hazard of genetically modified crops and their residues on nontarget soil microbial communities." "1: Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao. 2005 Mar;16(3):524-8. Links [Effects of Bt corn straw decomposition on soil enzyme activities and soil fertility] [Article in Chinese] * Wang J, * Feng Y, * Luo S. Institute of Tropical and Subtropical Ecology, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China. wangjw@scau.edu.cn An incubation test with the straws of Bt corn 34B24 and its non-transgenic isogenic line 34B23, Bt corn Nongda 61, and non-transgenic Nongda 3138 was conducted to study the potential effects of Bt corn straw decomposition on soil enzyme activities and soil fertility. No significant difference in soil protease and acid phosphatase activities was found between treatments 34B24 and 34B23; but on day 75 of incubation, soil dehydrogenase activity was significantly higher in treatment 34B24 than in treatment 34B23. The same was true for soil invertase activity on days 15,45, 60 and 75. Soil urease activity in treatment 34B24 was significantly increased on day 30, but decreased on days 45 and 75. A significant difference in several soil enzyme activities was also observed between the treatments of two Bt corn hybrids and their conventional cultivars at some sampling days. After incubation for 90 days, the contents of soil available P and K were significantly lower in treatment 34B24 than in treatment 34B23. The differences mentioned above resulted from the composition of test corn straws, which may be affected by the Bt gene transformation process. In order to accurately assess the effects of Bt corn straw decomposition on soil ecosystem, a standard classification system of soil enzyme activities should be established for different soil types from different regions." "Erratum in: Mol Ecol. 2003 Aug;12(8):2279. Effects of transgenic Bt corn litter on the earthworm Lumbricus terrestris. * Zwahlen C, * Hilbeck A, * Howald R, * Nentwig W. Zoological Institute, University of Bern, Baltzerstrasse 6, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland. claudia.zwahlen@gmx.net A 200-day study was carried out to investigate the impact of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn on immature and adult Lumbricus terrestris in the field and in the laboratory. Another objective of this study was to develop test methods that could be used for standard testing of the impact of transgenic plants on different earthworm species in the field and in the laboratory. For this purpose two different experiments were involved, a laboratory experiment with adult L. terrestris and a field experiment with immature L. terrestris. No lethal effects of transgenic Bt corn on immature and adult earthworms were observed. Immature L. terrestris in the field had a very similar growth pattern when fed either (Bt+) or (Bt-) corn litter. No significant differences in relative weights of (Bt+) and (Bt-) corn-fed adult L. terrestris were observed during the first 160 days of the laboratory trial, but after 200 days adult L. terrestris had a significant weight loss of 18% of their initial weight when fed (Bt+) corn litter compared to a weight gain of 4% of the initial weight of (Bt-) corn-fed earthworms. Further studies are necessary to see whether or not this difference in relative weight was due to the Bt toxin or other factors discussed in the study. Degradation of Cry1Ab toxin in corn residues was significantly slower in the field than at 10 degrees C in the laboratory. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay results indicated that earthworms in both experiments were exposed to the Bt toxin throughout the whole experimental time."

Are you saying that GM should bust the union ? I can hear the caterwalling and cry for a boycott already, Boxer and Kennedy screaming in outrage. You are under estimating the pension problem. Unions were necessary, but now the pendulum has swung too far their way. You don't see any brick chimney's around here anymore as their unions have priced them right out of a career, chimney's are framed in wood now. I'll bet the packages for foreign car makers in the U.S. are nothing like UAW gives. I probably should state that I have never belonged to a union -- in fact, for 'most any job I ever held, union membership wasn't even an option. Similarly, the only person who ever fights for my job and compels companies to pay what they pay me is -- me. With that out of the way.... Bust the union? No. But GM could have stood a lengthy strike to make the point that benefits were getting "out of hand." The time to do that was years ago, when GM was strong and the UAW was just starting to build on their great benefits. Now all GM needs is one more solid punch and they're down. I still don't understand the "liberal" characterization unless you're using the sloppy meaning in which "liberal" is used to mean "not-pro-business-at-the-expense-of-workers". Didja ever notice that Southwest Airlines is about the only airline out there making money now? While American/Delta/Northwest/United/USAir/etc. are trying to force their employees to work for cheap, SWA keeps right on going. Funny thing is, they're as unionized as the bankrupt carriers. But they've figured out that working with the necessary unions is a better way to go than constantly being at each other's throats. Detroit never learned that lesson, so in addition to some stupid short-term thinking, they have an enemy in the UAW. Brilliant. Motor vehicles is not the only business facing huge pension liabilities. So are airlines. So are city, county, and state governments, because accounting practices let them defer the real cost of paying pensions and now those pensions are coming due. Speaking as someone who has never had anyone guarantee my pension, I think current and future retirees are in for some nasty surprises. What was promised (either by the business or their union) is just not sustainable. Especially if SSI will be handed out indiscriminately and especially for a generation or two that has seen the biggest increase in personal wealth in the history of the U.S. There will be a lot of caterwauling as people realize either they get stiffed a little bit now or they get stiffed a lot later when whoever is providing the pension and health care goes bust. FWIW, my next-door neighbor retired from one of the Big Three about four years ago. He was a line worker and was making in the mid-50s when he left after his 30 years. Including full health coverage for his family. Minus UAW dues. Not too bad for a guy who has no degrees and no certifications. He's d@mn good at what he does, but people in fields requiring far more education and certification are making far less than that even today. Not a bad deal at all.

If labor and management continue to think that only management has brains, then, yes, the American economy and standard of living will go down the toilet. The keys are working in collaboration and being flexible. You no doubt have ideas about how your job can be done more effectively or how your company could offer new products or services. Smart management listens; dumb management insists that only the folks in offices know anything. That's an old habit of management. Employees also need to get out of some old habits. People cannot expect careers like their parents had 30-40 years at the same company, doing the same thing. Companies do not have the loyalty to employees like they used to. Those of us in Generations X and Y have learned that our careers are up to us. If we donÂt like the deal at our current employer, we go elsewhere. Or find another line of work. Or work for ourselves. Or move. Obviously, some jobs and some personal situations lend themselves to that better than others. I think people are far more likely to have multiple careers in the future. IÂm on my second career after 20 years in the workforce. Most of the folks I work with did something quite different before they got here. I fully expect I will have at least a third career. IÂm not sure what it is yet. I just know that the odds are high against my retiring as a computer geek with my current company. Too many years and too much can happen between now and then. There also is a danger to being the "low-cost producer" -- and smart management knows it. Maybe the Chinese and Indians are providing skilled labor for less right now, but someday soon, it may be the Vietnamese and Afghanis. Or Liberians and Sudanese. "Made in Japan" used to be a joke. Korean cars used to be a joke. Companies will have to be more nimble. If a product becomes a commodity, where only price is the differentiator, then theyÂll have to change businesses frequently. If they can add services to the product or sell a better version of it, they can continue to make money. To try to get this discussion back on topic, look at ChryslerÂs PT Cruiser. ItÂs a Neon with a different body. It is different (but in a useful, friendly way), decently built (not great, but no major failures), sells well (at one point people waited in line to buy one), has inspired competition (ChevyÂs HHR), and has enabled Chrysler to charge (and get) way more than anyone would have paid for a Neon. ItÂs not that the PT is such a great vehicle. But it was appealing enough to make Chrysler some money with a car that, frankly, was nowhere near the front of the pack -- or the cheapest box out there. Now the 300C is the hot seller. In a couple of years, theyÂd better hope theyÂve got something else in the wings. To think they can make PTs and 300Cs and money for the rest of company history is crazy. ThereÂs a time to move on. Here it is.