Okay. Fair views. It comes down to the monoculture argument vs. the necessity argument. I lean to the latter. You say that GMOs aren't needed to solve our problems. I say that they already have solved some of our problems in the past. Sure, it would be great if all of the food we wasted in America made it to the "bottom billion," but it can't, because there's no money in that. That's easily the most elegant solution, but there's no money in building infrastructure in Ghana. There is money in genetically-modifying plants to last longer. (And, you need to acknowledge that we've been modifying our foods for 100 years now, and just about everything you eat, labeled or not, is no longer your holy grail of "natural.") I'm an amateur environmentalist. My entire family are professional environmentalists. I understand the importance of biological diversity more keenly than anyone my age still does anymore. It worries me. Lots of things worry me. But blocking GMOs for longterm purposes just doesn't hold up to the lives potentially being lost in the shortterm. (Note that very little of that has to do with Monsanto; I'm not at all sure how I feel about their patent lawsuits, and I'm annoyed that they've drawn so much bad press to the GMO cause.) Last thing I have to say -- you point out that the industry should welcome GMO labels, because if they're completely sure in their product it won't matter. They are sure in their product's safety (though not, perhaps, in its longterm diversity effects), but look what happens when they write "GMO" on packaging. Sales go down, and that's largely because of the media's portrayal of the debate, unfortunately. Large-scale protests in general worry me, because of the overall ignorance of the American population. Odds are not many of the people in those protests are as cognizant of the issues as you and I.
I'd be curious know which problems you think GMOs have solved so far. They might have solved symptoms but not the bigger problems that I mentioned, themselves. And even the symptoms they have solved it doesn't mean they are the only solution. My point is that there are more than one way of peeling a banana. Permaculture would have not only solved the symptom but also the root problem of massive scale mono-culture. I don't think that stopping GMOs = dead people. It's not one or the other. As I said, if we look around there are other solutions. People are still able to eat the heirloom crops if we give it to them. As for labelling, we'll agree to disagree. If biot-tech has a strong case it shouldn't be hard to convince/educate the public. The responsibility is on the industry to restore the trust that has been lost.You say that GMOs aren't needed to solve our problems. I say that they already have solved some of our problems in the past.
we've been modifying our foods for 100 years now
I assume you're referring to selective breeding and hybridising crops and animals? Actually this has been going on since agriculture started and it's not the same as merging genes across multiple branches of the Phylogenetic tree. Selective breeding happens within the laws and restrictions of evolution to allow very little change with every new generation. Perhaps there's a reason why evolution introduces very little DNA change over time? So that perhaps the ecosystem can adapt to it? GMOs scraps what I see as a safety safety net and creates totally different organisms, which in turn create new proteins to which we humans and other beings might no t be adapted to (potential for alergies?) and hopes for the best when released into the wider environment.locking GMOs for longterm purposes just doesn't hold up to the lives potentially being lost in the shortterm.