I am definitely pro-GMO (in general). My reasoning is as follows. Humans have been genetically modifying organisms for as long as we have been farming (at least), through artificial selection. We now have tools which allow us to give traits from one species to another, without the intermediate (or impossible) step of cross-breeding. GMO's who have their resistance to pests/weather conditions, or who produce higher yields, or who have improved nutritional aspects, therefore, I do not think are to be scorned.

A lot the negative emotions I see directed at GMO's are actually people upset with Monsanto's practices, which I do find unreasonable. I think it is important to seperate one tool the company uses (genetically modifying organisms) from whatever their other business practices are. One bad use of a tool should NOT discredit the use of the tool. Just because Monsanto has used these tools questionably does NOT mean that genetically modifying food is the root problem. We definitely need to consider the ecological impacts of these new plants, BUT, GMO's could, in fact, be made to need less fertilizer/insecticide/pesticides. As I understand it now, companies are generally either maximizing yield of crops, or making it nearly impossible to grow crops without their products (a definite "negative " to me). In addition to these, we have the antiquated U.S. patent system. It is not keeping up very well with technological patents, not is it keeping up with biochemical patents on DNA sequences. I do not have the knowledge to speak at length on these topics, perhaps I have already said too much. One regulation I do hope to see come about (instead of being repealed) would be the mentioned

amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. One provision would make it mandatory...to notify the [FDA] before [bringing] a new biotech seed to market...