Jim Webster wrote:

wrote in message
...

So you dismiss the current and predictable problems?
This might have been a little problem in a world with millions
of little farmers. Now the world is turning into one mega farmer
that uses the seed of one mega seed company and the pesticides
of one mega biochemical company all using the same technological
base.

you seem to forget that conventional seed varieties have a short life,
conventional seed production is a treatmill and new varieties are always
needed. This differs from the GM scenario exactly how?

Jim Webster

a treadmill of new varieties implies variability, variability implies
security: if one variety fails, another one might not. The Irish
potato famine should have tought us that lesson.

Here are some differences that I could think in 5 minutes
the GM scenario would have a large number of crop varieties or even a large
number of crops with several genes in common. In conventional seed production
there is variety. Genes that dictate the use of one chemical (a chemical that
by the way is not friendly to certain organisms of the soil, and a chemical
that stays for very long in the soil clay structure and a chemical that is
difficult to analyze and detect). Conventional crops require different
practices (chemical or mechanical) to maintain a reduced pest and weed
populations.
The use of that one chemical implies a series of cultural practices that
affect the soil fauna and flora. Multiple pesticides implies that at least
some area is not affected by unintended chemical effects.
On top of that the use of the GM technology makes farmers financially
dependent on one or two companies. The Enron story should teach us not
to depend on one company.