"Oz" wrote in message after me after Oz .........(snip)

Not talking mutations of genes here, talking about latent genes that are
already there but that don't "do" anything suddenly making things happen
after the GM insertion of another gene triggers them into action.

Mutations (natural) do that all the time.
yawn

True, they do mutate, and that is natural and part of evolution, they don't
insert themselves from one species (or even genera) to another .
BUT my point is that scientists cannot predict these "mutations" caused when
they start inserting foreign genes into something, they happen unexpectedly
and cause unexpected results in the Lab . I feel that is proof that the
science is not good enough yet to be allowed out of the Lab and into our
world. The scientists don't know whats going on!

however, it will cause change,

Change has been happening for 1000,000,000 years without ceasing.
Big deal.

possibly some destruction of species,

Species have been being lost for 1000,000,000's of years.
Big deal. Best avoided, but it's actually quite hard to take a species
to extinction, particularly insects, unless you remove their ecosystem.
The field is already a species-deficient zone, being essentially a
monoculture of necessity (even organic fields).

From those comments I understand you don't mind if there is significant
change brought about by GM. Here we differ fundamentally.


more use of chemicals in farming,

Unlikely. Most/all gmo's use fewer chemicals because if they didn't
there would be no point using them at all. The reduction of insecticide
use in BT cotton has by all accounts been huge for example.

Not what I've heard. Herbicide resistant crops so they can be sprayed with
more herbicides.


inability of farmers to save their own
seed for the next crop,

Been going on for decades (see hybrids), and in any case I very much
doubt this will be the case in the EU, and doesn't appear to be the case
in the 2nd/3rd world.

Wrong! Only in the case of F1 hybrids is it not wise to save seed as they
are first generation crosses and the second generation follows the normal
rules. Seed CAN still be saved though and you would still get a crop of
sorts.


contamination of other crops/wild flora.........

If genes are transferred from some crop plants to some wild plants then
this has been going on for millennia anyway. The question is whether the
new genes give a significant advantage or disadvantage in the wild (cos
wild plants live in the wild). Whilst I can see a mechanism for GM
insecticides, I cannot see one for herbicide tolerance.

It would be the only plant other than the crop that could survive the
herbicide use.


Will it be change for better or worse?

As a farmer, the ability to use fewer, safer, sprays is highly
beneficial. Remember by far the person most at risk is the sprayer
operator, who is handling bulk quantities of concentrate.

I would agree if I thought it true that there would be less
spraying/herbicide use but as some of the companies involved in GM are also
Agro-Chemical companies I somehow doubt it.


Do we know yet?

The US (and elsewhere) experience is that it's for the better overall.
Otherwise they wouldn't continue to increase their area of gm cropping.

If there was money to be made they would increase it no matter what.


I suspect we will never agree on this subject. Well not for some years
anyway.

Depends if the evidence counts or not.


But we obviously read the same evidence in different ways and reach
different conclusions. We also differ in our thoughts regarding who is
controlling this science and why.

--
Regards
Bob

Use a useful Screen Saver...
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here.