Quick Poll

USA WEEKEND/QUICK POLL RESULTS

Guestbook: What's your take on genetically modified foods?

We welcome your postings, but we remind you that your participation is subject to our Terms of Service. We encourage courteous debate that observes the widely recognized online protocol.

Alexis de Toqueville (Washington D.C.)

Genetically altered foods will contribute to the expulsion of the regional farmer from land. No labels will indirectly support big agrobusiness, which will in turn, sell off the environment to the dirty investments of corporations (Liberal exaggeration? Spend next vacation anywhere along the two-thousand long Mex/U.S. border to see the biohazardous ambiance maquiladoras produce)

Philip Hetu (El Paso)

I feel that it is wrong to sell gennitically modified food to people. I strongly believe that the customer should know what they are buying and how that food was made. If the company is to scared to put a gentically modified label on it then maybe they shouldn't be selling it at all.

Philip Hetiu (El Paso)

Susan (McKinleyville, CA)

If there is nothing harmful about genetically engineered foods, then what is the problem with labeling them as such. What do the biotech companies have to fear. Let the free market decide, by allowing consumers to make an informed decision. All food should be labeled as to ingredients, and additives such as gene alterations, just like they list preservatives.

Ken (Antrim, NH)

For those who have reservations about genetically engineered foods: go to www.hagelin.org and click on the downloadable 4 page brochure about GE foods. Dr. John Hagelin is making this issue one of the key points of his presidential campaign. A vote for him in the presidential primaries is a powerful way to voice your reservations about GE food. Dr Hagelin wants to bring this issue into the forefront of national discussion and debate in this election year, and ask each candidate to define his/her position.

on the road (a car)

The question better stated is "should the sale of gentically changed foods be legal'. Period. After hearing[in my car]an interview Tues or Weds, on NPR with people authoring new book, [can't recall name,darn!]it became scary hearing the facts uncovered. I suggest an interview with these people, get another view, so we can make up our minds.

John (Victoria)

SilentWitness (Your Town, USA)

Why must Bill Clinton label all exports, but not the products in America? That's a question for you to decide. I'm just here to tell you a tale of a story that was hused up: Studies have been done with geneticaly modified food and their results on rats. The rats fed organics were a-ok, but the ones fed GMO's developed immune sysem defficencies (sorry about the spelling), abnormal brain and small intestine development and liver dysfunctions. We classify living organisms in to plants and animals. Then to fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Well, two for two. WE seem to be quite close to these rats, yet these results weren't highly published and concerns were not raised. For a reason? Money, I can only assume... unless there is someone out there who does not care for their progeny enough to feed them what is essentialy poison.

Craig (Burlington)

For the record, there is more than one craig in Burlington. We are working together in collaboration with many other people in Burlington to start telling the supermarkets (ie PriceChopper) that we won't settle for these Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO's) in our supermarkets. One question: WHY is it such a problem for companies to label foods when they are playing with genes, something that is completely intangable by the human hand. It almost makes the labeling seem like an easy task when one is dealing with millons of atoms at a time insead of one single strand of DNA containing a few hundred thousand atoms. Labels? Im all for them.

Craig (Burlington, Vermont)

Just to let you know this is a different Craig from Burlington. there will be a demonstration in front of Price Chopper in Burlinton off of route 7 next Saturday the 26. we will be informing people about GMOs and have some lovely giant fish-berries there to catch peoples attention. Anyways about those fishberries, can a vegetarian eat a strawberry that has fish genes in it and still be a vegetarian????

Craig (Burlington)

CRaig (Burlington, Vermont)

this poll doesn't prove anything, all you have to do is sign off and sign back on and you can vote again. It's rigged!!! I bet Monsanto has got some high tech computer program developed that votes yes all day long from the same computer. who the hell else would vote yes anyways??

Craig (Burlington)

Hmm. there's a comment further down the line that GMO's reduce pesticide use. Don't be fooled! In soybeans alone there is a 5% LESS yield in crops, **BUT** 2-5 times the amount of pesticide is used. Wait.... that's two strikes against GMO's.

HI (bye)

Although I have nothing against GE foods, I feel it should be up to the customer to decide what he/she wants to eat. We should have the choice to know what we are eating and not be afraid to pick up any fruit or vegetable in the supermarket. We, as the consumers have a right to know what is on our dinner plate every night.

Patrick (Wilton, NH)

Nature does not mix genes across species as Monsanto does. If we've leared anything in 200 years of science and industry, we've learned that there are invariably unforeseen negative consequences to our advances. Give me the choice of being a Guinea pig in this experiment, and label my foods. Thanks.

()

Come on folks we've got'em on the run! If you log off and log on again you can keep voting.

Valerie Allana (Palo Alto, CA)

If it tastes good it is good? I think this whole process needs to be slowed down to a halt so every aspect of genetically modified foods can be researched. There is no government regulated testing yet. I believe the people that are "all for it" have a financial interest in this, otherwise...what's the rush? Let's think about the long term and very long term effects on the envirtonment as well as our health

Dwight (Van Meter )

If it tastes good it IS good. Looking for better fruits and vegetables using land races, improved varieties, hybrids or engineered is simply more of the same human activity accepted for the past 10,000 years. Bring us more and better!!

Richard Aylward (Neenah WI)

Fact - GM products increase yields and reduce pesticide and herbicide use. This results in tangible environmental benefits. I think it's almost contradictory to consider yourself an environmentalist and want to end development of GM food technologies.

Patti See (Chula Vista, CA)

I'm appalled that 41% of the respondents are answering with a "yes" answer. To allow companies to feed us genetically altered food without our knowledge is wrong. At the very least we should be told that we are eating these foods, then if people don't have a problem with that, they can eat. Those of us who don't trust the test results and want to wait a few years longer to see what happens should be allowed that freedom. What kind of a democracy are we living in?

Michael (Vancouver,B.C. )

This is only an aspect of 'man' trying to play God because of his feeling of insucurity and need to control! All under the name of trying to do 'good' for the world. It's NOT the solution that is needed!!!

Marcus Williamson ()

I believe that Genetically Modified food represents the largest risk to life on earth since the invention of the atomic bomb. Here are some of the reasons why I believe this to be the case. http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/gmwrong.html The most worrying issue is that there has been _no_ independent testing of the safety of GM crops and foodstuffs, beyond the work done by the manufacturers such as Monsanto, Dow and AgrEvo. The FDA is allowing these products onto the market with "self-certification" from these companies.

S.E.S. Hopper (Boise)

I think that not labeling foods in this manner is one of the most abhorent violations of my personal rights imaginable.

Don (Chapel Hill, NC)

Yet more ludites! Pollysorbate 80 is a chemical preservative which has been around for decades. Stop eating junk food and you'll avoid it.

scott (Urbandale)

Can anyone tell me what pollysorbate 80 is?? I see it on the food labels all the time. Is is some genetically engineered thing? How can I find food without it??

Eugene Ashworth (Asbury Park, NJ)

Many thoughtfull arguments on BOTH sides are presented here !! BUT, most are missing the *main point* of the question which is: -- F R E E D O M O F C H O I C E -- ...this point was *so clearly* presented by Denise Darcey that I can only echo it...: *****Denise Darcey (Pisgah Forest, NC) wrote****: "I feel that I want the freedom of choice. I want to be able to choose genetically engineered products or not. Everything needs to be labeled. I am tired of secrets being kept from me from those who wish to slide through something they are invested in. I vote for my freedom of choice! I vote for the right to know." I *ALSO* vote for the *right to know* and therefore ***freedom of choice***. :)(:

A. Whitney (NYC)

For the folks who don't want to eat anything altered by man, I hope you realize your menu choice are limited to bottled spring water and few types of mushrooms. Any vegetables you buy in the store or at restaurants - even organic - have been the result of man directed breeding programs. Breeding techniques developed over the last 2000 years, I might add. Any meat (I realize not everyone can be a vegetarian like me) consumed today is also the result of breeding activities to develop, leaner "healthier" product. Even good milk has been changed. Your local dairy adds vitamins A and enhances vitamin D. Folks, its time to grow up. If you distrust big government and big business, shouldn't you also distrust big activism and big activist groups??

Laura (Ames, IA)

Selwyn Polit (Austin, Texas USA)

Mixing fish genes with strawberries? Making corn generate poisons in every single cell in the plant, so we can't wash it off? Yuch!! No way to GE. Next thing we'll be told is that the terminator technology will somehow help starving people all over the world get fed? R-i-g-h-t.

oni (Williamstown)

Environmentally, growing genetically engineered products can wreak hovoc. Already non-genetically engineered corn is being affected by GE Bt corn, creating more detrimental pests, thereby decreasing food security. Gene pollution in the environment can NOT be cleaned up. GE also perpetuates monocultures, displacing more varieties of crops, also decreasing food security. GE is also controlled by multinational companies, making the farmer more dependent on less socially responsible companies...healthwise, i wouldn't want to ingest food that is spliced with DNA from bacteria or viruses, which could potentially create high bacteria resistance or spread viruses=more disease. We need to be informed to make he

George (Raleigh)

We eat foreign proteins and DNA everyday. In fact, some people would have us believe we even evolved from bacteria. Scary thought isn't it!!! On a more serious note. If starving people on OUR earth are forced to destroy more rain forests and pollute more rivers and oceans in an effort to survive --- the people who kept the "biotech" food (enhanced in it's nutritional capactiy) will be have some serious questions to answer.

Denise Darcey (Pisgah Forest, NC)

I feel that I want the freedom of choice. I want to be able to choose genetically engineered products or not. Everything needs to be labeled. I am tired of secrets being kept from me from those who wish to slide through something they are invested in. I vote for my freedom of choice! I vote for the right to know.

Paul Cohen (Great Falls, MT)

Genetic engineering is the latest, and most drastic step in the progression of man trying to control nature. Each step has created new problems, more thorny than the last. Anything unnatural should require labeling. That includes genetically engineered products and those grown using toxic chemicals.

George (Raleigh)

()

I don't work for Monsanto but I do know that Round-up Ready plants are made to withstand a specific herbicide. My question is this: if farmers are growing plants that aren't Round-up Ready, do they use more or less chemicals to control the weeds? I think someone who grows these crops should answer this question. It is also my understanding that preventing weed growth can be beneficial for the environment since the farmers can then practice "no-till" farming (and thus help to prevent serious soil erosion). If someone gives me a well-rounded presentation that includes ALL of the facts, then I'll listen.

Sad Sally (Genetically Contaminated, USA)

NYC A. Whitney Brown, ever hear of the Consumer Right to Know Act? Look it up, the US Constitution goes beyond the Bill of Rights. It is our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to know what is in our foods. For those of you who are not concerned, wait and see as the cancer rates increase over the next 30 years and biodiversity is destroyed. Won't it be fun to walk through that Old Growth forest that is now a corn field?

Angie Gonzalez (Stevens Point, Wisconsin)

Corporations have consistently written their own laws in the United States for decades now. It is time for consumers to decide what they want and don't want, instead of an elitist 'invisibile' deciding the fate of our minds, pocketbooks, and in this case, bodies.

Dan (Columbia, MO)

Labeling Genetically altered foods would be extremely difficult and expensive, and nearly impossible to inforce. Most GM products could only be detected through examination of their DNA and the line between genetically modified and "organic" is extremely vague. We'll see how people feel about GM crops when their grocery bills start to grow and Millions of dollars of their Tax money is spent enforcing a law based on ignorance.

Matt Rouser (Argyle, Tx)

The biotech industry has already committed atrocities in the population of monarch butterflies and is strictly profit over the safety of everything in our biosphere. Is a tomato spliced with fish genes a vegetable or an animal?

Mr. Joe (NJ )

Less pesticides? Who are you kidding? Genetically engineered foods are created to withstand MORE pesticides. Roundup Ready soybeans, a Monsato product, are engineered to withstand direct spraying from pesticides. THIS IS A FACT, ask Monsato. That means farmers can dump as much of the Roundup pesticide directly on our food as they want in order to kill weeds, in the past they had to be more cautious. In addition, foods engineerd with pesticides in their cell structure are known to contaminate the soil leaving pesticide residue in the ground and harming beneficial soil bacterium and insects. Wake up and realize the truth you pawns! To all of you who know, keep up the good fight, friends, in the final end we'll win the war!

Diane Bratcher (New York City)

None of us knows what genetically engineered foods will ultimately do to us, to the environment, to the human race or to plants, animals and insects. Until we have objective (not company-sponsored), conclusive research to prove these products are safe all around, why risk it? What greater good is served by rushing these products to widespread use before safety questions are answered? So often products have seemed safe and were disasters -- DDT, Thalidomide, Vitamin A fortified rice. We're not talking about curing AIDS, cancer or heart disease here. To the few companies pushing this technology just to turn a profit on their investment in seed technologies, we don't say "phooey," we say "phen-fen!"

(aspen colorado.)

nature is so intelligent. altering it's wisdom is arrogant.....and perhaps even foolhearty....Life knows what it is doing. it seems disrespectful to me to think we can do it better. humility. we dont have enough intelligence or awareness to be doing

shinleaf (Tok)

KNOCK IT OFF !!!!!!!

Peenu (Sacramento)

I think there is nothing wrong with genetically made/modified food, so there should not be any problem for labeling it either.

FRANCIE SMART (EVERSON WASHINGTON)

OUR BODIES MAY NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH GENETICALLY ALTERED FOODS. DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT CHANCE WITH YOUR CHILDREN OR GRANDCHILDREN. I DO NOT.

Leslie (Apex, N.C.)

Several people have cited "proof" that actually turns out to be incorrect. For example, the Monarch butterfly population is at an all-time high and the results from the original study done at Cornell were shown by many additional independent studies to be unsubstantiated. However, there has not been responsible reporting on these events so confusion persists. If labeling for GMOs is required, so should labeling for all potential fungal and bacterial contaminations(of organic foods) and chemicals used on non-GMO foods. The result would be that we would have to pay much higher prices in the grocery store. Wouldn't that cause an outcry?!

Adrian J. Worthey (San Antonio, TX)

The FDA approved the marketing of genetically engineered foods against the advice of their own experts. I keep hearing proponents say that there's no real difference, and that there's never been a problem with G.E. foods. Oh really? What about the people who died from and were made seriously ill by Tryptophan? We were told, as the FDA pulled it from market that it was an "impurity." I guess you could call it that. It was caused by the genetically engineered bacteria which produced the "impurity" along with the tryptophan. It comes down the the old familiar Risk/Benefit. Who get the benefit and who takes the risk?

Bob (Ardmore)

The fuss over ingesting "foreign" DNA show the failure of our educational system.

Linda (Thousand Oaks, CA)

I recognize that the European community seems to be extremely concerned about this issue. I find it ironic however that none of the benefits or potential benefits seem to reported. These include lower pesticide useage and impact on environment, health and nutritional impovements. If a starving community in Africa or India could get vital, key vitamins or minerals in a single serving of say, rice do you think they mind that a scientist did some genetic enhancement to make it so?! Get a grip!

D J (Iowa City)

Judy (PA)

I do not believe it when Monsanto says less pesticides for GE food. I believe they mean only Monsanto pesticides. Great for them, bad for us. NO GE FOOD!!

RACHEL (GALVESTON TX)

I DO NOT WANT ANYTHING IN MY BODY THAT HAS BEEN ALTERED IN ANY WAY ESPECIALLY WITHOUT A LABEL INDICATING SO. HAVE THE SCIENTISTS LOST THEIR MINDS!!!!!!!!!

c melear (memphis, TN)

I do not want to eat anything that someone has tampered with in any way!

Michele ()

This is a huge scientific experiment and we are all the guini pigs. We should at least be able to choose whether or not we want to participate!

Rita Wilhelm (Annville, PA)

I find it interesting that before the onset of the industrial age, human beings supposidly had only naturally occuring chemicals in our bodies. Today, scientists can track over 500 chemicals that shouldn't be there, including traces of DDT...in light of who produced "agent orange" & DDT, and recent admissions by the tobacco industry, this question should be a "no brainer"!

Sabrina Teller (Austin, Texas)

If genetically engineered foods are as safe as the biotech industry assures us they are, why do they resist efforts to label products that contain GE foods? Apart from the ethical issues related to genetic engineering, important health considerations such as allergies should provide ample reasons to give consumers the right to know what they are putting into their bodies.

Sabrina Teller (Austin, Texas)

ASHOK KUMAR DALAL (Rohtak (haryana,India))

IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO KHOW WHAT WE ARE BUYING AND EATING.AS FOR AS POSSIBLE I WILL NOT BUY AND EAT GM FOOD. IN INDIA WE STILL USE PREMITIVE METHODS FOR GROWING FOODS. FIRST THESE HAVE TO BE MODIFIED TO MOST MODERN ONES THAN ONLY COMES THE GMOS.

Dan C. (San Anselmo)

I would like to have the ability to decide whether of not to eat GE foods. Is not this country about choice? I want to have the choice to eat or not to eat GE foods.. That is the Question!

O (:))

Proponents try to compare it to hybriding but that was within the same species and the same kingdom! A carrot and a fish from Alaska shouldn't get married. We don't want no franken foods!!!!!!!!!

Sally Apple (Boston)

To find out more about this fraudulent food scare campaign visit the www.eat2k.org... Organic industry labeling efforts part of food fear marketing campaign. Caveat Emptor

paul (Brooklyn )

Would we be as willing for someone to genetically alter our bodies without consent? I believe that is what they are doing and the effects could turn ugly. Someone 30 years later will see side effects caused by these changes/alterations. Don't fool with Mother Nature!!!

Gonzalo Sergio (REston)

Why would it be so hard to level fruits properly. I think it is dangerous to eat genetically modified fruit.

Chapin Spencer (Burlington, Vermont)

If the consummer is to be truly empowered to select products in line with his or her values, we must provide him or her with thorough and easily understood product labels. Would you want to but a car without a sticker saying what kind of warranty it had?

B.D. (Chicago)

Scientific experimentation certainly has a place in the world. However, my physical body is not a place that science should be able to force themselves into without my consent. The fact that this is debatable is troubling. Could somebody please wake up the U.S. Government on this matter? Perhaps they're wide awake, that's the part that's so disconcerting.

Kris M. (Dallas, TX)

I have a right to know if the foods I eat are genetically modified. I would not let a doctor give me a drug without telling me what it was and it's side effects before I took it. I choose not to eat GMO's. If that means I buy only organic, then so be it. I don't take drugs, I don't eat junk food, I don't consume toxic substances - why would I want to eat food that is not proven safe? Do we really know what affect these bio-engineered frankin-seeds may have on future generations? Remember the women of my generation who can't have children because our mothers took a particular drug during pregnancy. Oops, the FDA found out too late it was unsafe. That didn't help the victims who had already taken it...

Nicole Lamphere (Chicago )

moe SAINT EverGreen (Florida)

Simple. Modify a fruit to contain almond genes. But oops.. Harry is allergic to almonds.. Boom in the hospital.. "what did you eat?" "Just some fruit", when actually the almond gene made him allergic to the fruit. This actually can happen, and has happened. Genetically modified food can be dangerous. And this is well known, its just considered to be an acceptable hazard that will only affect a small percent of the population. To answer the problem, we can label the fruit as "this fruit may be genetically altered". Notice the "may".. this means the distributer mixes their fruit, and doesn't know their exact location. This way, Harry (who knows he has bad allergies) knows it could contain something that he may be allergic to. Problem solved. Wow.. that was so hard.

Gary S. (Des Moines)

Currently the world's farmers are feeding 2X as many people as in 1955. This has required improvements in many areas but most signigicantly in plant genetic improvements. If people are to be fed without plowing under vast new amounts of land, further genetic improvements must be promoted. Currently something like 1/3 of the worlds arable land is under cultivation- how much more wild space can we afford to lose??

John (Chicago)

The labeling of GE foods is not solely about food safety. When scientists move genes from one organism to another they are raising serious ethical issues. People with religious, spiritual or ethical concerns about food tampering have every right to know that their food is free of genetic manipulation. For example, as one of America's 16 million vegetarians, I have a strong objection to eating vegetables that contain the genetic material of fish or insects. For those who complain about the confusion labeling would create, that is the responsibility of the companies that want to alter our food. They all have multi-million dollar advertising and PR budgets that can be used for

Gail H. (Raleigh, NC)

What is the harm in labeling genetically modified foods if they are "perfectly safe"? I do not want to eat bio-engineered foods nor do I want to serve them to my family but, I have no recourse at this point because many products are already altered and in the foods I buy. We label things as Low Fat, Low Cholesterol, Organic, etc., how could it possibly be a bad thing to be provided with the information necessary to make a healthy decision?

Gary S. (Des Moines)

Labeling is by no means as simple as those who are not involved in food production believe. Grains are moved through many channels and changes of hands and transport methods before being consumed. My Toshiba computer has a label on the bottom that it may contain any one of 3 battery chemistries- if that can't be accurately labeled how can a low cost commodity like grain?

Steve (Houston)

In a recent survey in the UK, 65% of consumers, after being informed of the risks associated with eating produce raised by "carbon-based technology", voted to ban the use of this technology in food production. What they were not told was that the term "carbon based technology" was used as a synonym for organic agriculture. The moral of this story is that people fear what they do not understand.

Keen Butterworth (Lousiville, Colorado)

If these huge corporations are so proud and so sure these products are safe, then why not label the products and let the people decide for themselves. I personally think it is not only hazardous to personal health but to the environment as a whole.

Madeline Blazewicz Bresner (Bellevue, Washington)

I believe that it should be illegal to sell genetically modified fruits and vegetables without special labels. People should have the right to choose whether or not they wish to be a participant in a giant food experiment. We already know that the pollen from BT corn has killed Monarch butterflies. What about its affects on humans and the rest of the environment? What about people with allergies who could unknowingly be exposed to toxic substances? What about vegetarians who choose not to eat meat but unknowingly buy products with meat genes spliced into them? If scientists feel that they need to persist in screwing around with nature then at least put a label on it so those who choose to can avoid it. But I still worry about its environmental impact.

Charlie (Woodstock, GA)

At one time DDT was considered 'safe' by U.S. Gov't and industry. If you look back, there are many examples where science has provided a marvel which turned out to kill, maim or other destroy people and the enviorment. How many 'DES kids' are out there? How many were effected by the GMO L-Trypthophane a couple years back? Agent Orange? Our current technology allows us to do it, but we still don't understand just what we are doing, let alone look forward to the consequences. How many people would place a new CD drive in a cannon and fire it at thier PC in the hopes that CD would install itself properly and work? This is just how they create new GMO's.

Robert Wendell (Clarksville, TN)

Adam Honigman (NYC)

Friends: America is about choice. People should have the right to know what they're feeding their families. Folks who want to avoid GE foods should have the opportunity to do so. It's the same right as those who want to keep kosher/hallal, vegetarian - Seventh Day Adventist, Hindu kitchens. To sneak GE foods in without labels is patently un-American. Only the folks who sell the GE foods want to sneak them into America's pantry without discussion or discernment by consumers. If GE products are better, let them prove it up front, not sneakingly. God Bless

Charlie (Woodstock, GA)

Morris Bitzer (Lexington,KY)

The question as stated is very poor as it is somewhat tricky and that is why you get the answers that you are getting. Most all food that we consume is technically genetically modified. All milk contains Biotechnically engineered substances. These engineered foods are for the benefit of all. Less use of pesticides, use of safer pesticides, better quality food, more food to feed the world. This terminology is all that is new. We have been engineering to improve breeding for years. How could the use of fewer pesticides be harmful to us or the environment. It would be impossible to label all foods as either/or as we cannot keep track of where they go. Any product on the market has been thoroughly tested and approved or it wouldn't be on the market from the USA. We have the safest and highest quality food in the world.

Larry Robinson (Denver)

Genetically engineered foods are safe. Respected organizations like the Institute of Food Technologists have endorsed this as a safe technology that will improve the quality of food and reduce starvation worldwide. Labeling would have no purpose and would increase the cost of food.

A. Whitney Brown (New York)

People, get a grip. The Bill of Rights doesn't contain any language guaranteeing the right to know what's in one's food. Nonetheless, consumers everywhere have a natural right to exercize their freedom to choose. And guess what, we all have the ability to choose GMO free products already - they're called organic. If you support paying 10% - 25% more for food to enjoy the piece of mind that the item you are eating wasn't sprayed with pesticides or herbicides, then by gosh, you should be out there showing the marketplace what you as consumers want - stop wasting your time (and mine) debating about labels - it's a ruse by the anti-corporate environmentally holier-than-thou green elite to pocket your money as they fight big corporations. Bottom line: you can't trust either side!

Aimee Marciniak (Chicago)

The American people are once again being controlled like puppets by gargantuan corporations and their sole interest: massive monetary profits. The so-called 'scientific evidence' gained from studies on this issue has been done solely by the corporations themselves. It is time that Americans received decent food from soils that are well-taken care of, rather than "products" which have been converted from their natural state and meddled with, having parts of one food combined with another. The American people should be given a choice in what they consume, having all the evidence out in the open, rather than corporations secretly meddling with ingredients and production processes.

Eve Howard (Grovertown, Indiana )

Industry has a vested interest in GMO foods, we as consumers have nothing to gain by being granted this basic American right other than support of the principles that this nation was founded upon. Freedom of choice! Regardless of my stand on the safety of GMO foods the labeling of such should be a non-issue. This issue has been a hot topic globally for a long time, we as Americans have been kept in the dark due to these special interests. What exactly do they fear?

Rosalee (Chicago)

I wish someone would put up such a strong cry about antibiotics in livestock. I find genetically altered produce harmless, but livestock are developing "super germs," and that worries me a lot.

Annette (Florida)

The consequences of genetic engineering of crops goes far beyond the individual foods that wind up in the produce department. Tampering with Mother Nature for profit should be carefully controlled.

Leif Winter (Hallstead, Ps.)

These are high-tech food additives, and we deserve a choice as to whether or not we want to eat them.

Mary (Ontario)

I thought one of the great things about living in the US was that the individual had freedom of choice....well shouldn't the consumer have the right to choose? By not labeling the products to indicate GM or whatever the individual is not allowed to make an accurate choice. Please label the products and allow consumers to make their own decision. Its suppose to be a free country.

Gordon Filyk (Houston)

Adding GMO's to America's food supply without labeling is a lot like Rape. Man's meddling with food has always been a complete failure. Just look to refined sugar, pestisides, hydrogenated vegetable oils, feeding livestock antibiotics. The list is endless. When will we really CARE????? We add these, and 10 years down the road we will have a litany of new diseases to add to the list of our present day PREVENTABLE diseases. PERIOD..

MARK DANEHEY (SAINT MARYS, GA)

People forget that our government never tells you the risk on anything that big bucks are behind. Remember Nuclear tests when the Goernment sent unprotected personnel into the contaminated sites before they knew the effects. I worked in Nuclear areas for the Government. Believe this, the general public is being snowed. No person should be allowed to alter nature, nature has it's own way of changing. Why are they afraid to at least label Radiated and altered products.

Christine McCullum (Pittsburgh, PA)

I am very surprised by the food industry's resistance to labeling genetically engineered foods. Typically, any industry is eager to market their product as having an advantage over others that will increase its attractiveness to consumers, instead of proclaiming such labels will 'confuse' consumers. For example, the billion dollar supplement industry doesn't seem to worried that the claims on their product labels will 'confuse' consumers; it shouldn't be any different here, unless they really are trying to hide something, i.e., to prevent consumers from making their own 'informed' choices.

Christine McCullum (Pittsburgh, PA)

Mary A F (Montclair NJ, USA)

There is no proof of safety for Genetically Engineered food. There is no way to put pollinating, self spreading life back into the laboratory once released. Labeling should be the first step in revoking all patents on life fo

Jeff Clothier (Des Moines, Iowa)

Not one person has been harmed through consumption of these products. People were outraged when frozen foods came on the market thinking there would be dire consequences. It is the same here, when people become more familiar with the products and educated about the technology and its health and environmental BENEFITS, they will be less touchy about this subject. Greenpeace, and other similar groups, have a political agenda, and have jumped on this bandwagon as a means to advance it. But they produce nothing but faulty science and hot air.

M. Zimmerman (Alameda, CA)

Selective breeding of crops has gone on for centuries as farmers culled out "wild" species of wheat, corn and other food. Some argue that by limiting natural selection, we increase our hypersensitivity to these foods and decrease our natural disease resistance. Such things are hard to prove, but our efforts to "improve" genetic characteristics doesn't bode well for the benefits of diversity that have sustained man for most of his existence on the planet. How are we going to "prove" that adding unnatural characteristics to plant species that feed us won't ultimately do more harm than good? I for one have my doubts and want to be able to limit my food choices to non-genetically modified foods.

Kerri McDougald (Clearwater FL)

Huib de Vriend (Delft (Netherlands))

Teh general opinion among consumer organisations in Europe is that products that are not proven to be at least as safe as conventional produdctws should not be allowed on the market. From that perspective, labelling is not an instrument to warn consumers about unsafe products, but an instrument for choice. Consumers may want choice for many other reasons than just safety!

s. barclay ewen (aberdeen)

incorporation of the most infectious part of a living virus into human food so that inserted genetic material will be expressed, has potential hazards that have not been sufficiently biologically tested.

R. Campbell (NY)

My main contention is that what about people who have allergies? How are they to know if a vegetable or fruit can cause an allergic reaction if it's genetically altered? It's too costly and dangerous to allow such products on the market with no labels indicating each additive.

Glenn Ashton (Cape Town, South Africa)

It is interesting to note that the very thorough Germans have just disallowed GE corn to be planted. this is not a whim but true application of the precautionary principle. Those promoting GE spend millions doing so and stand to lose a lot of money. those calling for caution have no vested interest and call for caution only because they have studied the facts and see the need for caution. Dont be a guinea pig; go GE free, America.

David Lindley (Claremont, CA)

The right to know what one is eating and what's in it should not be an issue to vote on. The Biotech Industry says it's safe and no different from unmodified version of the same thing. If we would have believed the Nuclear Power Industry when they said that nuclear power was completely safe and just another way to generate power when they said it we'd all be glowing by now. It's the same with genetically modified organisms, the GMO industry has over-invested in it and they need a return. It also has to do with patenting these organisms and collecting royalties on sales of GMO seed. maybe that's why all those Biotech companies are buying up all the seed companies. I think it would be better for all concerned if world hunger was not turned into a profit and loss situation. D.Lindley

David Lindley (Claremont, CA)

The right to know what one is eating and what's in it should not be an issue to vote on. If something contains lead it's labeled that it contains lead. If we would have believed the Nuclear Power Industry when they said that nuclear power was completely safe when they said it we'd all be glowing by now. It's the same with genetically modified organisms, the GMO industry has over-invested in it and they need a return. It also has to do with patenting these organisms and collecting royalties on sales of things like seed for planting. These GMO people are mercenaries bent on turning World hunger into a profit and loss situation. They're a plague. D.Lindley

L. Siegel (Berkeley, CA.)

I am completely opposed to genetically engineered foods. I do not approve of gigantic corporations attempting to take control of seeds and food production. I support all efforts to stop this from happening.

Angela (Rochester, NY)

We are being told by Monsanto that GE foods are safe - and yet there has been almost no studies done on it. They say they can reduce pesticide use, but so far MORE pesticides have been used in many cases. They are interested purely in profit and are not going to worry about our health or the environment. It's up to us to protect ourselves, but how can we when there is no lab

David Lindley (Claremont, CA)

Laura K (Rochester, NY)

It angers me that I have no control over what is going into my body when I buy food. They say GE foods are safe... these are the same people who said that DDT was safe. And what about the monarch butterflies? This is just the tip of the iceberg.. we haven't begun to examine the possible dangers to ourselves and the environment. Monsanto is only interested in profit - they could care less about our health and future! You think they are going to tell us the dangers of GE at the risk of their

James Hall (Fountain Hills, AZ)

Everything else has labels - produce containing pesticides should, too.

Joanne Fraser (Los Altos, CA)

Everyone should have a choice of what they are eating. It is no different than the current requirements of calories, fat, carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals on packaging.

Candace (La Palma)

When you say genetically engineered I am assuming that the purpose is to have more nutritous food and possible longer self life. That does not seem offensive to me.

John DiPietro (Santa Fe, NM)

A spokesman for Monsanta in St Louis, Dan Verakis, insists that Monsanto is not in the business of hurting humans or the environment as stated in an interview printed in the Santa Fe New Mexican. Considering that Monsanto created Agent Orange, Nutrasweet, Equal, polychlorinated bithenyls (PCB's) and recombinant bovine growth hormone (RGBH hormone) why should I believe anything they say. Research is already showing the negative effects of GE including the elimination of beneficial insects. There are way too many ifs about this science. Isn't it better to err on the side of caution? The world's health is more important than anyones profits.

Trina (Montclair NJ)

Inserting a gene from a flounder into a strawberry or a human gene into a pig, or a virus into corn has risks not proven safe. It mates creatures across all natural barriers by force. It is vastly different than selectively breeding corn with a different corn. This new technology is propelled by private patenting of life forms and has not had even one human generation of testing. Once released it can never be put back into the te

Joe Murray (Oradell, NJ)

The fact that our governmental regulatory agencies have not thoroughly safety tested these products because they claim them to be "reasonably similar to" traditional foods is an outrage. What traditional food has an insecticide in its cell structure? It is our right to know what is in our food. Get active, send a letter to your Congressman telling them to support the house bill 3377, mandatory labels! Protest at your local grocery store as well. Also, go organic!

MICHAEL GALLI (MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA)

KNOWING IF A FOOD ITEM HAS BEEN GENETICALLY ALTERED IS AT LEAST AS IMPORTANT AS KNOWING HOW MUCH VITAMIN C IT HAS, WHICH IS CURRENTLY REQUIRED.

Myers family (wARREN cOUNTY , pA)

iF THE FERTILIZER, FALLOUT,SPRAYS ETC HAVEN'T GOT US GENETIC ALTERING WILL ..wHEN IS Monsanto getting a conscious????!

GEORGE (BELLINGHAM, WA)

When has nature ever placed a gene from a frog into the gene pool of a tomato? Do humans think they can arrogantly create a better food than a process that has been sustained for millions of years? I have a basic human right to know what is in everything that I put in my body. To allow companies to put untested, unnatural foods on a shelf for the sole purpose of lining their pockets at the public's expense is unethical and criminal. What do they have to hide by not labelling genetically altered food???

Susan Fonk (Silver Lake, WI)

I want to be aware of what I put into my body, and not knowing whether a food has been genetically engineered or not does not make sense to me. No one knows how this will play out in the future, and I don't want to be used as a guinna pig for the big ge food companies. We, as consumers, HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW!

Mike Ewall (Philadelphia)

Whoever was pretending that betterfoods.org is unbiased is kidding themselves. One look at the site and it's obvious that they're a front for the corporate food industry and that they're flakking for the biotech interests. A glance at their member list (http://www.betterfoods.org/memlist.htm) makes that obvious.

There are no unbiased voices on this issue. You're either FOR the biotech industry or your FOR consumer and environmental protection. For some info on the latter, check out what's already in your milk at http://www.enviroweb.org/issues/biotech/bgh/.

J. M. Warner (Tempe)

It is not good to play with MOTHER EARTH. (NATURE) We have a right to know if the food is unaltered or altered! Who gave the right to make this decision for all of us to a extremely profitable entity!???!!?? And why? To whose benefit? Ours? NOT!

J. M. Warner (Tempe)

Betty Martini (Duluth, Georgia)

Aspartame marketed as NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc. paved the way for genetic engineering. It showed the world it doesn't work. See www.dorway.com for the article in the Independent in the UK on June 20. Now Aspartame Disease has been declared a world epidemic by H. J. Roberts, M.D., Then came RBGH, a literal poison that increases in the insulin growth factor, the regulator of cancer. Enough is enough. Monsanto is there for profit! Stop this horror, we don't want GM foods. Betty Martini, Mission-Possible-USA@altavista.net

Don Lane (Olympia, WA)

The issue of labeling foods which use GEO's is about informing consumers. The consumer has the right to know which food products have GEO's at the point of purchase. If a customer has no concerns then they can purchase the product. For those who wish to avoid these foods they can easily do so.

M ()

Every year thousands of people are made ill (sometimes seriously ill) by these products. This is indisputable yet the goverment does not see fit even to require appropriate warning labels. This is unconscionable. These products must be banned. Oh, did I forget? The products I refer to are milk and bread.

Matt Breckler (Farmer)

It shouldn't be legal yet until its been around a while. Then we can see if its alright whick I think it is.

Donelia (Anytown)

It's really irrelevant whether it is considered healthy or not to eat genetically altered foods. As a consumer I have a right to know what I am eating. Period. If producers want to grow and sell such food, I have every right to buy or not to buy it. I can't do that unless it is labeled. I avoid buying at some stores because they do not identify where produce is grown. I may ask, if the country of origin is not labeled, but it is not my responsiblity, it is the sellers. I have what sellers want: money. If they want my money, they should play by my rules. Label the damn produce!

Ray (Chapel Hill)

If you want information, not hype, go to http://www.betterfoods.org/ These are independent companies who are not allied to the Monsant's and Greenpeace's of this world.

Sue Rhee (San Francisco)

Gail Whipple (Dayton OH)

I do not trust that the agribusiness corporations have the world's long-term best interests at heart. They can't help but be focused on short-term gain. They want this to be right of course. But the tobacco industry also still wants to believe that smoking is OK. They'll backpedal till they die. So will agribusiness. There is not enough UNBIASED information out there to warrant such a wholehearted jump as we've taken into genetically alterred food. (Over 60% already and rising in packaged foods, I hear.) It is totally corporately-driven. And there is much to be concerned about.

Anna (Alberta)

Don't want GE foods. Unlike other risky stuff like pesticides, radiation and chemicals, GM crops are alive - they reproduce, disperse and evolve. That makes it very hard to figure what risk they pose. The recent international agreement on biosafety between more than 130 countries including Canada acknowledges that genetically modified organisms - plants, animals, fish and bacterias - may pose a risk to human health. There's been no long-term human health studies and for that reason the British Medical Association wants a moratorium on GM foods. One of the worries concerns bits of the transgenic material being transferred to the good bacteria in our bodies' digestive tract. Is that why in the past 10 years so many more people are having problems in their digestive tract?

Dan K. (Newark, DE)

I guess most people would prefer chemicals applied to their food, the environment and ground water. Genetically modified foods puts a safer system into place. The public has to change there negative perception that bugs and black spots on their veg/fruits are bad. Industry will then follow. For now, most people want clean food which is easily achieved through genetics and safe for the growers and consumers. It is funny that those who complain about GMs have been sustained on a diet of Genetically Modified Foods for years and are healthy. It is a new science which many do not understand. Remember people use to fear falling over the edge of the earth too. Facts will dominate the tabloids, only after all the hoopla dies down.

(Elkton, Md)

I'm not as interested in knowing how the food was made, but knowing about the quality of the food itself.

Brittany (L.A.)

To hell with feeding the world. I WANT MY ORGANIC ARUGULA.

B Meacham (Austin Texas)

Genetically modified organisms have not been proven safe. Until they are, I want the choice to refuse them if I want. The US is a dumping ground for these foods, as other nations are refusing them. We have no labeling laws, so there's no way to tell what we are eating. To make a free choice we need to have good information. Labeling will give us grounds to make a choice.

Caroline (Chapel Hill)

Someone claimed that GMO crops are harming the environment and that GMO foods can harm human health. This is Greenpeace propaganda (have to keep their membership up). If this is good creditable scientific data (not spin), then post the source of the information. Otherwise, stop posting untruths. There is information to show that GM corn has less toxins than regular corn. There was also a television program on NBC or ABC last week showing that organic food has more bacteria, and is no more healthy than regular food. How about a reality check, and less yelling and screaming. Think of the farmers - GM crops save them having to sit on the tractor and spray pesticides. Greenpeace should support that. Norman Borlag, father of the green revolution that fed Asia, supports GM crops as a way to reduce the destruction of forests. Tiem for a reality check folks.

Sue Rhee (San Francisco)

Andrew (Raleigh)

Another Lie ! GMO soy does NOT have Brazil nut protein in it. Such a product was actually never marketed because of the possibility of allergies. If you want to avoid allergies withdraw all nuts from the market!

Jane Meade (Detroit, Michigan)

I'm a vegetarian, I don't want fish DNA in my tomatoes. I'm worried about our soil base (it's depleting). GMO'd Soy has Brazil Nut in it. People with allergies are putting themselves at risk (unaware). We're throwing nature off balance by manipulating at a seed level. GMO's have not been proven safe. Label that my food is from genetially altered seed so that I can choose what to put in my

Robert (Chapel Hill)

Mark Warner (Wheeler WI) These genetically altered foods have actually been subjected to HUGE amounts of safety testing. They spend $$$ testing it. So called natural foods have not! Greenpeace are busy lining their pockets by telling lies about GM food. That is fraud!

(Kansas...and a farmer)

Labeling will help us (farmers/growers) know what to produce for consumers because consumers will be more informed as buyers and be able to buy what they want. Let's label GM food!

Julie (Olympia)

Sadly, many of the advancements of biotechnology are further lining the pockets of Corporate America. They will be the great benefactors of genetic engineering by leading everyone to believe that this is how we'll feed the world. And what great guinea pigs they have - the fattest country on earth - the ones who don't care what goes into their mouths. The farmers are at the mercy of the big corporations. We truly have to look at the big picture - it doesn't take a great mind to understand that if you start planting the fields of the world with these genetically modified seeds, you will forever alter the ecosystem...and most likely, not for the better. It's not simply a matter of labeling foods, it's stopping genetic engineering to protect the earth and ourselves. Read and educate yourselves - if you're on the Internet, you have a wealth of information at your fingertips. And then do your best to educate those around you. Ignorance i

Mark Warner (Wheeler WI)

The right to choose the type of food we eat is a basic human right. These genetically altered foods are not the same as natural foods and have never been subjected to adequate safety testing. Monsanto and the rest of the chemical companies promoting this technology can not tolerate giving consumers a right to choose the type of food they eat.

jan (Palo alto, california)

I think more needs to be known about the effects of GE on the food and the environment before we use it. Besides I dont trust Monsanto; they spent a lot of $$ developing this technlogy and just want to recover their investment, as I see it. That's why they are pushing it on the public. Their tactics show they have very little integrity. There will be Roundup and other contaminants on our food which will be just as bad or worse than pesticides.

Roger Derrough (Asheville)

My own gut feeling is that saying YES to GM food is the equivalent of the country bumpkin trading dimes for nickels. I agree with the "Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments" (last count signed by over 231 worldwide scientists) recommending a global moratorium on genetically modified crops. I'd rather keep my dime, "thank you."

Organic Consumers Association ()

Visit our website at www.purefood.org

Patrick West (Louisville, CO)

Considering the fact that top scientists within the FDA have warned us against GM foods, plus the mounting evidence that GM foods are indeed NOT good for us, and the fact that I should have the right to decide what I eat and don't eat, I think it is obvious that all GE foods should be labeled.

Valerie Baldisserotto ()

Mark Neuman (St. Louis)

There is evidence that some plants (Corn) that are modified for insect resistance have a lower level of toxins that are dangerous to humans.

Claire (San Rafael)

GMO crops are harming the environment and recent studies show GMO foods can harm human health. We need a public debate on how a handful of corporations were able to transform the entire food system in just the last 5 years, and we need science in the public interest to study these products. Common sense would indicate a ban on them until we know they are safe.

ALS (Durham, NC)

As any home gardener knows, there are big differences between varieties of fruits and vegetables. However, aside from apples and pears, few other fruits or vegetables are labeled as to which variety they are. Knowing this would be infinitely more useful. GM labeling? It tells you nothing. Next, would you have to list which wild relatives of the cultivated crop are used in the breeding program? The anti-GM sentiment is anti-corporate, but because governments have abandoned most public breeding programs, where else will innovation come from?

Sid Herde (Washington DC)

I've read a number of the comments. I find the whole situation kind of sad. If people really want to know what they're eating then they should be demanding that labels carry a full history of the production of the product - where were the grains grown, what pesticides were used, how were the animals treated, what were they fed. The problem is that requires a whole new food production system. Who's going to pay for that, the average worker struggling to make ends meet?? The bottom line is people want to know that their food is safe - does the government inspect it or not whether its meat or GMOs. The truth most folks don't want to admit to is in the case of booth, the answer is yes.

Sara K. (Davis, CA)

Those in support of GE agriculture undoubtedly have been provided with one small example of a POSSIBLE benefit. Anyone who has put GE ag. in the perspective of its possile detrements to the ecological balance that has been established since humans began agriculture, along with the detrements to socioeconomic structure of communties and nations, would agree that ANY benefit would be heavily outweighed by the far more extensive potential consequences.

Mark (Raleigh)

D Radmore (below) is implying that organic agriculture promotes biodiversity. The enemy of biodiversity is the plow. Any type of agriculture (yes even organic) drastically reduces biodiversity on the land where it is conducted. It is the expansion of agricultural lands that is consuming the rainforests. GMO agriculture promises to produce more and better food to feed the world's burgeoning population on LESS LAND than conventional agricultural methods (let alone highly inefficient organic ones) thus truly preserving biodiversity.

Dennis M. THOMAS (Gulf Breeze)

The idea of simply genetically altering any product to the public without its knowledge or notification is an anathema to a free people. This is not to say that these products are harmful, but in every case the public must be informed. Therefore, any product so altered must be appropriately labeled.

Elias Gomez (Ithaca, NY)

Impact of Genetically modified food on environment and human health has not been fully assessed yet. As a scientist (Ph.D. Geology), I find quite premature the release of these products without adequate scientific sound testing. We should remember that once a genetic change is done, it is there to stay. The unknowns cover several scales of scientific test. Nobody knows how a foreign gene interacts with other genes in the same DNA molecule; nobody knows how a genetically modified crop interacts with the environment and human health. Biotech will be needed in the future, but let's go slowly. Any genetic change introduced wrecklessly into the environment and its potential chain reaction of negative effects are irreversible.

Brian Herner (Palatine, IL)

Regardless of the safety issue, I have a moral problem with GE foods. I say "don't fool with Mother Nature". My more religous friends say GE is "contrary to God's plan".

Prof. Joe Cummins (Seattle WA)

Genetically modified food should be labelled to allow people injured by it to be identified.

D. Radmore (Denman Island, British Columbia)

Every consumer has the right to know what they are ingesting, and if food manufacturers want to increase profits, they should steer away from the slippery slope of genetic engineering towards organics- one of the fastest growing areas of the the food industry. The myth that bio genetically altering foods is the same thing we've been doing with plant or animal breeding for centuries must be exposed. Never before in the history of human kind have we crossed the species barrier and created frankenfoods. It is an abomination of nature with unknown consequences- a virutal Pandora's box that future generations might justifiably curse us for. Only when agribusiness puts biodiversity before profit will humanity as a whole be back on the right track of living within our true means as only one species among many that have a right to inhabit this miraculous planet.

Ray (Goldsboro)

For those who are concerned about allergenicity, These crops are extensively tested, whereas the 'conventional' crops are not.

Lindsay A. (Wichita Falls, TX)

I just would like to know what I am eating. I am very health concious and want to be aware of what I am putting into my system. There is no harm in putting a label on these vegetabl

Delmar Vander Zee, PhD (Sioux Center,IA)

Truth in labelling should be the norm for several reasons: 1) to choose freely, one must be informed openly, 2) long-term safety is NOT known--either re human health, nor environmentally, 3) morally and ethically, the burden of proof must be on the industries that are developing GMOs, and who want to profit under a cloak of misinformation and secrecy (which non-labelling effectively is), 4) by externallizing the burden of proof, we face yet another form of exploitation of mis-, dis-, or uninformed consumers by the megacorporate world. It is unfortunate that a lot of scientists are getting compromised by this debate because their research funding may depend on the continued stream of venture and research capital. Furthermore, we do not need GMOs to feed the world. We need adequate distribution of what we now produce, and we need locally sustainable food systems -- both of which are not profitable for the megacorporate interests that are touting GMOs.

Jessica J. (NJ)

As an American I have the right to be informed. Regardless of my personal position on the issue, it is a fundemental right to know what is happening to my food supply and to then choose for myself if I will or will not purchase it for my family. If, in America-the home of freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness-essential knowledge is withheld then there is a larger more dangerous issue then GM foods.

Irene (Minneapolis, MN)

What bothers me is that the GE crops can be grown without spraying pesticides on them and then be labeled "organic." I try to buy organic and want to know if I am getting produce that is truly organically grown.

Linda McElver (San Luis Obispo)

AS the mother of severely allergic children, I doubt the industry has insured their safety. As usual, highly sensitive or allergic individuals are considered the acceptable risk for industry. When America gets tired of paying all the medical bills, so industry can make a profit, like it did with the cigarette industry, then we'll have some real progress. Sometimes, I wonder if this is Nazi Germany, We're not even free to know what may harm us. Let's face it, this is government not for the people, but for industry. Wake up America. Buy organic, it's the safest.

()

It's amazing how misinformed people are about the reality here. If any of these people had knowledge of basic science they would understand that pesticides breed resistance and destroy human intergrity. GM foods aren't safer for the environment or any living thing. The fact that food allergies have skyrocketed since they were introduced without warning shows a glimpse of how devastating they are. Do you realise that 25 yrs ago the average age of puberty for a girl was 12 and now it is 9.

John Patterson (Monroe, Wisconsin)

Many of the genetic changes that have been made do not change the quality of the plant as a food, but will allow the farmer(producer) to use less pesticides. This is a big step in the right direction toward living from the land while doing less harm to the environment.

Bethezda (Santa Cruz)

Get Real- Get Conscious! People have been growing a variety of food organically for several thousand or more years. As a gardener, I've never ever had a pest problem, I figure if I don't mess with them, they won't mess with me, this kind of karma seems to be the way the world works. I don't eat seedless food, there is no point, it doesn't taste look or feel worth my time and effort. Synthetic pesticides have always been a torturing problem in my life. Which has only gotten worse as the insects get more and more resistant. I've never used any chemicals to control pests, natural pesticides have existed as long as we have and pests never get resistant to them. It is shear ignorance and lack of facts that causes others to poison my world and my family. They are messing with me and the future of humanity, this is my call for all to learn and to face the truth. Karma rules!

RMB (ST. PAUL)

We need to ask ourselves a couple of questions about GMO's. Why do we need them and, and who will benefit from them? We already have the most plentiful food supply in the world here is the USA. With food commodity prices to growers at an all time low, and farm forclosurers at an all time high, why do we need this? While food safety is clearly an emerging issue, surely we can not expect those who have created the problem to solve it. Who would benefit? When "intelectual property rights" prevent third world farmers, (or any of us) from saving seed from year to year to feed their families, as they have done for thousands of years, who will benefit? When GM seed is the only seed available, and when can it can only be purchased from a small handful of multinationals, who will benefit? What will we do when ownership of our food supply is consentrated from seed to soil, and from processor to plate in so few hands?

()

Get real, people! Many of the fruits and vegetables you already eat can't be grown in the wild. They've been genetically altered so that they're seedless. This is true of many types of oranges, watermelons, and grapes. Would you rather eat these foods with seeds in them? Most people wouldn't. If you're really that worried about genetically altered foods, then grow your own fruits and vegetables from genetically unaltered seeds. Just be prepared to use lots of pesticides, though, and also be prepared to be constantly chasing away the birds.

()

bill fernstrom (denver)

i am for genetically modified fruits and vegetables, but only with a label so everyone can choose.

Heather B (St. Paul, MN)

Penelope Dill (Sequim WA)

People that voted yes must have absolutely no idea what is involved in the process of genetically altering food. People need to do the reasearch before casually agreeing. There is a reason this is not allowed in western europe. People get educated!!!!!!!

Linda Peterson (North Bend, Oregon)

What are large scale, long term effects--quote-AP news 5/20/99--"a study published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature by Cornell University researchers led by entomologist John Losey.The study found that monarch caterpillars eating milkweed leaves dusted with pollen from the altered so-called Bt corn ate less, grew more slowly and died more quickly. After four days, 44 percent of them had died as opposed to none of the caterpillars that didn't feed on the pollen." Is the monarch the 'miner's canary?'

Cheryl Lane (San Diego, CA)

It is my constitutional right to be able to make a choice! How can I make a choice for myself and my family if I am not made aware of the options? It is my "right" to know what I am eating and how it is grown, so that I can make the best, informed decision that I can. I do not want someone else making that decision for me. Not notifying citizens of genetically engineered food, in my opinion, goes against the Constitution. My freedom to choose is blocked. I value my life. And life is sustained by what you put in it. On another thought, why do those promoting genetically engineered food feel that they have to hide the fact that it is genetically engineered? Why are they bucking it so much? Just a thought!!!!

Donnie (Jackson, MI)

I have severe allergic reactions from eating GM foods, and it's almost impossible to avoid them when they are not labeled. I know many other people who have the same problems.

()

All genetically modified foods should be labeled as such. It's called INFORMED CONSENT. If these foods are supposed to be so safe (as the gene cowboys say), what's the problem w/labeling. If genetic engineering must be kept a secret from the public, what's wrong w/them. Nancy Evans, San Francisco

Fraser Shilling (Davis, CA)

As a scientist I can say that the public has no idea of the cynicism and pragmatism that governs genetic engineering. There is by and large an absence of ethical considerations in manufacturing these products, the public should be concerned.

Joanne Geary (South Glastonbury, CT)

I would like to know what is in my food. Clear, concise labeling is essential.

Phil Ward (Stillwater, OK)

Why are people so worried about improved foods? Are our crop scientists and biotechnologists planning to take over the world somehow by altering crops genetically? No! Is the USDA going to allow unsafe foods into our markets? No. Genetic improvement is going to help feed the world in the future and use science to improve the health and well being of people everywhere. Is a calorie not a calorie or an evil calorie if it comes from an improved tomato? What are those against genetically-altered food worried about anyway?

Mary Frank (Milwaukee)

I want the freedom to eat NATURAL foods only. In order to choose only non-bioengineered foods, I need labelling. I have food allergies and I'm a radical vegetarian. I don't want to eat Frankenfoods, including fruits and vegetables with genes from animals. Personally, I think genetic engineering of crops is a huge disaster in the making, one which may rival a nuclear holocaust in it's effect on the planet.

thomas donnelly (portland oregon)

Mike (Gilroy)

Should organically grown produce be labelled to warn consumers of their increased likelyhood of contracting food borne diseases which, unlike GMOs, have been documented to cause illnesses and death?

Todd Richardson (Santa Barbara, CA)

I will defend your right to eat whatever you want, and I would hope that you would do the same for me. However, in order for us to eat what we want we need to know what we are eating. It is basic democracy, give us the info and we will decide. What are the GM food producers worried about anyway? They are creating an atmosphere of doubt by trying to keep us in the dark.

Dawn (Rockford)

People have a right to know what they are purchasing. I have over 17 food allergies, son=me of which are fruits and vegtables. All foods should have labels especially those that are genetically altered.

Rooijen G (Calgary)

Every genetically modified crop should be evaluated for its safety by an independend agency using solid scientific facts. Once it is determined that this crop does not impose an increased risk to our health or environment it should be approved (just like any other crop derived from "traditional" breeding), so producers and consumers can enjoy the potential benefits of these crops for our health and the environment.

John (Burlington)

There is a conference in Boston to build a movement against GMOs. it is March 24-30, there will be public rallys, marches, nonviolent direct actions and Teach-ins all week. for more info call 1-8779-resist or (617)524-7841 or bioD2000@jamaicaplain.com THIS will be the biggest action against biotechnology yet!!!!!

RK (Philadelphia)

Can we get rid of the blue line? Whew!

RK (Philadelphia)

Can we get rid of the blue line? Whew!

Craig (Burlington)

they put human genes in potatoes, does that make us cannibals??? would you like some fries with that?

(midwest)

In case you didn't know, companies that develop GM products do, in fact, go through a rigorous amount of testing to register their products with the EPA, USDA, and the FDA. This can take several years. When a "red flag" is seen (i.e., say something causes death to honeybees), the product is halted in its development and is NOT taken to market. Don't assume all scientists are mad scientists. Genetic engineers are not trying to play God, they only work toward providing a safer, more bountiful food supply. As for labeling, if companies are proud of their work and want to stand by it, go ahead and be upfront with the public and label it. More facts and truth should lead to a more informed public, and hopefully a less fact-based debate.

J. Lepper (Stillwater, OK)

Have you ever traveled in Europe? Eaten a tomato in Italy, perhaps? There is absolutely no comparison between the quality and taste of a tomato bought in an Italian market and an American one. I've just about stopped buying tomatoes at the grocery store in the US, tomatoes that look beautiful, but have no taste and never soften - genetically altered tomatoes, altered so that they do not bruise when picked mechanically and have uniform color, shape, and appearance. Tomatoes that are altered to reduce waste to the grower and increase profits. To be quite truthful, I am disgusted with the way Americans so readily accept the tyranny of the USDA approved genetically altered crops. High volume, bland, perfect looking food products. Let's grow everything bigger and more beautiful. Who cares about taste? Let's grow chickens bigger and fattier - more profitable. As long as there are no choices, growers have US consumers by the throat.

Chad Cummings (Stillwater, OK)

Kevin Dugan ()

If you are clueless about this issue, this is a good place to start getting facts (instead of environmentalist and anti tech propaganda): http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/faqs.html

Thomas Leustek (Union, NJ)

If GMO's are labeled so should foods treated with pesticides and fertilized with chemicals or disease-carrying animal manure. The idea is ridiculous and does not provide useful information. Rather it promotes some peoples erroneous belief in the farm as a Garden of Eden. Consumers need to wake up to the truths behind growing food for our burgeoning world population. Farms are not the bucolic scenes of your fantasy; rather they are battle zones in a war against pests and weather. Unfortunately, most Americans and Europeans are so far removed from the realities of agriculture that GMO labeling seems logical. However, a proper education can come quickly with hardships brought on by a few disastrous agricultural years. Sadly, it is the beleaguered GMO technology that will allow us to avoid agricultural disasters and permit the Eden fantasy to continue.

Luke Mankin (Raleigh, NC)

Much of this GMO debate has been triggered by Greenpeace propaganda. Their hatred of the large chemical companies has poisoned their hearts against GMO's. To be frank, the chemical companies are the only organizations that can afford the regulatory costs of generating new GMO's. It took over a decade for the first GMO to be approved for sale in the US. As a plant scientist, I have worked with GMO's for years, and I have studied their safety and benefits in detail. A whole sale banning of GMO's is a travesty for farmers, consumers, and the environment. GMO's are the best hope innovation for improved yields, decreased cost to farmers and consumers, and lessened environmental impact. We have the advantage of living in an agriculturally rich country were starvation is rare; however, world wide starvation is common, and GMO's are the best hope to controlling world-wide hunger in the future.

Luke Mankin (Raleigh, NC)

Muadib (San Diego)

In principle, consumers have the right to know where their foods come from and how they were grown. However, to label foods without any correct context is misleading and costly. Since the safety record of GM foods is infinitely better than common items such as milk and beef, there is no need to label GM foods except as a political statement for/against technology in general. If GM foods are pressured into labeling as a form of coerced guilty plea by extremists, then shouldn't all pesticide-treated alternatives be labele

Aaron King (Davis CA)

Tom (Dubuque, IA)

Consumers have the right to know what they are purchasing. Although before long I'm sure most everything that used to be "natural" will have had some form of "mans" touch behind it!

Pan Forrest (Philadelphia)

Monsato is breeding backteria and viruses with corn to produce Killer Corn that needs no insecticides because it produces its own poison to predators. So now we eat the poison, bacteria and viruses bred into the very cells of the plants. Watch the cancer rates skyrocket as the mad scientist who have no ethics prostitute themselves to the corporation who only care about profit and igonre all scientific wisdom that what they are doing is creating Frankenstein.

Louis Zimmerman (San Luis Obispoo)

I cannot believe your results. I am sure they are not accurate. Why would anyone without a vested intersted in the pattenting and/or selling GMOs oppose the simple printing of 6 letters NO GMOs!!!! Obviously there is something wrong with your records, or the American public is much more ignorant than I ever had imagined. With the fact that : 1 out of every 3 women will get cancer in their lifetime, and 1 out of every 2 men will get cancer in their lifetime... We should all Care

Renee (Ligonier, PA)

Consumers should be able to make an informed choice about the products available for purchase. Labeling can only be of value if ordinary consumers understand the information, so every effort should be made to educate consumers, provide honest facts, without glitzy propaganda, and let the consumers decide. I've always preferred garden-fresh produce - haven't you?

Maurice M (Calgary)

Maurice Moloney (Calgary, Canada)

Lindsey Clennell (New York)

It is in everyone's interest to know what food is genetically altered. The Consumer for personal reasons; the scientist for scientific reasons. like epedemiology for one. Why should anyone want to hide the fact that food is genetically modified? ........ Answers please.

Maurice Moloney (Calgary, Canada)

The question is insufficient. If it also mentioned the enormous benefits to be obtained by the consumer and the farmer by judicious use of his technology and the excellent record of the FDA in regulating such products, the result would be an overwhelming "YES".

merilie (north carolina)

Organic Consumers Association, want to join? We are calling for a Global Moratorium on all GE crops and foods! email: safefood@cp.duluth.mn.us

S. Luke Mankin (Raleigh, NC)

Cindy Goldstein (Aiea, HI)

Resistance to consumption of genetically engineered foods is often based on pure fear, with a complete lack of understanding of the science and process involved. People in our society are already ingesting pharmaceutical products, cheese, and other products made with genetically engineered enzymes. Genetically engineered foods have been studied and tested more thouroughly than most any other foods people are eating today, and no harmful health effects have been found except for individuals with allergies to specific proteins in Brazil and Paradise nuts. Genetic engineering of food crops will reduce the use of pesticides as more genes are put into crops for resistance to plant diseases and insects. I fully support the development of genetically engineered food products and believe there are no negative health effects related to eating genetically modified foods.

S. Luke Mankin (Raleigh, NC)

EM (San Marino CA)

We have all been eating genetically modified plants (corn, soy beans, tomatoes) for almost a decade, and no one has become ill from them yet - they are clearly safe. Labeling food made by one genetic method (transformation) differently from that made by another (traditional breeding) makes no sense.

Sandra Merrion (Danville, In.)

Yes, we have been fooling with genes for a long time. We have weaken many strains of plants. There use to be 351 strains of green beans. Now we have only approximately 30 strains. The genetic information in the other strains has been lost forever. Now man ismaking his own genetic strains by splicing the DNA. I think this whole brave new world thinking will get man into more trouble than he is already in. Look at the skies, water etc. People in LA don't even know that stars are in the night sky. Drinking water is getting scarce. What will be unleashed with man in charge of the DNA

Kirk Francis (Raleigh, NC)

The alternative to genetic engineering is overuse of pesticides and herbicides that are known to cause harm to consumers and the environment. Compared to current "traditional" agriculture, genetically modified foods offer a safer, healthier, cheaper, and better alternative.

()

Peetambar (Davis, California) Genetic engineering is the best way to feed the growing population in the safest way because it avoids the use of hazardous pesticides. Genetically engineered plants will avoid the use of commercial fertilizers which have known risks to health and the environment. Let us not be scared by the propoganda that the GMO foods will be unsafe. Scientists also go to the same stores to buy their groceries like others and they have families which they want to raise safely too.

Michael B. Taft (Evanston, IL)

The politics surrounding the GMO issue are as perverse as any in my memory. These products have never been even remotely tested for safety. The FDA and the USDA are filled with 'revolving door' employees who are throughly in the GMO industry's pocket. What has driven this and made GMO such a sacrosantc subject? Some folks are making a lot of money selling stock in GMO companies, and the hype they have posited on the populace.

Pan Forrest (Philadelphia, PA USA)

Scientist are playing God here. Species that could never possibly have been mixed are being mixed. Plants being bred with insects that then kill all the butterflies. If we make one mistake and kill the bumblebees we lose almost every food we value. Nature has a wisdom that mankind will never fully understand. Invasive species of any kind can totally destroy an ecosystem. We already put human genes in animals. This allows any virus normally restricted to other species to jump into the human realm. Frankenstein is childs play compared to the horrors we are unleashing.

Y. Huang (Stillwater)

Genetically modified foods have been in practice for thousands of years. Any genetic improvement is resulted from genetic modification or genetic recombination, either by natural selection, crossing breeding or genetic engineering.

Aaron (Winston-Salem)

What would it really mean to let the public know that some food had been genetically modified. I'm willing to bet that most people wouldn't understand what that really ment (that this tomato has a gene from "you pick the latin name for you favorite species" in it). If food was labled with the pesticides it was sprayed with, most people wouldn't have a clue as to if it the pesticide was ok or not. That's why the FDA is involved. Moreover, I bet that several million starving people couldn't care less whether their food was sprayed or modified as long as they had some.

Aaron (Winston-Salem)

James K. (Paradise Valley)

If we already have labels on Bumblebee Tuna, assuring us that it is a dolphin-safe product, what's wrong with labeling GMO food? It only keeps the consumer more informed, what's wrong with that?

Jeanmarie Verchot (Stillwater, Ok)

The purpose of GMO crops is to reduce costs for farmers and to improve yields. Genetically modified seed are mixed with non-transgenic seed so that farmers do not have to plant 100% GMO seed. This saves also on costs to the farmers. After planting these mixes in the fields for 10 years without complaints, it is now a huge task, almost impossible, to try and separate these seeds. Second, the only reason to do so is becuase of unreasonable fears that have been placed into the public mind by rogues. SO the farmer loses and the public loses and the companies lose because of misinformation.

James K. (Paradise Valley)

If we already have labels on Bumblebee Tuna, assuring us that it is a dolphin-safe product, what's wrong with labeling GMO food? It only keeps the consumer more informed, what's wrong with that?

Karla (Boston)

I think it's important to remember that some people have severe allergies and if a gene is taken from one food source and implanted it into another food source, we have no idea what effect that will have on people with allergies. For instance, taking a fish gene and putting it into a tomato. The person eating the tomato does not know there are fish genes in it, etc.

Allen Miller (Ames, IA)

Foods should be labeled for the stuff that's in them, not how they are made. GMO is a process not a product. In fact, the GMO process is much better understood than what happens in traditional breeding. Before we label GMO, we should label whether or not food has been pesticide treated, and organic foods should be labeled that they may contain higher levels of natural carcinogens and toxins such as aflatoxin and fumonosins than pesticide-treated or GMO food. Net result: so much labeling, no one reads the actual important stuff like amount of fat, salt, sugar.

Laura F. (Argentina)

What's the big fear about eating "foreign" DNA? We have been doing that since we were born. In my country, we all should have been transformed into cows already considering the huge amount of beef we consume every day!!!. Education is the only answer to this debate.

Barbara Spangler (Arlington, Virginia)

Current label laws give truthful, varifiable and nonmisleading information to consumeres. Labelling when there is no difference in the product or its benefits could mislead the consumer and destroy conmfidence in the system that has been proven meaningful to consumers.

Reba Miller (Deltona, Fl.)

We SHOULD have the right to know what we put into our bodies. Yes we have been eating garbage for years and now a lot of us are paying for it, with medical bills and horrendous diseases, the labels give us a choice, which we don't have a lot of any more. CHOICE that's what it is all about.

Kai Umeda (Arizona)

The word "legal" taints the poll and the issue could become one of ethics. Whether natural selection or science determines the quality of our plant foods, consumers will still buy and eat fruits and vegetables - labeled or not. The choices will be influenced by innovative marketing tools that sell products.

micah clatterbaugh (san leandro, ca)

Ron Welch (Huntsville, AL)

The U.S. position on Genetically Modified Foods is that they are no different from natural foods and that they are safe. The U.S. corporate position in the argument with Europe and most of the world is that the burden of proof should be on those who want to reject the GMO's. However, the historical approach is to prove that the new products are indeed safe BEFORE distribution, not after the fact. There are growing numbers of reports that show that some GMO's may be harmful to human health and to the environment. I suggest that we clearly label foods and give the consumer the choice - what's the harm in that?

Tom Doerge (Clive, IA)

This kind of a poll is biased from the outset because many of the respondents do not understand what genetically modified fruits and vegetables, or even genes are. There is also the assumption that the inherent nature and risks associated with all GMO's are the same. This, of course, is a fasle premise. Like most polls, these results should be taken with a grain of (non-GMO) salt.

Stephanie Lake (South St. Paul)

Genetically modified foods should be labeled -- consumers demand it and shareholders are beginning to do likewise. Companies from Monsanto to Coca-Cola, from Sara Lee to McDonalds are being faced with shareholders who are demanding input on genetic engineering issuse. They realize that consumers want to know what they are eating. Afterall, we know where our t-shirts come from, why don't we know where our t-bones come from?

Texas A&M University student ()

We already eat genetically modified foods, but how far are we willing to let the foods we buy be modified without our knowledge?

Mary Jo Tarasar ()

Mark Thell (Wrenshall, Minn.)

The question of labeling products produced by new production practices should be labeled to allow for consumer choice. Numerious consumers today suffer from various allergies and need this info to moderate their conditions.

(Columbus, Ohio)

In most cases, genetically modified foods are nothing but a more rapid method for gaining the same results we have seen with natural selection, an accepted method of modifying plants and animals which Man has utilized for thousands of years.

John (Chester, NJ)

I love reading qoutes by people who are uninformed. Genetically Modified Foods are very dangerous.

Don H. (San Diego)

While I believe there is a place for science driven regulation of GM products, I also think that there is a lot of fear mongering going on by some organisations. The benefit to consumers will become more obvious as products are developed that are healthier, more nutritious, and that have less environmental impact than those currently produced. The Europeans, who are now paralysed by a combination of fear, protectionism, special interests, and lack of a trustworthy regulatory agency are leaving the door to this market wide open: Let's step in!

Debbie Ortman (Duluth, MN)

Genetic engineering is not just an extension of conventional breeding. In fact, it differs profoundly. As a general rule, conventional breeding develops new plant varieties by the process of selection, and seeks to achieve expression of genetic material which is already present within a species. (There are exceptions, which include species hybridization, wide crosses and horizontal gene transfer, but they are limited, and do not change the overall conclusion, as discussed later.) Conventional breeding employs processes that occur in nature, such as sexual and asexual reproduction. The product of conventional breeding emphasizes certain characteristics. However these characteristics are not new for the species. The characteristics have been present for millenia within the genetic potential of the species.

Linda Button (Angelica, New York)

I don't think fruits and vegetables should be genetically modified at all, let alone sold with or without special labels. We are at a point where we are very concerned about what goes into our body. We are becoming a more health aware country. What's happened to the old way of growing fruits and vegetables? The problem is the stress for more quantity instead of quality. Leave my fruit alone.

Debbie Ortman (Duluth, MN)

Organic Consumers Association, want to join? We are calling for a Global Moratorium on all GE crops and foods! email: safefood@cp.duluth.mn.us

C. G. Tauer (Stillwater, OK)

Almost all food consumed in the world is genetically modified. Why the big fuss over a new methodology to accomplish the same end, more and better food?

Joe Byrne (Boston)

According to the Wall Street Journal, such labels confuse consumers and make food more expensive. According to the FDA, such process based labels would be misleading and result in consumer fraud by unscrupulous food marketers (as happened in Europe). If the organic industry is so bent on labels why are they opposed to testing and labels for organic foods that contain higher levels of bacteria, like the deadly e-coli? Why should we pay the cost of small groups, like Greenpeace, political and ethical concerns (not health or science-based) regarding food production. What's next -- labels on hamburger as to how the cow was treated? Thank you, NO.

Debbie Ortman (Duluth, MN)

Please visit our website at www.purefood.org to get factual information on this issue. Genetically engineered foods are potentially dangerous. This is not the same as crossbreeding.

Debbie Ortman (Duluth, MN)

Butter (Denver)

Anybody ever seen the cult movie "Attack of the Killer Tomato's"? These experimental foods are going to come back on us like a bad burrito sometime in the future. Maybe we'll create a new mammal plant species that will wipe us off the planet. That'll be cool.

Debbie Ortman (Duluth, MN)

LAG (Miami, Fla.)

this is to those of you who are afraid of eating genetically altered food. Would you rather eat fruits and vegetables that are full of molds and insects? Would you rather pay more for these foods because much of what was produced had to be thrown away because of molds and pests? Would you rather have more pesticides used in the production of these foods? Would you rather have less variety of foods available? I think you need to take basic biology and chemistry courses. Then you will see just how your fears are unfounded. Human beings have been altering the foods they eat for thousands of years. They have also been altering the animals they use for food products as well. Just look at animals like cows, turkeys, and chickens, for example. They're very different than their wild counterparts.

Jeff Dangl (Chapel Hill, N.C.)

Plant breeding is historically the science of introducing new genes from wild relatives into domesticated plants. Take tomatoes: if you eat the "true" wild tomato, native to the Andes, you will get very sick indeed. There are many breeding steps from this wild tomato to today's market varieties. Selection at each step is for a better tomato, yet the breeder cannot tell what other genes are dragged along with his selection. Genetic engineering simply makes this process surgical--addition of specific genes to alter specific traits in a predictable manner.

Barry Bequette (Yuma, Arizona)

We have been genetically altering plants for years...and calling these plants "hybrids". Although the methods may differ, the result is the same. Man has altered plants and plant products to produce better tasting, higher yielding, more nutritious fruits, vegetables and grain. Kudos to the gene jugglers.

()

Consumers have a right to know how their food is grown, with what chemicals it was treated, and ALL the genes it contains

Don H. (San Diego)

Patty (San Diego)

I would like to see labeling on fruits and vegetables concerning which pesticides have been applied and in what quantity. Then consumers would realize that less pesticides are used on GMO crops.

John (Pond)

Are people just wary of food in general ? An interesting follow-up poll might ask: "Do you think it should be illegal to sell chemically-modified food without labels" (about everything in the grocery store). Or "...organically-grown food..." (organic being a euphemism for S---). Might generate some interesting results.

()

Genetically modified foods have been going on since practically the beginning of of time. What's so different now?

David West (Los Altos)

Contrary to what everyone thinks, man has been genetically altering food for thousands of years. Cross polination/breeding of species was known and practiced by ancient man. Such cross breeding has been common practice in the agricultural arena since the beginning of time. The only difference today, is that we can be more selective about what we are breeding/creating. Rather than haphazardly mixing species, we can selectively introduce strengths from one species into another. Such accomplishements should be applauded, not condemned. Moreover as commented by others, would you rather pollute the environment with all kinds of chemicals used in agiculture, or produce species that have proteins that are selectively toxic to the very pests we are trying to erradicate. The only caveat here, is to ensure that adequate testing has been conducted in the lab and field to ensure/eliminate the possibility of by-killing of other species, as was evidenced in the Bt fiasco.

()

I think Sam (below) is absolutely right. There is nothing natural about any form of agriculture. To commune with nature we must renounce it and return to the noble hunter-gather lives of our ancestors. Amen.

Sam Coble (Santa Rosa)

Its not about fear, or who is right or wrong. It is simply about respect. Can we not respect that the earth will provide for us, has not done so for more human history than the agricultural portion of it? Essentially, we must honor the earth by communing with it, not by distancing ourselves from it through chemicals and genetically altered crops. Despite the fact that they may be useful, they are totally absurd. Who the hell do those genetic engineers think they are, anyway? God? We must work with what we have, and respect what is mysterious and beautiful. Can humans genetically construct anything by themselves? Even that sheep came from another sheep.

Garrison (Minneapolis)

This poll question is worded so poorly it is a textbook example of how to manipulate the audience answers. It should say "should labels be required...?"

(Irvine, CA 92612)

ALL FOODS should be EQUALLY labelled. Consumers have a right to know what is in the food they eat. I'm less worried about GM foods that have undergone safety evaluation; I'm more worried about the thousands of other products that have received NO scrut

Luna (Modesto, CA)

Volkswagon microvans kill more Monarch butterflies than Bt corn! Write your Congressperson today and ask them to BAN ALL VEHICLES WITH LARGE WINDSHIELDS!

Amy (Calgary)

Concerns about GMO should really be dealt with by educating yourself what genetic modifications really mean. Do you want to stop something that you haven't taken the time to learn about from an accredited source ? If you think GMO is scary, start asking about the chemical additives that are accumulating in your body, ask about what is pumped into the meat you eat. Genetic engineering provides environmentally and nutritionally healthy options, something that present agricultural methods don't. You owe it to your kids to make an educated decision

Frank N. Stein, Ph.D. (Grubville, MO)

Labeling suggests something is inherently harmful about the contents of the package, and is therefore misleading about the nature of GMO products. Millions of people ingest or inject GM-derived pharmaceutical products every day. We never hear concerns about this. Why aren�t the environmentalists thrilled with BT cotton and the literal tons of insecticides it has kept out of the environment? You don�t even eat the stuff! The bottom line is that we have three choices; 1) continue current agricultural practices that are highly chemical dependent, 2) embrace GM crops as we should, or 3) watch people in countries that depend on sustenance farming starve.

Sathish (Madison)

Why not take this labeling a step further. Let us mandate all restaurants supply the ingredients used in preparing their food. Now, where shall we start? Perhaps with common salt - was it obtained from sea/mountain quarries/chemically synthesized/etc? Water - was it from the tap/geyser/de-ionized/distilled/etc? To monitor truth in labeling let us have a government agency/non-profit organization formed - more employment!

Brehms (Ellsworth, ME)

We believe many are missing a crucial point. If a plant is modified with a gene from a substance to which you are allergic, ingesting this substance could easily be toxic, perhaps toxic enough to cause death. A simple example would be corn modified with soy for someone allegic to soy. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT WE TAKE INTO OUR BODIES.

Shericca Morris (Cary, NC)

GMOs that have been appoved by the governmental agencies have been tested and proven to be safe. This science wholes much promise for countries in need of a better and more nutritious food supply. The ability is there to achieve resistance to diseases much faster than traditional breeding without the carry over of unwanted genes. It would be ashame to dismiss the promises and advantages this science holds based on unwarranted beliefs.

Shirley (Appleton)

Although it may be true that genetic tinkering has been occuring for some time we are at a point where cross species genetic tinkering is occuring and nobody knows the effects on our ecosystem which we are a part of.

M. Porceddu (Charleston)

Perhaps they should also label all the foods as to what pesticides and herbicides were used in growing them, and where the water came from, and whether the growers had sanitary field toilets and washed their hands. That would be just as relevant to the finished product.

Kenton Smith (Durham, NC)

The Greens may be more accurate than they thought with the Franken-foods label. The Frankenstein "monster" was harmless, but was destroyed by the ignorance and prejudice of the villagers.

()

Unless you are eating nothing but weeds and trees all the food produced today has already been genetically modified by humans for tens of thousands of years, that is what it is, almost nothing we purchase and consume is grown as it was when wild . All of our meat and most staples and vegetables are modified by breeding. Most could not even survive without human intervention, even the plants like wheat and corn.

Roberto (Berkeley, CA)

The last thing we need is more government-regulated labelling. Farmers have been modifying crops for years to make them taste better, more resistant to disease, etc. -- why the big fuss now? Probably PR from the organic industry...

M. Dow (Georgetown)

I have a background in postgraduate genetics research and I am appalled that the testing and labelling of GMO is so lax. GMOs contain material that can be toxic to some forms of life and the consequences of consuming material that we have not been exposed to in our evolutionary history can never be assumed to be safe.

BD Reisberg (Oakland, CA)

Why would people think it's ok to have their food genectically modified without their notice? I would like to know. The consequences of many of the proposed genetic alterations are unknown to us. We must take more care, and make a more informed decision before we hastily let agribusiness dictate the care of our bodies.

jgkn (Stevenson, WA)

Is it true??? Can someone vote more than once on your survey? If so, this is not only an unscientific survey, it is journalistically immoral. Please clarify in next issue.

Gary (San Diego)

Under the words Genetically Modified Organism, all production of fruits, vegetables, grains, fiber and livestock qualify as one; so everything is technically already a "GMO". Why label and add expense to our cost of food. We (USA) spend less of our DI (disposible income) on food than anyone in the world. Maybe if we spent over a third of our DI (instead of <15%)on food as those in Europe, or have to wait in lines or skip meals, we would be less likely to add cost to a costly staple of life. Three US Gov. agencies currently regulate the development of genetically enhanced products,USDA, FDA & EPA. Do we give the Government more opportunity to create yet another needless law or regulation. Don't give in to hysteria and miss-information! Learn and teach SCIENCE! Labeling is a non-issue in the presence of a basic scientific understanding.

Fred Boll (Mililani, HI)

Any educated person knows that farmers have been selectively breeding plants and animals for thousands of years. New technology simply speeds the process.

Botresearch USA (Spring, Texas)

As a responsible botanical researcher and biotechnologist I feel that it is the responsibility of industry and biotechnology firms to be honest and up front with the consumers.We should clearly state what has been modified,what its benefits are,and to the best of our ability state any risks.Any risks should be noted as theoretical possibility,slightly possible,probable,scientifically proven or disproven.Without this degree of honesty we can never expect to gain the confidence of the public.

Regina Koran (Lakewood, OH)

I would like to have to opportunity to choose what is in the food I buy and eat.I can choose food that has or doesn't have salt, sugar,or fat why not food that has been genitically altered? When food manufactures add or subtract from their food products for example more vitamins or or less fat, less salt they make sure we are aware of this through advertising. Why are they not saying this about GE foods? Because comsumers would not buy there products. I support HR3377 requiring mandatory labeling of GE foods so I can make a choice of which products I buy. Regina Koran

Do we live in the USSR? (Pennsylvania)

All this is overlooking the most important issue. We live in a Democratic society, and the individual is entitled to know what the they are exposed to. The people arguing against labeling simply do not want the public to know, or to be empowered. What are you really afraid of? That the truth may come out? Much of the public sees through your transparent motives. The "Precautionary Principle" must be used in our runaway society, where genetics and dangerous chemicals are used with indiscretion at an accellerating and alarming rate, before they are properly tested and proven safe beyond a doubt. I simply want to know!!!! I will make decisions what I and my family are willing to take.

Zhanyuan (Ames, IA)

FDA should get experimental evidence from GMO producers that their GMO will be safe to consumers. Then GMO producers must get the permit from FDA for selling the GMO. In this way, no need for GMO labelling.

AF (Menlo Park, CA)

Are we forgetting the effects that genetic modification has on the surrounding ecosystems? What happens when "super-corn-plants" outcompete much of the naturally occurring vegetation with regards to soil nutrients and minerals? Could be disastrous.

Les Erickson (Berkeley,CA)

It's interesting that labeled GM tomato paste was a hot seller in the UK a few years back. Now its banned. Why? Because of education? No. Fearmongering is more like it. We need to be critical and unbiased in our decisions. Drop the emotional screaming, please--I can't th

Robin Emig (Napa, CA)

I think we'll find that genetically altered food will be labled by suppliers anyway, as a sign of better food. Less pesticides, Less fungus, more nutrients.

Steve Parmley (St. Louis)

Corn was genetically altered 100s of years ago by the native americans by a technique called plant breeding. The modern corn looks nothing like the original plant (Just like the many breeds of dogs that look nothing alike). Should we label food that have been breed over the years? What biotechnology does is speed up the process considerably but the end result is the same...a better plant. There are no risks associated with making a more nutrious plant. We can only benefit, especially if it will help end world hunger.

Robin Emig (Napa, CA)

I think we'll find t