What do you think of genetically modified crops?

The gmo crops that I have been familiar with are in corn and soybeans.  The second of last summer we were basically in a drought condition and yet we still pulled off 200+ bushel/acre corn.  Soybeans fared similarly as well,  with both crops having amazing drought resistance.  The ability to use Roundup on soybeans has been highly successful.  Rootworm resistance has helped the farmers to greatly reduce the amount of pesticides applied to the soil.  The downside is the tech fees that Monsanto applies to American seed but not all seed that is sold oversees, so this is one part that is a disadvantage.  Overall it is a great thing and it keeps getting better.

My concern is with Monsanto's policy of filing lawsuits against farmers whose crops have been contaminated with GMO seed.

GM crops are the best thing that has happened to agriculture in years.  If you have ever raised soybeans you would know what a joy it is to drive down miles of soybean fields and not see a weed.  GM crops get such a bad reputation from activist groups like Greenpeace who literally don't know what they are talking about. They play on people's emotions and not facts, because the facts are against them. I am not a fan of Monsanto but they spent millions developing their product and have a right to patent it.  People who save the seed from their crops and plant them are breaking the law.  You are not forced to use the seeds, but if you choose to then you have to pay for the right.

They are good...helps solve part of t he issue of world hunger.

After working for Whole Foods Market for a bit, several years ago, I had an opportunity to read and observe quite a few issues. Many of which they would like to describe or color as part of their culture yet to take advantage of as part of their marketing strategy. I won't get into the hypocrisy on their part with nepotism, favoritism, reverse discrimination, anti union stances or outright lies that have been told in court in regard to the way they do business.
But what agriculture is, is a business. And the way that antibiotics or hormones have been put into animals has bought up concerns that give rise to stores like them. Between 1995 and 2005, the total surface area of land cultivated with GMO's had increased by a factor of 50, from 17,000 km² (4.2 million acres) to 900,000 km² (222 million acres), of which 55 percent were in the United States. The bottom line is that GM crops are here to stay!
The best argument is that these crops aren't tested to scientific standards before being released to the public for consumption. In 1998, a  Dr Árpád Pusztai, through a U.K. government funded study that since has been evaluated by independent sources, concluded that rats feed on potatoes genetically engineered to express a lectin from snowdrop had suffered serious damage to their immune systems and shown stunted growth. The lectin expressed by the genetically modified potatoes is toxic to insects and nematodes and is allegedly toxic to mammals. The Lancet had something to say later on the subject.
Another controversy recently arose around bio tech company Monsanto's data on a 90-Day Rat Feeding Study on the MON863 strain of GM corn. In May 2005, critics of GM foods pointed to differences in kidney size and blood composition found in this study, suggesting that the observed differences raises questions about the regulatory concept of substantial equivalence. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that the observed small numerical decrease in rat kidney weights were not biologically meaningful, and the weights were well within the normal range of kidney weights for control animals. There were no corresponding microscopic findings in the relevant organ systems, and all blood chemistry and organ weight values fell within the "normal range of historical control values" for rats. In addition the EFSA review found that the statistical methods used in the analysis of the data were incorrect. The European Committee has approved the ???863 corn for animal and human consumption.
A gene for an allergenic trait has been transferred unintentionally from the Brazil nut into genetically engineered soybeans while intending to improve soybean nutritional quality for animal feed use. Brazil nuts were already known to produce food allergies in certain people prior to this study. In 1993 Pioneer Hi-Bred International developed a soybean variety with an added gene from the Brazil nut. This trait increased the levels in the GM soybean of the natural essential amino acid methionine, a protein building block commonly added to poultry feed to improve effective protein quality. Investigation of the GM soybeans revealed that they produced immunological reactions with people suffering from Brazil nut allergy, and the explanation for this is that the methionine rich protein chosen by Pioneer Hi-Bred is the major source of Brazil nut allergy. Pioneer Hi-Bred discontinued further development of the GM soybean and disposed of all material related to the modified soybeans.
This study indicates some of the possible risks of GM foods. In particular that there is no law or regulation in either the United States or Canada that required Pioneer Hi-Bred or any other company for testing for allergenicity or toxicity of GM foods prior to them being licensed to be grown and consumed in their respected countries. Without proper independent testing of GM foods we will not know if they are safe. Without mandatory labeling of genetically engendered foods consumers will be ignorant about the risks they take when making their dietary choices.
The list goes on with the environment too. With potential cross pollination, biodiversity, and other issues, even how the patent rights are enforced or how the copy guard chemicals affect us become paramount.
With limitations on how much farmland is available to our ever increasing populations, we need to use it as efficiently as we can and yet keep Pandora's box sealed. Bring business into the fray and things get commercialized to the point where results aren't impartial as they should be. Add government to it and things get politicized to the point where objective becomes as subjective as Chicago city council in budget meetings with the State.
I'll take a well marbled steak that came from a cow that has had at least two months on the feedlot before market in the USA to go with some home canned produce from the garden that I grew using composted heifferdust along with hard work and a cold dark ale.

I've answered this question a number of times in the past.  I'm a small farmer.  I do not, nor will I ever allow GMO crops on my land.

Why am I against them?  Let's set aside for a moment all the control the mega agra business companies like Monsanto & CarGil are gaining over the worlds food supply (not just the nation, but the world).

GMO crops are all identical.  There is no genetic varriation in them.  So WHEN a disease hits the crops, it will completely wipe them out.  "When" is the correct word...not if.  

Diseases happen.  So what will the nations do if every corn plant, or every soy bean is completely wiped out that year?  Really not a pretty picture.  Stock market crashes, and famine...not something I want to see.

Back to the first thing though...the whole "control" aspect.  I am completely baffled why people, including farmers, feel is it ok to plant something that is completely controled by a company.  You need "their" seeds, "their" herbicides, fungacides, and insectacides, not to mention "their" chemical fertilizers to make the GMO seeds even sprout and grow.  

Would you buy a car that ONLY ran on fuel and oil produced by the Ford Motor Company?  Something about a monopoly there.......

These companies are very, very actively working to OWN (via patents) the worlds food supply.

Who-ever controls the food, controls the world (and I bet you thought it was who-ever controls the money, huh?).

~Garnet
Homesteading/Farming over 20 years
Raising heritage breeds of livestock.
Purchasing heritage, open polination seeds/plants only.

A very dangerous idea that should never happen.The potential basic problem is that it can cross breed with other plants in its family and you end up with an uncontrollable invasive plant, a Super Weed. People have introduced plants into an area that have become invasives. These are not altered but  many of these plants are choking out our native plantings and waterways. Be careful what you wish for, Man is not God.

GM foods are dangerous for a few reasons.  Firstly, the science of genetic manipulation is indescriminate in adding new alles to the DNA sequence.  This results in only the presence of the new gene, but as to where it turns up in the DNA sequence no one can say.  Where a gene turns up has a lot to do with how it behaves.  Secondly, the method of adding a "benign" virus to splice the new gene into the DNA sequence can produce malignant or unintended results.  Third, there nothing to prevent GM foods from taking over natural stocks through hybridization.  Thus when a problem IS eventually detected there are no natural variets to return to creating a potential loss of entire species of food crops being unfit for human consumption.  Additionally, Intellectual property rights may inhibit and or exaserbate existing farmer debt and further create the conditions which cause total market domination of the food production markets by large corprate farms.  Allowing monopolies to form, the price of food could mirror oil and even far exceed.  This is just plain dangerous.  I think scientific resources should be better spent learning to exploit existing plants and microbes for nutrient value and climate competive growth advantage.

they have their place, but they are also a slippery slope

In Europe, all GMO products sold in stores have to be clearly labeled as such.  When asked, companies like Monsanto proclaim that there is nothing wrong with their plants, and that their plants are even better than normal species, but then they fight ferociously against attempts to have GMO products labeled differently.  In several countries in South America, GMO crops are considered unfit for human consumption.  They only use those crops for ethanol etc.  The USA is behind the times compared to other countries because this is where the Biotech companies are located and have the most power.