Read the latest comments

The Greenpeace Luddites are dupes for Europe's protectionist interests. If they truly cared about the environment, they would applaud Monsanto's efforts to reduce the needs for pesticides. This is all a lot of hooey on behalf of Europe's subsidised, coddled farmers at the expense of world consumers.
Steve Frank, USA

Say "NO" to GM foods. Follow the observation of Amory Lovins: Only Nature has the best track record in gene manipulation
Tom Baker, England

There exists diseases for which classical breeding is helpless. The case of virus diseases in basic food crops grown in the tropics is a dramatic example: no natural sources of resistance are found. In such cases, GM seems to be the only alternative. Is public opinion ready to deny the potential benefit of GM for millions of citizens in the developing world?
Edmond De Langhe, Belgium

This planet needs food. It's not enough for the next 1,000 years, and it is getting scarcer by the minute at a creeping rate that people cannot realise (like they do not realise that the earth actually rotates while it does). Monsanto is a company with solid research and business ethics, like most big and respected businesses. However, some people have a strong inferiority syndrome and an idiotic persecution anxiety when it comes to big business. Unfortunately, Greenpeace is an organisation who collected those... individuals, because they are the only ones they appeal to. And while Monsanto has repeatedly offered strong arguments for GM food, these "individuals" insist it's bad because it leads to profits. HELLO! Where does it say that better environment and more and better food is a charity and should not be big business?
Ulysses Christodoulou, USA

While I do not favour GM crops I do not oppose them on scientific grounds. Research and development are important, but so are safeguards. Much of Greenpeace's talk may not be backed by scientific evidence, but how can we make sure once GM crops are harvested on a large scale that biodiversity will not be sacrificed? And what about the issue of linking the crops with a specific pesticide produced by the same manufacturer? Another point that should be discussed is whether we need GM plants to feed the world. I remember reading that we are already self-sufficient as far as food production is concerned, but much of what is produced never reaches the poorer regions in the world. Will GM crops change that? The state where I live has been declared a GM-free zone (to the disappointment of Monsanto) for the simple reason that this will make our produce more "attractive" to the European market. So, in the end, it's all about money - not about the starving.
Andre Rypl, Brazil

I have to say that I was unimpressed with both the Monsanto and Greenpeace positions. Both speeches were short on facts and long on propaganda. I felt that Monsanto came off marginally better since they had at least one concrete fact versus Greenpeace's zero (in every sense of the word). I've been eating GM foods for years and I haven't seen any real problems personally. I should mention that due to medication I take for arthritis I have extensive blood work done every three months plus a complete check-up every six months. My health is scrutinised to a degree that would show negative effects of GM foods relatively quickly. I believe that GM foods need to be tested and researched in the same manner that drugs are currently researched in the US before use "in the field".
Brian Niemeyer, USA

Choices? Where are mine? Don't I have the right to choose what I eat? How can I discriminate when these products are not labelled? Maybe a class action is necessary. The way I see it is fraud. GM plants are NOT the real thing, and shouldn't be labelled as such. Funny how pharmaceuticals take years for testing yet this genetic technology that we know even less about gets fast tracked. I guess we all just have to wait for some disaster and say the classic "I told you so!". By then it will be too late. Why are we trying to fix something that is not broken? Greed, greed, greed. This technology will not alleviate third world hunger, as some of the more naive respondents believe. Third world farmers are being able to afford contracts with Monsanto? Ha! They will be just like Nike et al, and exploit them to the fullest.
D.Soleil, Canada

Reading the responses to the debate on genetically-modification posted mainly by Europeans is very entertaining. You mock modern scientific achievements and spread fear of famine and pestilence. The third world countries will gladly accept vitamin enriched, disease resistant crops. Must we Americans drag you kicking and screaming into the 21st Century? We test cures for diseases every hour of every day. Scientists all over the world are stringing fragments of DNA together in hopes of bettering human life. Of course there is risk. No major breakthroughs come without risk. Undersea and Deep-Space colonies will be initially risky too, but that doesn't mean they will not come to pass. Man will not always be tied to this ball of rock called Earth. To us, all things are possible. Talk of reducing population is defeatist at best. We should be concentrating on ways to feed and clothe more and more people. Think of the number of scientists and musicians and artists and philosophers that are yet to come. If Europe wants to stay in the past, or even the present, I say to the rest of the world, Let them.
Zane Foraker, USA

This is a debate between the people who want to use science to help the people of the world and the Luddites who want to control everything we do. The anti-science control freaks of Greenpeace and the other so called environmental groups are doing more to hurt the environment and kill people then all of the multi-national corporations put together
Richard T. Ketchum, USA

I can not believe that Greenpeace is so myopic about the benefits of GM foods. They cannot see the actual environmental and social benefits of it. Also, through breeding, we have been genetically modifying foods and livestock for millennium. Most of our farm animals were bred to be livestock, would not be found in the wild, and are probably ill suited to live in the wild. Greenpeace is more concerned with pushing left-wing principles than actually helping the environment and society. They are watermelons, green on the outside, red at the core.
Michal Warzecha, USA

The difficulty of any rational dialogue about GM foods is clearly illustrated by Melchett's religious-like devotion to some ideal notion of agriculture. He sees "organic agriculture" as handed down straight from Nature and anyone who dares tamper with it is doing terrible evil. But what exactly is "organic"? Farms, organic or otherwise, produce foods from plants and animals that seldom bear more than a passing resemblance to the original "natural" varieties from which they were derived. For example, after thousands of years of genetic manipulation by farmers, there is not a single variety of wheat that can survive without human cultivation. Should not breads be labelled as made from "unnatural" grains? And what of such recent delights as seedless grapes and oranges? If they had been developed by direct GM, Melchett et al would be screaming for their destruction before their genes escape into the wild and make everything sterile! Modern GM techniques are not going away any more than the age old GM methods are going away. Nuclear energy faded from the energy race not because it was revealed to be evil but because it was uneconomical compared to cheap oil. The direct GM approach will succeed because it is the fastest way to produce foods that are cheaper, more nutritious, and more tasty to the consumer.
Clark Lindsey, USA

All this talk about feeding the starving vs. profits is very naive. Here in the US our government pays farmers to NOT grow food. We (mankind) have the ability to feed the world RIGHT NOW. We also have the ability to do it using mostly organic farming - that is fact. So world hunger is not a compelling reason to go messing with Mother Natures delicate balance any more than we already have. At the very least we must acknowledge that since this is a new and powerful technology it must be taken on a 'guilty until proven innocent' basis. After all, we are talking about rewriting Mother Natures source code. If we're going to play God, we'd better use god-like wisdom.
Edward, USA

There is a basic contradiction in the Greenpeace position. They have been scare- mongering by claiming that planted GM crops can pass on their new genes to fields around them. But if that is so - and it is - then *any* crop can do the same. Genes are exchanged between plants all the time. Nature is carrying out experiments in genetic exchange constantly. To call it dangerous only when man does the same thing is a nonsensical position. It shows, I am afraid, that Greenpeace mainly thrives in a superstitious and anti-science segment of the population, and then claims that ignorant group as "the public". The supporters of Greenpeace are not the Public. They are the fearful and the ignorant.
Jon Livesey, USA

GM is one of the most dangerous activities of mankind. Suppose the GM industry makes a frost-resistant fruit. Pretty soon, microbes may evolve to consume the fruit under cold conditions. Then, refrigeration won't work any more. This example just highlights the fact that Nature has set up a sophisticated but delicate system that we take for granted. Don't fool with Mother Nature!
Chris England, USA

From what I've read, anti-GM sentiment seems strong enough to limit the growth of the industry in the short term. In the next century, however, engineering trees to create ethanol and pipe it to a storage facility might prove too tempting for us to resist.
Matthew Beck, USA

I think consumers have the right to know what they are putting into their bodies. Everyone deserves the right to make informed choices. I think governments should step in and at the very least insure that GM food is properly labelled. Anything which contains GMO ingredients should be clearly marked and let the markets decide. If people don't buy their products, the companies will stop trying to force them into the market.
Quartknee Kwatek, USA

Profoundly distrust Monsanto. SUSTAINABLE is the key to the future. GM means a strangle hold on agriculture and therefore on society
Howard Davies, UK

The responses listed on this page display a curiously myopic and narrow focus. Recombinant gene technology is about much more than the shelf life of a tomato or whether corn expresses its own pesticide rather than having synthetic pesticides applied to it in the field. Genetically modified organisms are being used to clean up toxins in our environment (bioremediants). GMOs show huge potential for rehabilitation of salt affected lands; for modifying crops to utilise insoluble phosphates, which will both cheapen fertiliser costs and reduce harmful nutrient runoff; tolerate alkaline and acid soils and the aluminium toxicity which so suppresses yield in poorer regions of the Earth to name just a small part of their value. Biotechnology can enhance plantation timber so that we reduce our demand for native timbers and the destruction wrought in many forest regions. Enhanced timber can reduce the energy and bleaching requirements in paper manufacture along with its associated environmental impacts. GM can reduce environmental impact across a huge spectrum of human activity. GM can also enhance nutrition and health. The point is often raised that these are "novel" foods. In what way? Recombinant genes are not the "creation" of genetic material, merely the reassembling of naturally occurring materials. With the exception of denizens of the very-deep, what genetic material has not been routinely ingested by humans in the last millennium? While it may suit the purpose of technophobes and hysterics to keep the focus specifically on what may, or may not, be on your plate, it is a very minor part of the GM debate. If the license fees of GM foods are what is required to fund research and development of the myriad environmental benefits available then let's pay them - for the good of people and the environment.
Barry Hearn, Australia

One day, Greenpeace will come out with worthwhile, scientifically-backed arguments that show their deep intellectual understanding of the issues about which they complain. Until then, they can only be regarded as children who only ever say "no". regards, Alan
Alan Potter, UK

One idea that so many people fail to understand is that it is nonsensical to make a distinction between natural and man-made. What are people? Natural. Everything we do is natural. It is impossible for us to do anything that is unnatural. We cannot "tamper" with nature. Of course we need to be careful with GM, as with any technology, but it should not be dismissed summarily.
Brian Blaha, USA

All this talk about feeding the starving vs. profits is very naive. Here in the US our government pays farmers to NOT grow food. We (mankind) have the ability to feed the world RIGHT NOW. We also have the ability to do it using mostly organic farming - that is fact. So world hunger is not a compelling reason to go messing with Mother Natures delicate balance any more than we already have. At the very least we must acknowledge that since this is a new and powerful technology it must be taken on a 'guilty until proven innocent' basis. After all, we are talking about rewriting Mother Natures source code. If we're going to play God, we'd better use god-like wisdom.
Edward, USA

I have to go with the Greenpeace view. I have yet to hear one convincing reason for GM food. The world already produces more food than it needs (any problems result from distribution) and people are healthier eating naturally grown crops as they have for thousands of years. I am pleased to see Greenpeace and other groups sticking up for the public interest whilst the Government continues to tell us we need GM food against all the evidence once again supporting big business over the interests of voters.
Barry Tregear, England

Genetic modification is the way forward and Monsanto are right to be adopting it. Organic fruit is tasteless and full of bugs so I don't buy it when I visit my local shopping mall. I would buy everything GM if I could. Roll on progress.
Sarah Pitt, USA

I think the most important issue here, is a simple one, and it is this: Those who champion genetic modification for mass consumption do not have moralistic, ethical or humanitarian aims at heart. They want to make money. This, admittedly, is the way a capitalist society functions, but when the focus of the exploitation is the fabric of life itself, I think people should have absolute choice over whether or not they are exposed to it in any way. Is this a possibility in this day and age? I don't think so. Surely there are less risky ways to ease the problems of the world. How about working to reduce world population? Oh, right, not profitable enough.
Ben Peters, England

My fundamental problem with Monsanto's endeavours in pursuing GM technology is that it is a private based organisation whose effects can affect the public domain. Monsanto is driven by profit and to continue to be competitive, it will harness science and technology to this end. The only people who have a voice here are the shareholders. However the environment is a public domain. Poor people do not have the means of raising their objections and wealth to pay for the GM products. Finally and importantly, GM is trying to reproduce GM seeds in a matter of months what it has taken nature millions of years. There is something wrong in this approach.
Siva Chetty, South Africa

I look forward to more famine and pestilence courtesy of Greenpeace. I wonder whether Peter Melchett will apologise to starving people in the third world? Advocating the banning the testing & R&D of GM food is short-sighted and foolish - just as I would expect from Greenpeace.
Dom Wynn, UK

The use of these GM crops is just plain dangerous. Have we forgotten what happened last time we tampered with nature? The full extent of the BSE crisis is still not known and here we are about to tread the same path again. It should be stopped now.
Claire Ommi, UK

Present agricultural techniques have clear & large scale dangers, such as pesticide pollution etc. This not only kills rivers but also damages human babies etc. If GM technology can find a way out of this, so much the better.
Guy Bransford, UK

Once again populism rides over all other issues. 50 years ago scientist said the world population would one day be 5 billion then laughed saying we would all be dead from starvation. We move forward, as much as we would like to imagine the world is overrun with humans since we cannot control ourselves we struggle to feed ourselves, technology must and will take a part in that struggle. Organic solutions? You bring naivety a new dimension!
Michael J. Sullivan, Canada

In principle, GM crops could be a good idea but the whole method needs to be tested very carefully because of the risk of cross-contamination. If Monsanto are prepared to take the time to build a fully enclosed bio-dome in which to carry out their research and would also be prepared to admit failure and give up if the results were in any way worrying, then, and only then, they would be able to count on my support .
Yolanda Front, UK

As our planet screams in pain, all businessmen can do is worry about their profits and bonuses.
Simone Icbucet, France

Bob Shapiro's speech is extremely skilful: he protests he comes to bury Caesar (or at least, terminator genes and aggressive PR campaigns), but still ends up as rigid as ever. It's a fairly standard tactic to describe the points in your favour as hard facts, and the opposition's only as 'questions'. Of course, he phrases those 'questions' assuming that GM *will* happen, and we just need to deal with these tricky issues as well. His description of potential GM benefits is seductive and thought-provoking, but at the end of the day Peter Melchett has the crux of it when he describes a world run by nature, and not by and for selfish human profit. And eventually Monsanto's world, devoid of diversity and challenge, would be not a better human world but an inhuman one.
Clare Davies, England

Having read both speeches, I fully support the Greenpeace position. It is my view that big business tends to see single solutions to the problems. Monsanto's view of GM technology is precisely that. The reality is that problems require a variety of solutions as problems are rooted in the interconnected world in which we live. I also believe that human values are changing - many are concerned about the impact of activities upon the planet. Many also realise that technology does not have all the answers. Technology has a role but technologists should realise that they have to work with people in order to ensure that life, and the systems that support life, are sustained. I sincerely hope that Greenpeace continues to raise awareness of these issues.
Geoff O'Brien, UK

Bob is right on only one count - the need for discussion. However, the rest of his rhetoric smacks of a large company playing good cop, while bad cop lurks in the shadows carrying out whatever dodgy research they want. I'd love to think any resultant, safe, biotechnologies would be used to feed the world's poor, but we could already feed the world but choose not to - thanks in part, I have no doubt, to the policies of companies like Monsanto. Did they spend millions developing this technology just to give it away? I doubt it. But before that stage is reached, we require safety within the technology and have yet to hear any reassurances, only cover-ups, lack of proper research into long-term effects and attempts by governments to discredit independent test results. And he expects us to trust him?
Gareth Alexander, UK