Comment Re:Heath effects is a red herring (Score 1) 334
Health effects are not a red herring at all. There have been cases of GMO food causing allergy problems. For instance, here is an article from the New England Journal of Medicine showing the effects of transgenic soybeans created by Pioneer Hi-Bred which contain a gene from the brazil nut. You don't even need to read the article; just look at the image of the allergic reaction caused by skin-prick testing of extracts from the GMO bean on a person who is allergic to brazil nuts.
And hell, some of Monsanto's corn is registered and patented as a pesticide! There was a recent article here which puts the blame for colony collapse disorder squarely on the use of HFCS from Monsanto corn to feed bees--the trace amounts of pesticide in the corn syrup are enough to make the bees get lost while foraging. This particular pesticide appears harmless to humans; it's been used since the '30s, but it is an illustration of how unintended consequences come into play.
What GMO essentially means is that you have no idea what kinds of genes are in your food, and you will continue to have no idea unless you have an allergic reaction. That's not great, but there could also be long-term effects that will remain unknown for years or decades--a little bit like the radiation craze before we realized it promotes cancer. And there could also be secondary effects: round-up ready crops are meant to be sprayed, and they're going to get hit with a lot more herbicides than non-GMO crops. The use of these crops has been widespread for under a decade. I think it makes sense to remain cautious on the health front as well.
The monoculture is almost certainly the larger issue, and my intention is not to detract from it. I have heard that something like 97% of the varieties of food we grew in the 19th century are now extinct. There are less than 10 kinds of potatoes widely grown, down from 500, and these kinds of numbers are seen across the board. That's not a good idea.